Talk:Bosnian genocide denial/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Cleanup needed

Article opens with a quote, has odd formatting, and various other problems - needs attention! BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC) @BobFromBrockley: Could you identify the other issues? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft from my Sandbox

@Bobfrombrockley: ; @LaundryPizza03: - @MatthewVanitas: moved page User:Santasa99/sandbox2 out of my Sandbox into mainspace and created Bosnian genocide denial article.

Nothing wrong with that, I guess, only it was "work in progress" to say the least, one that was so roughly sketched draft with many issues, and even had pieces of other articles on the subject copy/pasted and scattered around to serve as a writing guidelines, and so on.

I am afraid that User:MatthewVanitas, actually, didn't realized that it was nowhere near ready, which, it appears, almost killed the article - by looking at History it seems it survived some very close calls. Anyway, I hope it won't go down the drain.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnston clique

@23 editor: Look, nobody stand in your way, you are free to improve that paragraph by rephrasing it as you deem proper so that it could meet encyclopedic style, but counter-argument stays, because judgement deals with an argument these people liked to make, which is absolutely in line with WP:Synth (WP:NOTSYNTH) and WP:OR (WP:NOTOR).--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:SYNTH explicitly states "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If none of the sources mention the three individuals or Bosnian genocide denial, scrap them and find sources that do. 23 editor (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
And where do you see synthesis and/or original research in paragraph, exactly? Have you read judgements, these other refs? Don't be lazy to read them. Although, I am sure that you are probably well aware that Oric's judgement thoroughly describes situation in and around Srebrenica, and validate from all angles what is stated in those couple of sentences in paragraph - after all I used judgements as a basis in writing it. To someone oblivious of attitudes often expressed in Balkan scope, such persistence would be truly bewildering.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, you're being deliberately circuitous and evasive. Do they or do they not explicitly refer to the three individuals in question and Bosnian genocide denial? If they don't, either revert yourself outright or provide sources that explicitly refute these three individuals' assertions and do discuss genocide denial. Anything else is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. 23 editor (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on POV and Johnston clique

As noted in Edit summary, use Talk page and express your view point by point, otherwise restrain from edit-warring.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This goes both ways. You made a claim with next to none when it comes to sources and still you act as if myself or any othe editor should stick by that content. It is up to you to provide sources and coversation. Unsourced conent (academics and other POV pushing mumbo jumbo) can be and should be removed. Sadko (talk)

Some confusion on fringe outlets

The last rw is no doubt done in "Good faith", but it's still bit confusing situation: it concerns of removal of info on denialist claims as well as their publishing background - for that "Globalresearch", which I am ready to attest, is not used here for validation of either claims nor pose as an evidence of website validity as a source (notability of named denialists shouldn't be in question) - the link to "GS" isn't even necessary, and fortunately when used source is indeed fringe and listed as fake, Wikipedia now have mechanism which is triggered to deny publishing of User's edit. However, denialist mentioned in paragraph, and their claims described there are useful if not necessary as an illustration of their claims and modus operandi, and they are expressed in writings, among other ways, which is actually referenced with those two other sources, notably "Z-mag" and "Globe & Mail". There was previously an issue framed as "notability of conspiracy theories", which is also bit confusing as it not certain if it meant to distinct between validity of denialist claims or notability of denialists themselves and their claims - so, for clarification: denialist and their denialism are notable but not valid, and nothing can validate it, but their background, MO and claims must be described even if it appears in fringe media outlets - hopefully, it is understood that only notable public intellectuals, politicians, military figures, etc. are considered for inclusion in the first place.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Bauer

Santasa99 Bauer's view and statements may be a bit more complicated than this page lets on. Bauer did say there were massacres on multiple sides, and for this he has been accused of genocide denial, as mentioned on this page, and also in the Israeli press. However, on numerous other occasions he has implied or stated what happened in Bosnia was a genocide.

Bauer's 1998 address to the Bundestag included this [1]:


In an interview available online through Yad Vashem he says this:


Not sure what this means for if he should still be listed here as a Bosnian genocide denier, but I might suggest it be reconsidered. I do acknowledge that likewise, those who say acknowledge the Holocaust but claim the numbers are too high are condemned as denialists rather than merely "mitigators", which is why I'm not sure on this one, just wanted to leave it here to be considered. (this[2] has him condemned as such indeed, to be fair) --Calthinus (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

My b I forgot to attach the link from Shoah Resource Center for his statement "Genocide can, and does happen to others... Bosnians..." [3] Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Eh, OK, you mean Yehuda - you lost me for a second. Ok, I didn't look at his case as deeply as you did, but I wouldn't mind if we are to reexamine its inclusion, and if needed to remove him or elaborate some further - but give me until tomorrow around this time, or maybe I could find some time later this evening to come back with some feedback and informed opinion. OK? Stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I read these materials (Haaretz piece is taken down), and it would be grave injustice to call anyone denier if person really doesn't fit that profile - I would certainly feel bad if I made a mistake. I have to check again what is written in Rosenssaft source. It would be great to clear him of this burden, but maybe he changed his mind at some point, so maybe dates should be taken into account - I don't know, Rosenssaft is a serious intellectual, so I will double-check all available sources, and if you could spare some more time and recheck it yourself it would be even better.--౪ Santa ౪99° 02:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this version of Peled's piece in Haaretz works? [[4]] Well, true, both of the statements where he refers to what happened in Bosnia in "genocide" are in 1998, while the purported denial interview is in 2015, so maybe one could argue he went from a recognizer to a denier. I have a bit of doubts about Radio Televizije Republike Srpske as the current source in use for this sensitive matter however [[5]]. Elsewhere I can only find sources for him saying that there were massacres on both sides and that Bosnia was not an accomplished genocide, but cannot (yet) find this interview where he supposedly disputed genocidal intent.
I looked into what the sources were for Peled's piece and I found the RTRS piece as well as this piece [[6]], from politika.rs, and also a denunciation by Israel W Charny [[7]]. However, there is some context here you may be unaware of. Charny was, a few years ago, involved in a rather public disagreement with Yehuda Bauer and many others in the Journal of Genocide Research [[8]]. Yehuda Bauer also attracted a lot of anger for saying that both the Palestinians and the Israelis had many among them with genocidal intent [[9]]-- which is a good way to piss off a lot of people. I do not want to speculate, but let's note that one of Charny's other complaints in his article “Holocaust Minimization, Anti-Israel Themes, and Antisemitism: Bias at the Journal of Genocide Research" was The founding of Israel is no longer to be recognized as an expression of a heroic national movement called Zionism, or that the wish for a Jewish nation was in response to ongoing pogroms, mass killings and antisemitic events building up to the Holocaust. The attack on the basic legitimacy and moral justification of Israel sets a stage as well for far less [sic.] tears in the future should any of the current dangers to Israel’s existence ever materialize. What does this mean when the more well-known controversy about Bauer is that he is accused of being a traitor for accusing a subset Israelis (as well as Palestinians) of harboring genocidal intent? I will not offer an opinion on this, but I will note that really nasty vitriol like this in Israeli historical academia sadly also exists elsewhere. It is often on a left/right basis, but there are also intra-left fights pitting the Benny Morris types (liberal Zionist) versus the Shlomo Sand types (or more specifically Ilan Pappe' -- a binational one statist). I do not know if he deserves the shaming here, but can we at least remove the guy's picture? --Calthinus (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find mention of Yehuda Bauer in the Rosenssaft pieces cited here. Efra'im Zuroff is a rather different case, that one I do not dispute. But Bauer, what ever comes to light in this confusing case, I don't think deserves to be the face of genocide denial. You stay safe too -- cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This was really helpful, great job, thanks. This was entirely my mistake, although I can't remember it appears that I relied solely upon RTRS as a source. On the other hand, he could have said those things, but then again, the editors there could have interfered with the context to get the meaning they wanted. In any case, it is a risky proposition, so I removed it unless something more reliable come up. Take care.--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Santasa -- we all make mistakes in the time that we set aside for wiki in our busy lives. I really appreciate your candor in owning it. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bosnian genocide denial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mhare (talk · contribs) 09:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I will go through the article later. Mhare (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

GA progress

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The article uses well known authoritative sources for the matter in question, like ICTY, Human Rights House Foundation, OHR and others. Media used for referencing is well established, and includes The Guardian, Huffington Post, Washington Post and others. On that point I do not have any objections.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Article covers major aspects and is focused.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I didn't find any bias in the article as it follows neutral point of view, as this was much improved in recent edits I have been watching.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    History shows no edit wars.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images used in the article follow Wikipedia policies.
  7. Overall: The article is well done, and follows all Wikipedia guidelines.
    Pass/Fail:

Discussion:

Drive-by comments/suggestion/remarks:

1 From User:Eisfbnore :

  • I'm not gonna hijack this review from Mhare, but I'd like to make some quick, cursory comments.
  • I am not certain that it suits the article to have the blockquote from ICJ displayed in the lede. The lede should be more summarising and authoritative, in WP's own words. It is indeed an important quote, but it should be moved further down IMHO.
  • The section Background is too short and arrives without further ado at its conclusion. There is a whole lot more to be said here. Of course, one needs to draw the line somewhere (I appreciate that this is a conflict with very deep historical roots), but we need a whole lot more here.
  • "Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia at the time," – at what time?
  • "Sonja Biserko […] draw parallels from other examples of negationist historical revisionism and denialism, such as Armenian and Rwandan genocide denial." – grammar
  • "She noticed that denial, particularly in Serbia, is present most strongly in political discourse, in the media, in the sphere of law, and in the educational system." – 'noted' rather. Also in which of those fields is it most vividly present? I can imagine that there's a hierarchy or economy of attention going on here.
  • We have "culture of denial" twice in this para, both instances for some reason enclosed within scare quotes.
  • "Denial of the Srebrenica genocide takes many forms in Serbia". I don't think the italics and the scare quotes together are compliant with MOS rules. Also, why is this quote so important to highlight? I haven't looked at the source, though I can imagine they have arrived at more provocative/disturbing/curious conclusions in it.
  • The prose is at places too repetitive, resulting in a lack of flow. For instance, we have "It has been alleged/stated/claimed/disputed" in quite close proximity; same with Biserko's time at the org's helm.
  • I don't think the paragraph Readings and presentations is encyclopedic, for a lack of a better word. It looks clumsy with the bullet points and ELs in the prose. You should rather whip up a proper bibliography.

Those are simply some issues I noted upon a brief look at the article. Might return later for a more thorough review, if y'all feel inclined. Eisfbnore (会話) 05:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Response by nominator:

We have time, there is no pressure - I would like to make few comments on @Eisfbnore:'s suggestions and remarks. I would go through points in no particular order, one by one.

  • paragraph Readings and presentations - there are some really important websites linked there, which should be emphasized rather than pushed into External links, while being really a presentations and not in form of research papers or books; I have seen similarly formatted subsection where it was obviously perceived as appropriate - maybe if you haven’t opened it, please take your time and visit those links so that you can attest to what kind of presentations these are, and maybe we can leave it as it is or renamed it Bibliography but noting that these are particular presentations.
  • I don't think that italic is necessary for this statement either: "Denial of the Srebrenica genocide takes many forms in Serbia"; but as an emphasized statement without italic it's a descriptive of general view on the problem/topic, but it's also a tamed expression (yes, there are many more statements that could be seen even more disturbing/provocative), which could be important in an environment where writing about these topics often provokes outcry and opposition from editors who do not think the statement(s) or article is neutral; quotations in general are used sometimes in Balkan scope, almost as a symptom of Balkan-editing-warring PTSD, where such quotations are believed to contribute to better sense of credibility than (p)reformulated prose, however, some quotations in this article should remain IMO.
  • I agree that "culture of denial" should be stripped of these scare quotation marks, but shouldn't we emphasis it as a term.
  • Grammar should be fixed - suggestions?
  • I will personally move quotation from lede to more befitting place, say to background (if someone has not already done so).--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, just few hours ago, Calthinus did some extensive work on grammar and improvement of sentence style through out the piece, and whom I'd like to thank in particular, so maybe some of the expressions are better now.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the swift response, Santasa99. I think this a very worthy article on a depressing topic, but it needs a thorough copyedit for many reasons. One is to ensure text-source integrity, so that the article reflects the scholarly consensus on the topic. Another is to weed out remaining balkanisms in the prose—the article needs to be rewritten in plain English observing English grammatical norms. It also needs a check for close paraphrasing: Earwig's Copyvio Detector reveals an 80 % risk of violation. Most of the identical passages are quotes, I know, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere—we can't have that many and that long quotations in our article. Eisfbnore (会話) 05:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree, part of the article quotations could and should be trimmed or paraphrased. I also think that "close paraphrasing" is not the issue here. I have thoroughly checked several times and except these direct quotation, as you yourself pointed out, and which I am going to revise (especially those in Living Marxism section), there are no real paraphrasing problems - for instance, in case of Tablet Mag most quotations are related to Rosenssaft statements, the rest refers to the long names of organizations and some common legal terms that are in frequent use and have nothing to do with the article per se. Few of the quotations are necessary, in my opinion, such as part of the definition from Genocide convention and Meron's conclusion, which should be placed in Quote box template on the side, Bora Ćosić and Rosenssaft remarks should remain but trimmed (I noticed that many GA and FA using this method frequently). For grammar, style and text-integrity I have relied on User:Philip Cross, who appears to be native speaker, possibly/probably British himself, interested in international politics, media and journalism (among other), and who followed article creation and build up closely (Calthinus also made number of improvements). However, if you have concrete suggestions, you are most welcomed to present them?
Further, I would like to hear what exactly you think are "balkanisms", and it would be helpful if you can point to its examples, as you perceived them. As for need for "thorough copyedit" to ensure article "reflects the scholarly consensus", as this doesn't sounds reassuring, I hope you have concrete objections and examples where this is not the case.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, sorry about that "balkanism" comment, that was a bit facetious. My apols. What I meant was that the article's sentence structure and overall syntax reads a bit non-native and pedestrian to me. There are quite a few passages that need a solid copy-edit for clarity and cohesion. Like for instance,
  • These two aforementioned courts have only ruled differently with regard to direct responsibility in perpetrating acts of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • Meanwhile, villages surrounding Srebrenica, which in fact belonged to Serb population, were heavily fortified and militarized, with villages like Kravica being used to store caches of weapons and ammunition, and from which Serbs launched attacks on Bosnian Muslim villages, as well as on the town of Srebrenica itself
  • Similar to Rwandan genocide denial, Nanjing Massacre denial, Holocaust denial and Armenian genocide denial, revisionists and denialists often claim that the designation of genocide is result of international political conspiracy, which invoked violence in the first place, which is than further exaggerated or completely invented
These sentences are quite difficult to parse, and could do with rephrasing. Eisfbnore (会話) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like to structure the discussion this way, I don't think I deleted anybody's comment. I did welcome Eisfbnore inputs, and as I see nominator is more than willing to fix parts of the article. I really have nothing substaintal to add regarding the suggestions already made. I tried to deal with other aspects of the article. Mhare (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, it just struck me that you could mention A Town Betrayed for a different type of revisionism, which nevertheless does not devolve into outright denial. I remember quite vividly the furore it created when it was broadcast in Norway. Eisfbnore (会話) 17:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Santasa99 if grammar remains an issue, give me a ping and I will try to get around to more fixes. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Calthinus on your engagements, also thanks Eisfbnore good suggestions. I waited few days to see if anyone is willing to take on above comments and proposals, but I well probably have few changes to offer during the weekend or earlier - those quote-boxes work fine when I tested them. As for those sentences, it would be helpful if you guys (or anyone who reads this) could give some concrete suggestions how to rephrase them, without loosing meaning and/or context. I was hoping User:Philip Cross might drop by too. Anyway, thanks to all, for now, and thanks to reviewer User:Mhare for being patient - I will report on possible changes before the end of the week.--౪ Santa ౪99° 02:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, Eisfbnore, could you give a rough outline of a small paragraph or at least sentence or two on A Town Betrayed? I really think it's a good idea, and a relevant example to include into the article.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Santasa99, Great then! I will wait for the end of week for finishing this review. Mhare (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I expanded on "Background" using and rephrasing some prose from "main article" - it was really necessary as the section was just one line and one block-quote, which is now moved into quote-box.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, i have some things i want to add from that Taylor source. Should i wait or make some additions (as i see at the moment Santasa is doing some adds and fixes as per recommendations here).Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
You and your ideas/additional prose are welcomed, Resnjari. I finished what i believe was priority, and I am awaiting for some inputs on that and on comments I made above earlier - for instance, there is good suggestion to include some views about revisionist documentary A Town Betrayed and it would be great if Eisfbnore could work on that one to include a paragraph, as they seem well acquainted with reactions and stir surrounding that documentary; also some sentences' style is noted as shaky, so I don't know, maybe if you could wait a day to see if we could wrap-up this. But, what ever happens we will certainly include your ideas, whether with additional fixes if they are deemed necessary or as a whole new addition to confirmed GA - however, you should feel free to decide (I have moved your comment to here/Talk:Bosnian genocide denial/GA1).--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
ok. Just a heads up on my side. I got the edits ready to go (it’s mainly refs and a few sentences), but won’t proceed, until you guys give the all clear. I'll wait till tomorrow. Ping me, when ready. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a bit short on time atm, but maybe I'll get round to writing a para someday. Also note this thread on Twitter. FWIW. Eisfbnore (会話) 15:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The scholars Emir Suljagić, Jasmin Mujanović and Hariz Halilovich ought to be mentioned in the article, given their stature. Eisfbnore (会話) 15:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Eisfbnore, no pressure, whenever you have some spare time please write something about this documentary, that would be really great. Also, this Twitter tread is really interesting and informative, so I will do a little research to find out how and when it will be possible to read this report on denial they are mentioning. I am aware of some of Suljagić's work. I heard of Jasmin Mujanović - of Hariz Halilovich only through footnotes in the book "Politics of Identity in Post-Conflict States: The Bosnian and Irish experience", although he seem even more prominent than Mujanović(!?) - so I am sort of familiar with their work but not nearly enough. I have to explore a little bit (Mujanović maintains a neat website of his own). You know what it's like, there's always so much more out there than one can think of at times, or put into articles.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! As I can see everything that was a priority was done or fixed, and even expanded, and that there were no specific objections. I also see that there are some good suggestions, which can be reused later. I think that I will promote the article in GA, and since the discussion so far shows that everyone involved in it is in a position to cooperate then there is no reason to continue such good and productive cooperation after the promotion in GA.

It was most important for me to check the sources and prose and see if what was said in the article was consistent with its sources. Also, as far as we can conclude, everything else is well done, and as for some of the sentences, although they don't look bad to me, their correction can be done later, just like inserting the suggestions above. Thank you all for your attention and patience. Mhare (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mhare, very much. I hope that we can continue to put up the good work, further improving this article, just as we have done so far, in a spirit of collaboration, good faith and a productive atmosphere. Also, I hope you, Eisfbnore, Calthinus, Resnjari, and others, will continue to contribute as well. Thank you to all - stay safe and take care.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV in "left-revisionists"

On second thought, it's clear that calling Michael Parenti a genocide denier is charitable. Parenti claims that Serbian forces did commit summary killings around Srebrenica, but doubts the number and the claims that there were no testimonies of mass rape, which was obviously proven false later.

It is strange that Hoare ignores these smoking guns in favour of claims that Parenti did not make. Hoare claims that Parenti "provides not a single source" to back up the assertion that America intended to split Yugoslavia into right-wing principalities. While there are no sources on page 18, Parenti provides sourced details on the World Bank adjustment program in Yugoslavia on the following pages (20-21). He accuses Parenti of saying that the entire Bosnian siege was orchestrated by Bosnian Muslims against Bosnian Muslims. This statement is obviously ridiculous, and has no antecedent in anything Parenti wrote. Parenti claims that Bosnian forces let the siege to continue for Western sympathy, and that the marketplace bombings were conducted by Bosnian Muslim forces - a genuine point of debate in the West in the period after the war. Parenti doubts the extent of specific atrocities in Kosovo, but he never claims that only 2,000 bodies were found in Kosovo or that Serbian forces only killed 2,000 civilians.

While we should oppose genocide denial in all its forms, Hoare's work is clearly partisan. It attempts to construct a single form of denial out of disparate groupings of those opposed to the Yugoslav War, later referred to as a "left-revisionist religion." He claims that all of these people support the destruction of "counter-revolutionary nations," those being the non-Serbians "enslaved" by the Yugoslav state. The only evidence he provides for this is a claim that Johnstone's assertion that prior Albanian national revolts had been to retain feudal privileges whilst the Serbian interest in Yugoslavia and Serbian national revolts took influence from French liberalism meant that she believed that the Serbian nation was inherently revolutionary while the Albanian nation was inherently counter-revolutionary, and that this single example meant that all of the other left revisionists believed the same thing in rejection of Tito's pluralism. Parenti actually represents Milosevic as a celebrator of pluralism in both Yugoslavia and Serbia, quoting speeches he made in Kosovo Field.

Hoare is clearly an expert of some sort in Bosnia, given his long history of work there. At the same time, he worked with neoconservatives for multiple years and penned articles supporting military intervention in Syria, which leads me to believe that his criticism of those who opposed NATO intervention in Yugoslavia is not quite in good faith.

Regardless of Hoare's reliability, the third paragraph is a stylistic trainwreck.

"For this complete reversal of reality they rely on and cite informations provided by another self-styled independent researcher Diana Johnstone, who herself never set foot in Bosnia, without a shadow of a doubt or critical examination into evidence and sources provided. They cite that women and children were largely spared and that only military age men were targeted."

This is poorly written in general, and decisively not neutral. 92.21.15.107 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You should first check some of the main policies and guidelines on how wikipedia article is built and how we use sources.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way Hoare was expert-witness for both courts, so let's keep our opinions to ourselves.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This article for all practical purpose and intent can't be labeled "unbalanced" in a sense and logic applied by IP, because this isn't a right place for debating on usage of the term "denial" and "denialist", with opposed opinions and polemics, in context of Bosnian Genocide or any other context - sort of, let's hear both sides of the argument, which would in turn push this article into dealing with another subject altogether.
This article can be "unbalanced" only to the extent where it examines if one aspect of denialism is represented more than some other. This article deals exclusively with instances of denialism described as such by authoritative scholars and experts on the subject of modern and post-modern Bosnian/Yugoslav/Balkan history and genocide scholars as secondary source, and some media outlets as tertiary, listing them based on their statements, writings, etc.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I acknowledged that Hoare was an expert. That being said, being an expert does not preclude having particular biases, and having these biases cloud your work. Although there is no need to portray two sides when countering genocide denial, the moment Hoare shifts away from affirming something everyone knows (Serbians massacred Bosnian Muslims during the Bosnian War) against those who deny it to something far more contentious (Johnstone, Parenti, Herman etc. actively support the genocide of Bosnian Muslims because they believe them to be counter-revolutionary) makes him less reliable as a simple source of truth. The first three paragraphs of the relevant section only include editorials from figures who support NATO intervention, or from the worst deniers themselves. Wikipedia's rules on biased sources refer to "balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources." In theory, we should look for more neutral articles that counter the claim of left-denialists, or perhaps anti-interventionist articles against left-denialism.
Even if Hoare is an entirely reliable source, you haven't really answered my misgivings about the third paragraph. How is that style of writing in any way unbiased or encyclopedia-appropriate? What about the fourth paragraph? It appears to be original research that doesn't counter the claim that Srebrenica didn't happen, but a different claim: that Bosnian Muslims committed war crimes around Srebrenica. Ignoring that original research is considered illegitimate, I'm not entirely sure it's relevant to the article, and the inclusion of that claim without explaining how it impacts the beliefs of genocide deniers makes me feel like there's an additional bias throughout the entire section. 92.21.15.107 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:Biased sources are well defined in this guideline. I don't see my edits as "my work", at best "work of mine" or rather edit contribution, and I did what I could to make sourced statements and claims appropriately formatted and phrased for wikipedia, including of those directly quoted - I do not make these statements up on the go, but draw them from the source material. If you don't like it that's another issue. As for "balancing" and making statements and integrity of its sources "equally" credible, or evaluating impartiality of scholars like Hoare, well, I am not going to participate in that. I have made clear my position on that in above post.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This does not really answer anything I said, given that I directly quoted from the content guidelines you linked. Hoare is close to the source and not really independent, being an interventionist Bosnian scholar who made testimonies in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. This would be perfectly fine on its own, but his work does not really show fact-checking. If you made those edits, the onus is on you to maintain a neutral point of view. If you claim that you're not going to participate in maintaining a neutral point of view, and don't make a viable claim that your sources are unbiased and reliable or that your biased sources are being used in a balanced fashion, then there's no reason for you to actively block the attempts of other editors to point out that there's something wrong, is there?
Again, you have not explained how the third paragraph is not clearly biased, or how the fourth paragraph is relevant to Bosnian genocide denial. The language used in the third paragraph clearly expresses an editorial opinion (perhaps an editorial opinion more extreme than in the editorial used as a reference!) and the fourth paragraph denies claims of Bosnian Muslim crimes against Serbians without explaining how these claims factor into the claims of genocide deniers in a fashion that's explicitly against Wikipedia's policy on synthesis - combining claims from ICTY to disprove left revisionists in a way that is not found in any source.
Is the work of Marko Attila Hoare unbiased? If it is biased, is it appropriate to include in this article without a counterbalancing source? Is the third paragraph unbiased? Is the point of the fourth paragraph clearly explained in another source? Is the fourth paragraph really relevant to countering Bosnian genocide deniers? If you are unwilling to answer those questions, why can't I put up the neutrality tag, and why can't I edit out the last two paragraphs? 92.21.15.107 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Marko Attila Hoare is of utmost reliability and credibility, for me that's the end of story. But I am certain not just for me, because probably every article on history of Yugoslavia, especially between 1941 and present, and especially dealing with political and military violence, has Hoare as a source.
All source in this article are crosschecked by at least one uninvolved editor, and I was really careful to include relevant, mainstream media outlets and scholarship, official reports and international organizations, such as ICTY, ICJ, genocide research organisations and institutes. I was careful not to use excessive lingo, and to adhere to expression and terminology of sources.
If you think that you can turn article on denialism into some sort of debate, "balancing" arguments made by those who argue denialism with inclusion of "counter-arguments" made by denialist themselves, well, I am certain that's not how this should work, or if you think that some secondary sources claim there is no denialism in some specific cases, than you will need at least as credible sources as those which are already included (and disputed by you) - and not just really credible but one that unequivocally show that there is no denialism of crimes judged upon by ICTY and ICJ.
As for "synthesis", beside that I am quite sure I did my best to carefully avoid falling into that trap, I can point two things: first that synth is if two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce an entirely new thesis which can't be verified from the sources, and second that simply juxtaposing two reliable sources into one statement or summarizing it does not constitute synth - there are many more examples what is not considered synth but I think these are enough - so, there are limits to the policy on original research and synthesis. Essays like these, WP:SYNTHNOT, are intended to help editors better understand this policy, because you aren't the first nor only editor who tried to interpret synth in unduly strict manner.
Yes, Hoare is of utmost reliability and credibility as probably one of the most, if not the most, authoritative scholars on the subject; section is unbiased as much as sources are unbiased; fourth paragraph clearly explain context and extent of denialism.
Hore is not the only one who makes these claims - clearly article is based on plethora of sources for article of this size, without suffocating it with excessive referencing, and they all discuss it, including the "left", one way or the other, so I picked from those which I believed should be most appropriate. "Left revisionism" could be as easily sourced with statements and works by intellectuals and scholars of such reputation like Hitchens, Levy, Kamm, Finkielkraut, Campbell, Weinberg, Monbiot, list can go on and on, and interestingly they are all mostly into the left ideological spectrum themselves.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
ok, i had a look at this and did a bit of a search for RS sources about Johnstone. Came across these that cite her being a denialist on Bosnia: (Taylor: [10], Berube [11], and interestingly on Kosovo: Schulman [12]. Santasa99, an improvement to the sentence is to rewrite "without a shadow of a doubt", or scrap it altogether, as it comes of awkward and unencyclopedic. There are two Hoare refs, the one which is a summary of the Journal of Genocide Research article should be removed, as also the Nick Cohen article as it is an opinion piece. That said, they should not be deleted, but moved down to a Further reading section (i.e like here: [13]), which you can create. For the Johnstone sentence, add the Taylor and Berube refs. Like this you will have 3 solid refs for the sentence. To the IP, Hoare is WP:RS as its published in the Journal of Genocide Research. Its usage is ok within the article and no need for more WP:IDONTLIKEIT on that front.Resnjari (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Santasa99: I don't know where you got the idea that I wanted to turn this article into a debate for or against genocide denial, since I clearly expressed my disgust at genocide denial and emphasised the importance of finding sources from across the political spectrum that refute genocide deniers, as opposed. I'll rest my complaints about Hoare, given his clear expertise in the subject and the lack of any academic counterpoints to his thoughts on left anti-interventionists, though I'd like to note that a work about genocide denial can in fact be biased if it makes additional and opinionated claims about the motivations of anti-interventionists in general without evidence.
The fourth paragraph combines the left-revisionist claim that the Srebrenica never happened with the ICTY's description of events to advance a new position: that left-revisionists are incorrect, and that the massacres of Serbians that left-revisionists describe in Srebrenica also didn't happen. This is publishably original, and combines new material to advance a non-neutral point. Thank you for finding leftists that published works refuting Bosnian genocide denial! This was exactly what I was hoping to balance out Hoare with, and I'm glad we can come to an agreement on that.
Resnjari: Thank you for adding more reliable sources to the article! You shouldn't really be surprised that Johnstone also denies massacres in Kosovo, given that left-revisionists are an offshoot of the anti-interventionist milieu that not only opposed NATO intervention in the Balkans for a variety of reasons (ignored non-Serb war crimes, killed civilians of all races and destroyed civilian infrastructure, allowed the expansion of the US military into the area, etc.) but decided to justify the crimes of governments NATO opposed. Again, I no longer object to including Hoare, although I don't believe that reasoned objections to the bias of a source count as "just don't like it?" 92.21.15.107 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Barely coherent lead

The lead at present is barely coherent:

Firstly "an act of denying or asserting that the systemic Bosnian genocide against the Bosniak Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, … … did not occur, or at least it did not occur in the manner or to the extent", Either it the act of denying that it DID occur or not to the extent etc … or it the act of asserting that it DID NOT occur or not to the extent etc, it cannot possibly be both.

Secondly "as planned and perpetrated in line with official and academic narratives defined and expressed by part of the Serb intelligentsia and academia,[1][2][3][4][5][6] political and military establishment, … … … to the extent that has been established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through its proceedings and judgments, and described by subsequent comprehensive scholarship.[7][8]" sets up all sorts of conditionals and details which are not pertinent to the opening definition ie, it may be true that "Serb intelligentsia" etc were implicated in the events of the war … but it is hardly essential to the act of denial to acknowledge the role of any or all of the named groups. Similarly it is important that courts ruled this to be genocide, but it is not an essential element of denial that one agree with EVERYTHING ICTY ruled, even academics who have never been accused of 'denial', legitimately disagree with aspects of court rulings. Nor is partially disagreeing with a court part of the usual definition of denial, especially if one was writing or speaking before the ICTY judgement and before academic consensus was formed.

Thirdly at the same time that those kind of details are intruded into the narrative needlessly, or needlessly early, basic info is missing or simply assumed to be known to the reader. When did this genocide occur? Who were the perps? How many victims are there alleged to have been? Who the hell are the VRS, Krstić etc. We need to know but are not told any of this.

I shall attempt to fix, but am attempting to identify the problems here before proceeding. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Living Marxism + other SYNTH

The whole Living Marxism section fails to mention either genocide, or its denial. Surely LM were denying other crimes/cruelties, but is questioning ANYTHING bad done during the war synonymous with genocide denial? Especially when written at a time that the conflict was ongoing and much was obscured by "the fog of war". Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, the source for Tariq Ali, is actually about the Kosovo action (not the Bosnian war), and doesn't mention either genocide or denial anywhere. That there are 'lefties' who are critical of almost anything done by US/NATO is hardly disputable, that does not make them deniers.Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Obviously we can't include stuff about Kosovo. But Living Marxism (supposedly a leftist group but ooh look at some of these interesting corporate patrons [14] which perhaps explain why Living Marxism was later identified as now the factory behind a production line of far-right polemic that has infiltrated mainstream media and politics.) literally claimed the Trnopolje camp was "fake" while intentionally ignoring other matters so as to push a narrative that a systematic operation that had been documented by respectable press was a conspiracy, with an astonishingly lack of even pretending to have reliable sources. Here's Ed Vulliarny, who LM defamed, on the matter: ...the lie was that of Living Marxism and its dilettante supporters who sought, in the time-honoured traditions of revisionism, to deny those camps existed... Of course Living Marxism was unable to offer a single witness who had been at Trnopolje, the camp they claimed to be a fake, on that putrid afternoon of August 5, 1992. Indeed, they were unable to produce any witnesses at all. Unlike any member of Living Marxism or their sympathisers, I was there with ITN's cameras that day. We went to two camps: Omarska and Trnopolje. Living Marxism does not like to mention Omarska: there, we saw little, but enough: skeletal men drilled across a yard and devouring watery stew like famished dogs before being bundled out. Of course, our personal views of if this constitutes genocide denial don't actually matter -- what matters is what RS consider it -- this actually has a question mark at the end of it, what can we say about RS views on whether genocide denial is attributable to Living Marxism ?--Calthinus (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I had actually forgotten leaving the above post - I obviously left the comment then became too busy elsewhere. I stand by what I say above - the LM section is fairly clear and neutral coverage of the events leading to the LM libel case and it is difficult to feel any sympathy for LM's careless coverage and consequent demise. However, whilst it is obvious that LM was seeking to discredit ITN"S claims of levels of cruelty being perpetrated - cruelties that might well be war crimes - there is not a single mention of genocide, nor its denial, nor who thinks that LM were deniers - other than WP editors seemingly. Many of those associated with LM have gone on to show themselves to be more libertarian contrarians than left-wingers, so the Koch connection is not surprising to me. But being loathsome and - at the very least - careless about the truth iro one's Bosnia reporting, does not in itself make one a denier. We need sources that actually say LM denied the genocide occurring in Bosnia, not simply that they denied other aspects of Serb cruelty.
The Tariq Ali claim is even more problematic, Ali appears to have edited (not written) a book criticising US/NATO policies (few surprises there). A review says that the book (not Ali specifically) fails to be balanced and specifically fails to mention Srebrenica in the index: "Tariq Ali’s compilation does eschew the wilder excesses of the American Left. Most of the contributors - though not all - at least admit that Miloševic’s regime was guilty of atrocities in Kosova, and a few even remember that he is a recidivist war criminal, even if they do not seem as incensed about his actions as they are about NATO’s. While one cannot blame an editor for the failure of indexers, it is noticeable that while ‘Oil – Caspian Sea’ makes it into the index, Srebrenica does not. "
So, on the strength of a book which Ali edited, failing to mention Srebrenica in its index - a book largely about Kosovo apparently - we write: "Revisionists mainly identifying with the "far-left" of the ideological and political spectrum, such as …… Tariq Ali,[1] … … engaged in revisionism and denial of the Bosnian genocide and its various aspects, while blaming the West, the NATO, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, for the Serb and their forces actions, absolving the latter of any responsibility of the atrocities carried out, war crimes and genocide."
This is the grossest kind of BLP violation - there is not the slightest indication in the source given that Ali has ever denied genocide - nor that he blames 'Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians' for ANYTHING. That Ali is a 'Vietnam generation leftist' who is inclined to blame the US/NATO/international capitalism for all the sins of the world, may well be a valid reviewer's viewpoint, one I largely agree with - but not even this book review (hardly a RS for such a contentious accusation anyway), accuses him of anything other than implying that he isn't balanced in his sympathies and antipathies!
I have no idea whether ALL the other names in that list are properly sourced, nor whether the claims made about these people are accurately, neutrally phrased - I happened to notice Ali's name because I had never previously heard of him being a denier. The section has the feel of "tarring everyone with the same brush", WP cannot name individuals in sentences which simultaneously list all the "sins" that "the left" in general have been accused of. Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ian Williams (September 2000). "More Agitprop than reasoned argument". Bosnian Institute UK. Archived from the original on 2 March 2019. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_genocide_denial/Archive_1&oldid=1136574658"