Talk:Srebrenica massacre

The genocide was the genocide

recently an IP replaced the description in the opening line that the event was a genocidal massacre with the event being a genocide. The IP , probably correctly says "I read all the sources, it says only genocide". I reverted this good faith edit. Another editor restored the IPs edit and I have just restored the long term version.

Firstly, the IP is correct that the sources used don't say 'genocidal massacre', however they also don't say that the event was a genocide. What they say is that people were found guilty of genocide because of their actions iro the event. In fact the ICTY ruling used as a main source specifically refers to the event as "The massacre at Srebrenica". The name of an event is not automatically the same as the name of a crime committed at that event.

If I recall correctly, the 'genocidal massacre' description was added some time ago by someone seeking to 'beef up' the 'genocide' element, therefore they added sources which endorsed the word 'genocide', they probably felt it unnecessary to provide sources which endorsed 'massacre'.

I am not especially wedded to the long-term text, but I see no problems with it. I do not believe it is SYNTH to claim that a massacre at which it was ruled genocide occurred is a 'genocidal massacre'. We could easily find sources that refer to the event as a massacre or find some new form of words to describe the event, but "The genocide was the genocide" is both clumsy English and a fairly crude way to bypass the recent failed move discussion IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that you were paid from Serbia and they say there that it was some kind of crime, not genocide, not recognizing the international court of justice and the UN resolution. As far as I'm concerned, write that everything was made up there, because when you lie, you should lie properly, not minimize it like you do.193.31.30.70 (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not being consistent. You argued that it is not correct to identify a genocide executed by military forces as a military assault because none of the sources which all discussed at length that the genocide was an assault executed by military forces, but never used the exact term military assault.

Further, when you say that [Sources] also don't say that the event was a genocide. Of course they do! [1] Perhaps you are having trouble rendering the pdf file, but the very source in question identifies the event as a genocide. Why do you choose to ignore some sources, but not others? There is no need for editors to shop around and easily find sources that refer to the event as a massacre just because you don't like the ICJ, or (as in the above move request) apparently don't like the UN either. 122141510 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note also: the sentence is not "The genocide was the genocide", but "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide...". In the opening sentence as currently formulated, "also known as the Srebrenica genocide" is a non-restrictive appositive. With non-restrictive appositives, the essential meaning of the sentence should not change if the appositive were removed. By leaving the sentence as currently formulated, this holds true. However, if the non-restrictive appositive is removed from the sentence as you've suggested, The Srebrenica massacre was the July 1995 genocidal massacre... which leads to an article about academics discussing genocide which are "lesser in scale" and even "partial genocide". None of the sources compare the Srebrenica as being any lesser than other genocides, and one of the sources Wikipedia uses elsewhere [2], as I read it, states the opposite – I would charactercize it as saying that the Srebrenica genocide is a holon of the greater Bosnian genocide. In other words, your claim the sentence is grammatically invalid is predicated on mischaracterizing the sentence(!), and changes the meaning of the sentence with consequence to the reader. 122141510 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was grammatically flawed, I said it was clumsy English, which it is. We usually avoid opening sentences of the "The killing of Mary Smith was the 1999 killing of Mary Ann Smith …", kind (they are trite and communicate little). I am open to suggestions for rephrasing if people object strongly to the "genocidal massacre" construction. The effective sentence is still "the genocide was the genocide", apart from being clumsy English, it is 'taking a stand' on to the correct name/term to describe the event, contrary to the naming agreement and contrary to the actual source used.

The fact that the GM link leads to 'lesser' crimes is irrelevant. The purpose of such ,a link is to say what a GM is (though the meaning is fairly self evident), not to establish how serious/trivial Srebrenica was. A link is always removable.

I'd advise you to stop bringing up previous edit disagreements, it simply creates the impression that you are making WP:POINT edits instead of addressing the immediate topic. However, addressing your 'attack' question. No source describes the massacre itself as 'an attack' (no one disputes the adjective 'military' nor that the massacre was preceded by an action to seize Srebrenica - the fall, which could be called an attack) , so the adjective is apt but the noun very dubious, especially when put into 'pole position' for 'attack type'.

However no one (apart from the IP perhaps) disputes that the event was a massacre, nor that it was ruled to be genocide, nor that both terms are often used, to describe the event. The ICTY judgement (rejecting the appeal against a number of genocide convictions), which is currently used as the source, actually has a whole chapter entitled "The massacre at Srebrenica" to describe the 'killing spree'. Why they do this is pure surmisal, but possibly they are employing the recognisable name, or possibly they are following a convention of distinguishing between an event and the crime that was committed at that event or some other reason. Whatever their reason, they do it and no serious person could think that a rejection of an appeal would be seeking to minimise or downplay the gravity of the offence. They call the killings 'the massacre', but endorse the verdict that those killings constitute 'genocide'.

Thus, both 'massacre' and 'genocide' are almost indisputable as to both what happened, and as to the name used. Personally, I have no problem in merging the adjective and the noun, since both are extensively sourced and/or sourcable, but if editors object, we can find some other form of words for the opening sentence, which seeks to characterise/summarise what the massacre was.

What happened at Srebrenica is - almost equally - characterised as a 'massacre' (an emotive term similar to 'bloodbath', 'rampage', 'slaughter') and as a 'genocide' (a legal term, largely defined by intent), to endorse only one of those terms in the opening sentence is not supported by the very sources currently used, and is not neutral IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not a WP:POINT edit, it is attempting to make sense of and work with an editor who claims to be solely beholden to sources but then seems to work on a system of logic other than that (and one which is imcompatible with how Wikipedia work).

Please stop mischaracterizing what the sentence "effective[ly] is to "the genocide was the genocide", because your statement is incorrect. It has already explained to you how a non-restructive appositive works, and if you do not understand you are welcome to read the article which explains how it works.

You should clarify your claim that the source does not identify the event documented in this article as a genocide. It is difficult – nearly impossible – to work with someone if it is not possible to agree on a common reality. Does this require RfC? 122141510 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the details of that particular sentence, I agree that the amount of repetition of the word "genocide" in the lead section of this article seems excessive. The article about The Holocaust uses the word 'genocide' just once in its lead section. The Darfur genocide article uses it twice (one of which is the opening sentence's repetition of the article's title). The Armenian genocide article uses it four times (again, one of which is in the opening sentence's repetition of the title). This article uses the word nine times in its lead section. It's repetitive to a degree that gives the reader the impression that it's trying to do more than summarize the facts of the matter. It is not necessary or desirable to make the same point over and over. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes BarrelProof but in the most important part, "what is it", it was changed with the obvious intention of diminishing the genocide that was brought by the ICTY court or UN. It was changed a month ago [[3]] and it is not a stable version as Pincrete says, it was written genocide for years as sources say, so this was changed a month ago.66.59.199.220 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have questions about why Pincrete has chosen to revert this but Pincrete will (rightfully) protest if you say why he is changing it. But I do think at this point he is obliged to answer if he wishes to continue to participate in conversations here and edit articles here. This is nothing to do with his accusations that I see myself as a "Grand Inquisitor" but pushing back against the opposite – I feel like he is behaving in a bullying manner with this article, and he constantly refuses to have conversations by some manner or another – either playing victim, or else suggesting that conversations necessarily must be escalated to WP:ANI. He is as obliged to have conversations to build consensus as anyone else.

So the question is – why does Pincrete state a source that is reliable and relevant to the article that identifies the event documented in this article as a genocide, as saying a genocide did not occur? 122141510 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise for misremembering who and when the text was changed, it was as you correctly say changed about a month ago by Tom B, while he was 'pruning' the article. The previous long-term text was actually "was the genocidal killing". Are you saying you want that text restored rather than "genocidal massacre"? I have no objection if that is the case, though 'G M' seems much beefier if less explicit. 'GM' is no less sourced than 'GK', both are dependent on elaborating on the meaning of 'massacre'.

You would have no need to elaborate on why I changed something if you simply asked me.

No one could possibly claim in good faith that I have ever questioned whether a genocide occurred, particularly not in the present discussion or that I said that the sources used (an ICTY judgement for God's sake, rejecting the appeal against the verdict of genocide) are saying that a genocide did not occur. They are using the term 'massacre' to describe the event at which 'genocide' occurred. Much as a court decided that multiple murder occurred at My Lai or 'crimes against humanity' occurred at multiple locations in WWII. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that No one could possibly claim in good faith that I have ever questioned whether a genocide occurred, – above [4], you wrote that "the IP is correct that the sources used don't say 'genocidal massacre', however they also don't say that the event was a genocide". [emphasis mine] I find it difficult – if not impossible – to understand what possible basis you would have for making this statement, and you have offered no clarification thus far. 122141510 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Full quote: They also don't say that the event was a genocide. What they say is that people were found guilty of genocide because of their actions iro the event. In fact the ICTY ruling used as a main source specifically refers to the event as "The massacre at Srebrenica". Thus the ICTY ruling makes a distinction between how it names the event (massacre) and the crime that occurred there (genocide).

So I repeat No one could possibly claim in good faith that I have ever questioned whether a genocide occurred. They could of course selectively edit the quote in order to intentionally misrepresent the comment to another editor, and then double-down by not even bothering to re-read when challenged about it but that would be such a boring, bad-faith, trolling, pathetic thing to do wouldn't it? Pincrete (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Three things;

1. WP:NPA. @Pincrete, if you cannot participate in conversations and building consensus for editing articles in contentious topic areas, maybe you're not suited to participate in conversations and building consensus for editing articles in contentious topic areas.
2. I object very strongly to your offer to editors – Are you saying you want that text restored rather than "genocidal massacre"? I have no objection if that is the case, though 'G M' seems much beefier if less explicit. – as if Wikipedia is about what we might want an article to say. That is not how Wikipedia works and you are crossing lines when you try and strike deals with editors that violate WP:NPOV by selectively interpreting, misreading, and/or ignoring sources.
3. You are not really clarifying how on earth the sources in this article do not affirm a genocide occurred. I don't know why you're struggling to read the texts, but you clearly are. Perhaps the ICTY rulings are too difficult for you. You might find the NYT article easier to read and understand. You might also refer to any of the other sources used throughout the article which state in no ambiguous terms that the event documented in this article was a genocide.

122141510 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not really clarifying how on earth the sources in this article do not affirm a genocide occurred Errr that's because the very source used confirms that the crime of genocide occurred at the Srebrenica massacre. Who disputes that? Not me. How often do I need to say that? How on earth could a source rejecting an appeal against several 'guilty of genocide' or 'complicity in genocide' verdicts possibly be construed as anything other than an confirmation that the crime was committed at Srebrenica? But also, since that source refers to the actual killings as 'The massacre at Srebrenica', it is also an endorsement of the COMMONNAME of the event at which those killings/crimes occurred.

But it isn't the job of an opening sentence to simply repeat the article title (or in this instance, the proposal is to repeat an endorsement of the alternative title only). The job is to say what happened, what the page is about. To that extent I think that 'the genocidal killing of more than etc…' - which is the long term stable version is actually the clearest and most explicit definition of the subject. But if anyone else has a proposal that better defines the topic (without clumsy, pointless repetition of the title or alt title), then let's hear it.

I'm neutral about the adjective 'genocidal' in that sentence. As BarrelProof says above, we already mention the 'G-word' many times more often than any comparable article, but I would neither argue for its removal nor against such removal. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Pincrete everything in history was written on this article up to the decision of the ICTY court on Srebrenica and the UN Resolution, and for you it is not valid. It is only required to write what is written in the sources. You work on purpose [[5]]whitewashing.216.189.150.121 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete regarding this diff;

1. Wikipedia does not allow for a consensus to be formed which overrides the use of reliable sources
2. The grammar claim is false and has already been debunked

I encourage you to pursue formal venues such as RfC or other methods of dispute resolution. You do not have a unique mandate to override site policy or ignore participating in conversations to build consensus to edit. 122141510 (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510 When there is a dispute, we revert to the long term stable version until the dispute is resolved.

Are you actually arguing that the sources used don't endorse that " The SM/SG was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War". Which part of that sentence isn't fully endorsed by the sources?

Clearly you did not even read the text or edit reason before hitting the revert button. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC) btw, I've never claimed that it was bad grammar, I've said it's pointless, trite, repetitious English which fails to define the subject simply and clearly.Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No one should be reverting to any version of an article to include statements which are unsupported by sources, regardless of any other policy. You are also required by decorum to participate in conversations to build consensus to edit. I get instead the impression you are ignoring any conversation you don't like. You included in your rationale to revert the document a claim of 'dreadful English', which I've already taken time to explain to you. In fact, your reversion is creating a grammatically inferior version – when the non-restrictive apositive is removed, you are in effect asserting that the article should state that "the massacre was the massacre". Including that rationale when it's already been explained to you is ridiculous.

You're now also switching which version of the statement you assert is the 'long term stable version'. It doesn't make much sense to assert multiple possibilities for what the 'long term stable version' is. 122141510 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong?

Good clear English is sometimes a matter of judgement, not dictat, but simply repeating the alternative title in the opening sentence seems pretty much the definition of pointless-ness to me. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC) ps Since you quote extensively from it, you obviously read my post in which I apolgised for forgetting the recent change made by Tom B, and thus mis-remembering what the long-term stable version actually was. But whichever version it was, it certainly wasn't the edit you and the IP are edit-warring back into the article. However all three versions are almost equally supported by the sources used. ICTY actually calls the event the M at S! So are they saying a massacre didn't occur that they spend a whole chapter outlining? Are they saying than 8000+ males weren't killed in that massacre. We have already established (I hope) that they aren't saying that genocide didn't occur there. You are being extremely selective in what you are prepared to admit the sources endorse.Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the way you prioritize information is not logically consistent. Your questions do not lend to what we're disputing. We often talk past each other and run into conflict in this way, so, as I've suggested to you before, you ought to stick to the direct topic and questions at hand and avoid abstractions. I don't know which 'long term stable' you think you're referring to – you've indicated two versions of the sentence as the 'long term stable', which I just said is already inherently self-contradicting.

Sources support the statement that The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide....

You also might consider limited license to ignore opportunities to avoid dictat here. As I've suggested before, when editing articles in contentious topic areas, similar to how WP:BLP is handled, editors should err towards making edits which can be rationalized and defended using policy and guidelines, and not a matter of judgment. Your difficulty in contributing to this conversation, respectfully, I take as evidence to this end. Other editors can't read your mind and figure out what you think is a long term stable, and other editors can't make heads or tails of why you might feel so passionately about avoiding a risk of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in some areas but not others.

You continue to agree the event was a genocide (and, more importantly, agree that sources identify the event as a genocide), but then you object very strongly to the statement

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide

and argue in favor of either

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal massacre...

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing...

which again, seems more like a matter for an RfC than anything else. I don't appreciate why you think these sentences are better – you haven't answered directly, and continue to assert something about grammar, syntax, or bad English, while giving yourself unique license to determine what is or isn't bad English based on your own judgment and ignore the judgment of others, even though in my case I took time to explain to you the grammatical and syntactical concerns. You countered with an implication that it's a matter of judgement. Implicitly, by your action, it's a judgment you're qualified to and others aren't – not really how consensus works! 122141510 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong? I have never mentioned either grammar or syntax, you keep repeating the same claim, just as you repeatedly claimed that I somehow denied a genocide by citing the VERY ICTY DOCUMENT that disallowed the appeal against the genocide verdicts & sentences.

Of course genocide happened there, Of course it was a massacre, Of course men were killed, but attempting to limit to only one of those - ignoring that the very sources used are explicit about all three is very NPOV. It is difficult to see it as other than a bad faith to circumvent the (failed) name move while at the same time failing to define the subject and, tritely, repeating the alternative title as though it were the only way to describe the event. The "genocide was the genocide" is the effective sentence, or possibly the "massacre was the genocide, either communicates almost nothing IMO.

We already mention 'genocide' many times more often than the Holocaust article. Doesn't that say anything? Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The "genocide was the genocide" is the effective sentence. Do we need to RfC everything? I've already explained to you how you're incorrect here, and it is your diff rationale and previous comments which continue to bring up 'bad English' or otherwise. 122141510 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC

So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong? Third time of asking and still deadly silence. The latest excuse for reverting is shown to be either consciously dishonest or at least inadvertently inaccurate. The sources more than adequately endorse the long-term version (but they don't actually say the "Srebrenica massacre was the genocide", they say genocide happened at the massacre if we are determined to be ever-so pedantic). Do we need to RfC everything? Well you do if you can't get consensus for your desired change from either of the stable versions. It isn't me that insists that only one version of the opening sentence or only one article name is valid (and anathema on anyone who doesn't salute that version). Repeating the alternative title to define the article is pointless, muddled and appears to be a fairly pathetic attempt to circumvent the rejection of the failed move discussion. It also makes the following sentences pretty clumsy. I've already explained to you how you're incorrect I'm sorry, but as it doesn't seem to be obvious to you, I disagree. Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Third time of asking and still deadly silence. It is clearly not constructive for you and I to write entire essays back and forth at each other. I've explained why we are almost certainly better off tackling issues one at a time. We should start easy and remain on the assertion you made that the opening sentence has 'bad English' – it is one which is relatively benign and non-controversial. You also clearly feel strongly enough about it to continually assert your judgment as superior to mine, and have expressed disagreement.

I've explained to you what a non-retsrictive appositive is and how it should be considered.

Is it not obvious to you what a non-restrictive appositive is?

Are you unable to identify the non-restrictive appositive in the opening sentence?

What exactly do you disagree with?

I'll also bring up you have not been consistent with how you raise this issue. You objected to the formulation;

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide... and claimed [incorrectly] that this could be reduced to 'the genocide was the genocide'. You actually would've been more in your rights to object to the formulation The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal massacre... because by way of removing the non-restrictive appositive, the sentence is effectively reduced to 'the massacre was the genocidal massacre'. I believe your edits were in effect doing the exact opposite – you were making the sentence 'bad English' by way of introducing a tautology. 122141510 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong? Still no answer nor any reason why we don't adopt normal practice of going back to the long-term stable version until a new consensus is reached. The failure to do so is further proof of bad faith AFAI am concerned. Citing the sources used as a revert justification is simply false, they endorse all three above elements fully. If a better 'defining' sentence can be arrived at, Hurrah! but the revert to the IP's edit was unjustified edit-warring which actually ignored the content of the sources used. The IP clearly didn't read the sources, but you have and must know that your edit reason was simply false, whether consciously or because of careless reading I don't know and frankly don't care. Professions of good faith are simply hot-air when deeds contradict normal practice.

The only tautology I have accepted (but not particularly endorsed) is the use of the word 'genocidal' before 'killing' in the long-term version. I understand why people want it there, though as BarrelProof points out, we already use the 'G-word' many times more often than other comparable articles. I agree that 'genocidal massacre' is far from perfect, it was TomB who made that edit, not me, but it is preferable to 'your' proposed text IMO.

Your proposed text defines nothing. How does one justify simply repeating the alternative title as the 'defining' sentence? doing so clearly implies that the alternative title is correct, the actual title wrong. The proposed defining sentence reads like a huge PoV comment on the actual article title. Beyond that intrusive PoV 'comment' on the title, it communicates nothing apart from what some editors think we ought to call the event regardless of what the sources have and do call it, even the sources we actually use. How many times do we need to clumsily repeat the word 'genocide' to make the point? Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Professions of good faith are simply hot-air when deeds contradict normal practice. Quite. I see no reason to go down your argumentative and contentious train of thought. Your last several edits on this talk page have in effect accused me of being illiterate but you cannot, or refuse, process a conversation in a stepwise manner. Please refer to my prior questions. I haven't proposed any text yet. I don't believe we've gotten to that point yet. My impression is that the issue of grammar or 'bad English' should be resolved before I can offer anything. You can submit an RfC if you like but trolling me is not going to get me to relent. 122141510 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've submitted an RfC in lieu, and instead of edit warring. 122141510 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The recent article history sure looks like edit warring at first glance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel I am effectively being harassed, bullied, and intimidated. Efforts on my part to cool the conversation down are rebuffed or otherwise ignored, sometimes even in favor of calling me illiterate. In effect, Pincrete is arguing he is not obliged to reach any consensus with other editors. I feel like it is simply a tactic to either wear me out or tire me out. I have limited interest in relenting. It is my intent that I can attempt to have navigate the conversation towards productive consensus formation like adults, and it is my understanding that this is within the parameters and expectations of how this project works. 122141510 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You have accused me repeatedly of denying that genocide occurred, and repeatedly said that I say a source claims that a genocide did not occur - when it clearly doesn't say that and which I clearly haven't said. (I say the source (the ICTY judgement) calls the killings 'The massacre at Srebrenica' and the crime committed it calls 'genocide'). I do not apolgise for saying that anyone stupid or crude-thinking enough to be unable to understand the distinction between what the source calls the actual killings and the crime it endorses the 'guilty verdict' for, probably has no business editing this article. You have also accused me of being a Serb apologist (and come onto my talk page to assert that this isn't a personal attack and to assert your right to repeat it).

If this is your idea of YOU being harassed, bullied, and intimidated, I don't know what to say. I have clearly forcefully complained about, what I think is clear, intentional misreading of another editor's comments and clear, intentional misrepresenting of sources, but I have tried to correct errors without resorting to personal attacks. But by failing to address the question So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong? while claiming that your revert was motivated by a lack of sources, you strongly suggest that you didn't even bother to read the text you were reverting from. (You actually say "The source explicitly identifies it as a genocide, not massacre. … your claim that sources claim the event was not a genocide is not credible" However a) the source explicitly refers to "The massacre at Srebrenica" to describe the killing but b) this is irrelevant since 'my' text doesn't even use the word 'massacre' c) Neither I, nor any editor on this article, nor any source we use (outside the 'Denial' section perhaps) has ever suggested that the crime of genocide was not committed at Srebrenica. A claim that has never been made by me, the sources, or anyone, cannot possibly be either credible nor not credible.)

If this were a single accidental misreading, a correction, and an apolgy would be sufficient, but it isn't. It's a stubborn refusal to acknowledge a number of factual mistakes following repeated correction and a doubling down of the initial error, which is inherently bad-faith.

Real life calls, but I will continue later and give you ample opportunity to remedy these errors by deeds, not words if you are sincere about the wish to 'turn down' the heat on discussion . Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no obligation to acknowledge your posts. If you insist on continuing to interact with me I will request an interaction ban. 122141510 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Note to admins: I have no obligation to acknowledge their posts at this time, given what they have said in this conversation. All their conversation is hypocritical bad-faith argument which is entirely predicated by an attempt to harass and wear me out rather than ever attempt to form any sort of consensus. You [admins] are culpable here, as collectively sat on your hands and allowed this user to harass me and own this article in the manner by which they have. I've asked for intervention multiple times and have received nothing. All ANI does is give this user the impression they can continue to do what they do – argue with editors, push the limits of edit-warring without explicitly violating rules so they can continue to do it. You've allowed this user to WP:GAMETHESYSTEM. I will be cooperative with any action pursued after the fact but if there is pushback along the lines that it is on me to escalate, the answer is that I tried. If the answer is that I didn't escalate correctly, that's unreasonable onus. I have gone out of my way to try and cooperate with this user and they have simply continued to abuse me in a manner which is outrageous and simply unacceptable. It is not on editors to tolerate abuse unless they're familiar with all the tools and loopholes senior editors are more familiar with, and it is not acceptable for admins to ignore bias being pushed in an abusive manner in the manner I've been forced to accept here. 122141510 (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

USER:122141510, I have no obligation to acknowledge their posts at this time, that is quite correct, however you do have an obligation to retract the claim that you have made 5 or 6 times recently that I have either denied that genocide occurred at Srebrenica or that I have said a source makes that claim. Recent example above: So the question is – why does Pincrete state a source that is reliable and relevant to the article that identifies the event documented in this article as a genocide, as saying a genocide did not occur?. underlining mine

Of course the source is relevant (an ICTY judgement and news report of that judgement disallowing an appeal against guilty verdicts on charges of genocide), of course it endorses that genocide occurred at Srebrenica since it confirms the 'guilty' verdicts, but it actually identifies the event which is the article subject as "The Massacre at Srebrenica" and devotes a sustantial chapter to detailing that 'massacre'. The ICTY judgement effectively distinguishes between an event, the actual 'killing spree', by calling it "the massacre" and the crime committed there, ie 'genocide'.

Nowhere do I make the (frankly absurd, self-contradicting) claim that the guilty verdict says a genocide did not occur. I have corrected you on this several times and yet you 'doubled down' by repeating this claim rather than retract, apologise and strike the claim. To misread once is human, to repeat the misreading repeatedly looks like much worse than carelessness. Thus, I do not now apologise for saying above anyone stupid or crude-thinking enough to be unable to understand the distinction between what the source calls the actual killings and the crime it endorses the 'guilty verdict' for, probably has no business editing this article. But I don't believe you are either stupid or crude thinking, I believe that you consider it your right to make personal attacks, (as part of a battle ground approach to editing) as you have directly said on my article talk when called upon to stop a previous return to speculating on talk as to which of your fellow editors were "Serb revisionists".

In the context of the Srebrenica massacre, saying someone denies the genocide, or claims that sources say that, is an overt personal attack. It questions their intelligence, competence and neutrality apart from deeply offensive in itself. I ask you to clearly concede that I have NEVER made any such claims nor said that sources make such claims and strike each of the repetitions of this that you have recently made. If you do not do so, I will be interpreting it as confirmation that you consider it your right to intentionally misrepresent editors' views, and will report you.

I don't ask you to strike comments about me or other editors being Serb revisionists/apologists or similar, since you would be striking comments almost all the way back to your arrival on this page and most of them, although they leave a rancid smell, are actually too silly for words. But if such idle speculations are made again on talk, I will be reporting you. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a case of mixing up Hanlon's razor. I suppose I gave you more credit than you deserved – you're functionally illiterate. You cannot even wrap your head around basic English syntax and grammar – how is possible to disagree with a non-restrictive appositive? Your posts here are ridiculous. And now you want to bully, harass, and intimidate others into accepting your lack of understanding of what a genocide is? 122141510 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The tone here has gotten bad enough that I'll be filing this dispute at WP:ANI unless I see a quick improvement. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If there won't be any direct intervention from you or any other administrator without an ANI being filed, then it should be filed. Pincrete is already undermining the RfC which was expressly submitted for the purpose of formally soliciting opinions from anyone else, rather than him and I continuing to bicker, and not yet another talk page section in which he might attack me in. 122141510 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Edit warring and accusations of bad faith about Srebrenica massacre. (FYI, I am not an administrator.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should the first sentence contain either the term 'genocidal killing' or 'genocidal massacre'?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the first sentence contain the term 'genocidal killing' and/or 'genocidal massacre'? The article as a whole is in some ways separated from events preceding and following, which confounds the chronology somewhat. Nonetheless, for the period of time as has been defined (which isn't exactly idiosyncratic) events from July 11-31 1995, as conventionally understood as the "Srebrenica genocide" and/or "Srebrenica massacre", are neither limited to 'genocidal killing' or 'genocidal massacre'. This is reflected in the article and sources, which document, for example, the rape of women and children, and continued deportation/forcible relocation of citizens of Srebrenica.

Neither the phrases "genocidal killing" nor "genocidal massacre" are expressly used in the sources linked as support for the phrase, which has been added and removed in various edit wars for the past several days – the terms are potentially WP:OR, and certainly non-exhaustive. However, they are typically understood as excluding the aforementioned additional actions which are recognized as part of the Srebrenica genocide, such as when in other contexts the terms "genocidal killings and rape", "genocide and rape", imply different things. See also the article genocidal rape and the concerns which it brings up.

I submit that it's simply easier and more concise to go with the formulation The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide... Of course, the entire sentence has formulation issues – it goes on to say of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War, but as it currently exists, and in the hopes of putting an end to an edit war and making some progress in conversation, it seems necessary to take it a step at a time. 122141510 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• I support terms massacre and genocide per terms used in sources. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding massacre – I would understand "Srebrenica massacre", in effect colloquially, including killing, rape, and relocation as has been documented in this article. What about "massacre" on its own? Would a formulation like The Srebrenica massacre [...] was the massacre include or omit the additional actions? 122141510 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you reformulate that. I didn't understand. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If you say "Srebrenica massacre", then I understand it as currently meaning everything that's in the article – the killing of citizens of Srebrenica, and rape of citizens of Srebrenica, and forced deportation of citizens of Srebrenica.

If you just say "massacre", then I understand that as only talking about the killing. The dictionary definition of massacre is, per Wikitionary, The killing of a considerable number (usually limited to people) where little or no resistance can be made, with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and/or contrary to civilized norms.

If there is no dispute with these definitions, then saying "the Srebrenica massacre was the massacre..." is technically incorrect, because it doesn't include the rape or deportations. My question was a more open-ended attempt to see if I'm correct without a simple "do you agree"? 122141510 (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, The Srebrenica Massacre with capital 'S' and 'M' is the name of the event which includes everything described in the article. The event was a genocide. Term massacre with lowercase 'm' is a general term with the meaning described in any dictionary. The Srebrenica Massacre was not merely a massacre. It was also a genocide and it includes other crimes then just a massacre, plus an intent to destroy the group. This is all written in the article named 'The Srebrenica Massacre'. Trimpops2 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT is irrelevant. Please read WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Secondary for what sourcing is expected on Wikipedia, even on discussions. Soni (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment from submitter. For those suspecting this is a reaction to the move request failing, in some regards it effectively is. This RfC is informed from consulting with ChatGPT 4 (legacy model). I asked the following questions; 1. does the term 'srebrenica genocide' necessarily include the killing AND rape AND deportation? does the term 'srebrenica masssacre' necessarily exclude any of these? GPT 4 response to Q1 The term "Srebrenica Genocide" typically refers to a series of events that occurred in July 1995 during the Bosnian War, specifically targeting the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) population of Srebrenica. This term generally encompasses the mass killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, as well as acts of rape, and the forced deportation of Bosniak women, children, and elderly. Thus, the use of "genocide" acknowledges not only the mass killings but also the systematic nature of the atrocities intended to destroy, in part, a national, ethnical, or religious group, as such. On the other hand, "Srebrenica Massacre" typically refers more specifically to the mass killing aspect of these events. It focuses on the execution-style killings that occurred, which are the most documented and recognized elements of the atrocities. This term does not explicitly exclude the consideration of rape and deportation but is generally less comprehensive in scope regarding the full range of crimes committed during the genocide. Both terms are heavily loaded and carry significant historical, legal, and emotional weight, reflecting different aspects of the same events. The use of either term can imply different emphases in discussion or analysis, with "genocide" addressing the broader, systematic attempt to destroy a group and "massacre" focusing more on the act of mass killing. 2. colloquially, would the term 'srebrenica massacre' be understood as including the additional, because it is so often used interchangeably with 'srebrenica genocide'? GPT 4 response to Q2 Colloquially, when people refer to the "Srebrenica Massacre," they often are aware of the broader context of the events that occurred, including the associated acts of rape and deportation, especially because the terms "Srebrenica Massacre" and "Srebrenica Genocide" are frequently used interchangeably in various discussions and media. This interchangeability means that even though "massacre" primarily connotes the killings, the general public might still understand it to imply the broader atrocities due to the widespread knowledge of the event's comprehensive brutality. However, the understanding can vary depending on the individual's depth of knowledge about the events, the context in which the term is used, and the specificity required by the discussion or narrative. For those more familiar with the historical and legal distinctions, "massacre" might be seen as more specific to the killings, while "genocide" would explicitly include the wider range of crimes. In particular, For those more familiar with the historical and legal distinctions, "massacre" might be seen as more specific to the killings, while "genocide" would explicitly include the wider range of crimes. is generally my understanding. The event is colloquially referred to as 'Srebrenica massacre' but is technically incorrect – but it's at least in contention for WP:COMMONNAME, so it stands as the title of the article for now. Doubling down on that by defining the event in and of itself as either a massacre or a genocidal killing omits the additional actions. It's the For those more familiar with the historical and legal distinctions, that might actually be the more pertinent question to answer – who do we expect to read this article? what level of familiarity do we expect? – but given one of the first sources linked is a 19 page appeal judgement summary from the ICTY, I assume we're necessarily expecting some heightened level of familiarity. Ergo, the first sentence of the article is formulated incorrectly. No? 122141510 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's all well and fine but human curation of information generated by ChatGPT to clarify understanding and direction of conversation in a highly contentious topic is not a flagrant abuse, and I wasn't going to frame the conversation as being necessarily beholden to the information. @Soni: with respect, not the most helpful contribution here. 122141510 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can use ChatGPT to generate this information, you should be able to find sources to support your arguments, directly or otherwise. All GPT does, human curated or not, is regurgitate the same information from Wikipedia and other sources, but without the ever important attribution.

Personally, I think this RFC itself should also be closed, simply because of WP:STICK. There was an RM, then an ongoing Move review. You do not need an RFC on effectively the same broad question before that MR itself is closed. I recommend WP:3O or WP:DRN (and as a last resort WP:ANI) to resolve all questions at-large instead of a lengthy RFCs (or similar) on every sub-decision of this article. Soni (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that. I am simply not interested in another edit war and round of harassment from Pincrete. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests did not clearly delineate the best option about how I might save myself another week of arguing with that editor. If RFC is not the best method by which to request input on a specific content issue from a broad number of uninvolved users then I've probably picked the wrong mechanism. But that an uninvolved editor can jump to censure any mention of ChatGPT before contributing to the RfC, or intervening in the above endless argument, or the ongoing edit war (of which myself and Pincrete are not the only parties, hence my assumption WP:3O was not the best choice), is unimpressive. 122141510 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right on 3O, apologies. As for the rest of it, I did weigh in, saying "This should have been closed because I think the Move Review is too connected to the question being asked". The overall discussion is nearly 54K words (or 2 tomats), expecting every editor to contribute after reading it all is a bit of a timesink. The first thing I read was an irrelevant argument that should be struck, so I hatted it. Editors can and should do that even regardless of how much they involve themselves in the rest of discussion. Soni (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors are endorsing a move which does not even have an effective rationale – I mentioned I empathise and appreciate that anyone trying to close that review should be thanked for having the time, patience, and willing to put themselves up to criticism. Regardless, it seems to me that the move review is looking to endorse the closed move request as it exists. As such the article needs to be addressed with its current title, and part of that is that the opening sentence is being edited in a way that doesn't agree with the current title and in a manner that I am confused by, and the rationale given by the editor makes no sense. Given the fierce, volume-long defense and subsequent ad hominem attacks on me for arguing the opposing, I'm inclined to think there must be something behind that fury, hence the benefit of the doubt and attempting to solicit additional opinions. 122141510 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You could save my yourself self another week of arguing with that editor (me) by simply closing this 'fake RfC', reverting to the version that was stable for several years before you and the IP edit-warred in the present version, then start a discussion on talk. You could begin by explaining why you think describing the event as genocidal killing is not supported by sources. If a consensus of editors agree with 'your' text, it would of course stay. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You could begin by explaining why you think describing the event as genocidal killing is not supported by sources. I did in the RfC. Are you unable or unwilling to read it? 122141510 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Simply for clarification, do you mean that the term is not supported by sources because that specific phrase is not used by those currently used? Pincrete (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment The RfC isn't remotely neutrally phrased nor are all three of the options recently discussed actually offered by the proposer in a concise and neutral manner. A valid RfC might ask what should the opening sentence be? or identify the three opening sentences recently used in the article - with an option to suggest a 4th. By excluding from the discussion the most recent opening sentence (inserted by an IP in the last few days and edit-warred into place by the proposer, only a few hours before starting this RfC), the proposer is simply inviting participants to reject two previous versions and thus implicitly endorse his favoured one, or enshrine it in 'stable' position, despite it never having received even tacit approval by any editor other than himself. Snow close as pointless, while the move review is ongoing. Not neutrally phrased, and not actually representing all the options under discussion and content which is disputed.Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: this editor is party to the edit war, despite their implication otherwise. They have rejected any opportunity to constructively participate in consensus-building conversations in multiple conversations ongoing on this talk page. The RfC is hopefully an attempt to proceed with constructive edits to the article. 122141510 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how I imply that I am not a party to this dispute, but ask anyone with the stomach to do so, to read The genocide was the genocide the section above to judge for themselves who they believe to be attempting to constructively participate in consensus-building conversations.

I have clearly stated that I am open to any suggestions as to what the opening sentence should be, but certainly believe that this version which had the tacit approval of all editors for several years, until only a few weeks ago, should be the version used pending a new consensus. It is the convention, that we use the stable version until a new agreement is reached, unless pressing reasons exclude it. That version opens: "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 etc". There are no 'pressing objections' to that text that I can see.

The version currently in place which has never received even tacit approval from any editor apart from an IP who first inserted it a few days ago and the proposer of this RfC, who edit-warred it into place only hours before opening this RfC, and which is even excluded from discussion in this RfC, opens:The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide of more than 8,000 etc.

The proposer of this RfC is also one of the main participants of a recent (failed) move proposal which aimed to retitle the article as Srebrenica genocide they are also the proposer of a current move review aiming to overturn the outcome of the move discussion. I find it difficult to see this RfC as anything other than a bad faith attempt to circumvent the outcome of that failed move proposal by simply repeating the alternative title (Srebrenica genocide) as the opening, defining, sentence.

Ample sources exist that describe the event as a 'massacre', as a 'genocide' and describe 'killings'. That they don't use them in particular combinations is immaterial IMO, since the meaning remains the same. The ones presently used in the article almost certainly endorse all three words, the only question is which we want to use, in which order to most fully, clearly and neutrally describe the event. Pincrete (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the following diffs for editor's involvement in edit war; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note that in these editor asserts two different versions of the opening sentence as the "stable long term version", which is by definition impossible. Note also that editor continues to assert that he "find[s] it difficult to see the RfC as anything other than a bad faith attempt", but in the previous conversation they link to, have threatened to report me for pointing out that the overall character of their edits to this article are consequential as they lessen or otherwise diminish the definition of what a massacre is, as opposed to genocide. They continue to consistently disrupt conversation on this talk page, and are effectively undermining this RfC by continuing to write walls of text that serve to discourage or otherwise overwhelm editors from being able to participate. This allows a lack of consensus to ever form, which suits them fine, as they've clearly indicated in past conversation on this talk page a strong preference for the status quo. 122141510 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Killing more than 5000 unarmed people can hardly be "just a massacre". When someone kill a dozen people, it is dubbed as a massacre. Like Belgrade school shooting. As far as I know some verdicts given by the Court of Hague include the term "genocide". The Court said it was a genocide. So why are we even discussing about which term would be most appropriate? Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody AFAIK has ever said "just a massacre", certainly not in any discussion here. But it is simply a fact that sources use both terms with a slight preference for 'massacre' and not infrequently they describe the actual 'killings' as a massacre and the crime as genocide. Even the UN and ICTY in their official pronouncements have done that. This isn't strange, in other massacres the crime committed was murder. The terms are not mutually exclusive anymore than 'poisoning' and 'killing' are. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Pincrete is not familiar with definition of term genocide. See below. 122141510 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the issue then? Why don't you just come up with a solution that would work for all sides? Did you know that official Serbia has been desperately struggling to make the event look more like an accident than an organized killing of dozen of hundred handcuffed men. Therefore it prefers the term "massacre" over "genocide" for the simple reason that the first one sounds less tragic than the later.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You can write in the first sentence that this massacre had genocidal intentions, that is the goal of eradicating the Muslims from the region. Perpetrators succeeded in his regards. Twenty nine years after the only trace of Muslims in that region left are mass graveyards.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The boat has sailed on what we call the article, a recent move request failed. It's called the Srebrenica Massacre because that is the term most often used by sources and has been for a long time. The first words for the few last years have been "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide,was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War." I personally think that long term version addresses your 'intent' concern. BTW, apparently we use the word 'genocide' more often than any articles about similar events, so it can hardly be argued that we are 'downplaying' that word. Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment. The RfC is limited to the first sentence, but the entire opening section would benefit from identifying the event correctly from the first sentence. It would reduce the need to clarify what is actually understood by the title of the event, which includes genocidal rape and forced deportation. Those opening sentences which formulate defining the event only as a massacre or a genocidal killing necessarily excluding these additional details and diminishes the event. It is no wonder past editors have felt obliged to reiterate the fact the event was a genocide in the full sense of the term, as the opening sentence has previously made this unclear. 122141510 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

How exactly does using the word 'genocide' communicate that rape and forced deportation occurred in a way that massacre excludes? Both of these things happened at Srebrenica of course and under certain circumstances "acts of extreme violence, such as rape and torture, are recognized as falling under the first prohibited act" (killing members of the group). Thus rape can be genocidal in intent/a manifestation of genocide/a common adjunct to genocide, but it is stretching credibility to suggest that the usual meaning of 'genocide' conveys either rape or forced deportation per se.

I agree that the article should identify the topic fully, clearly, concisely and accurately. We don't agree about the recent edit-warred-in version fulfilling that, or certainly about it being the clearest or only "correct" version. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide: Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people, either in whole or in part. [...] The Genocide Convention establishes five prohibited acts that, when committed with the requisite intent, amount to genocide. Genocide is not just defined as wide scale massacre-style killings that are visible and well-documented. International law recognizes a broad range of forms of violence in which the crime of genocide can be enacted [...] While mass killing is not necessary for genocide to have been committed, it has been present in almost all recognized genocides. In certain instances, men and adolescent boys are singled out for murder in the early stages, such as in the genocide of the Yazidis by Daesh, the Ottoman Turks' attack on the Armenians, and the Burmese security forces' attacks on the Rohingya. Men and boys are typically subject to "fast" killings, such as by gunshot. Women and girls are more likely to die slower deaths by slashing, burning, or as a result of sexual violence. The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), among others, shows that both the initial executions and those that quickly follow other acts of extreme violence, such as rape and torture, are recognized as falling under the first prohibited act. [...] This second prohibited act can encompass a wide range of non-fatal genocidal acts. The ICTR and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) have held that rape and sexual violence may constitute the second prohibited act of genocide by causing both physical and mental harm. [...] While it was subject to some debate, the ICTY and, later, the Syrian COI held that under some circumstances deportation and forcible transfer may also cause serious bodily or mental harm.

After extended conversation with someone such as yourself, I realized there are those who are unfamiliar with the language and terminology they are using who will very strongly and consistent assert information which is incorrect. The question I believe is worth tackling is thus, and part of what informs the RfC. i.e. or those more familiar with the material and the English language, "massacre" will only speak to the act of killing, and so "genocide" is necessarily required to remain as it is to contain the totality of events. Anything else is technically incorrect. But this leads to another question to answer – who do we expect to read this article? what level of familiarity do we expect? – but given one of the first sources linked is a 19 page appeal judgement summary from the ICTY, I assume we're necessarily expecting some heightened level of familiarity. At the least the format of Wikipedia means that genocide should remain in the opening sentence so that readers can familiarize themselves with the depths of the term – I encourage you to do the same. You continue to state stuff and nonsense as if any of it were factual. You've no idea what you're talking about, and I did not open the RfC to argue with you again. 122141510 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that rape can constitute genocide (I contributed to the 'Bosnian rape' article), nor that rape and other forms of extreme violence are common adjuncts to genocide, the question was How exactly does using the word 'genocide' communicate that rape and forced deportation occurred in a way that massacre excludes?. If you want to ensure that rape, forced deportation and other crimes are given clear, WP:DUE coverage, the obvious way is to cover them explicitly in the lead, not by assuming that the reader consults the genocide article and absorbs all of it.

I long ago apologised for initially forgetting that the long-term stable version was not "genocidal massacre" (inserted by Tom B around a month ago) but in fact "genocidal killing", which was in place for several years before that. Your favoured version has in fact never had the support of anyone, neither tacit nor explicit apart from you and the IP who initially inserted it a few days ago. You do not even invite RfC-ers to consider, examine, evaluate it alongside the other versions in (clearly unneutral) opening statement. Pincrete (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

At the least the format of Wikipedia means that genocide should remain in the opening sentence Err it is. It's the alternative title and no one has ever suggested removing that. It is even repeated at least once in all the proposed opening sentences. The question is whether we describe the event ONLY by repeating the alternative title. I don't particularly agree with the second part of your sentence so that readers can familiarize themselves with the depths of the term, we're mainly writing about what happened at Srebrenica, not on genocide.Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We're mainly writing about what happened at Srebrenica, not on genocide. A genocide happened at Srebrenica. 122141510 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed SNOW close of RfC

Unless anyone objects in the next 48 hours, I will close the above RfC, the proposing editor says he has left WP and the RfC is a bit futile without that editor being active.

I have already restored the long-term opening sentence (was the July 1995 genocidal killing of …). We can either discuss the various recent variants of this 'opening' and/or any other proposals, and if necessary run a new (neutral) RfC if agreement can't be reached here. Pincrete (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Closed as proposed.Pincrete (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Pincrete, I am reading the discussion above. It simply draws my attention that you used every argument at your disposal to discourage the use of genocide in the title. Strangely enough, at the same time, you allow the term genocidal killings to be used. So, in other words, my logic tells me: If something is dubbed as "genocidal killings", then it can be called genocide for short.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Владимир Нимчевић, are you talking about the move discussion, or the opening sentence discussion? The alternative title of the article is Srebrenica Genocide, it is in the opening sentence of the lead, which already has more instances of the word 'genocide' than the Holocaust or any comparable event, so I can hardly be accused of using every argument at your disposal to discourage the use of genocide in the title. It's there already, multiple times! What is the simplest, clearest way to describe what happened at the Srebrenica massacre/genocide? Is the relevant question.

The 'genocidal killings' text was the long-term stable text, I have few strong feelings about it either way but restored it pending discussion.I do strongly object to simply repeating the alternative tile as the opening text, on stylistic as well as other grounds. Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence states that massacre is a genocide (that is genocidal killings). I hardly see any difference between a genocide and genocidal killings. In fact, those two words are pretty much the same. The adjective genocidal comes from the word genocide, it means "something related to a genocide". If something is related to a genocide, why don't we call it a genocide in the first place? When speaking about your sources, you may have come across more instances of mentioning Srebrenica massacre than of Srebenica genocide, but still this article admits that this massacre wasn't just any other massacre committed during the war. It was a genocidal massacre. In other words, it is a genocide, after all, but you call it a massacre, even though you define it as a genocide. If something. Remember the saying: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, you are not accussed, we are not in court. I am just sharing my point of view. I see an inconsisitency in your argumentation as mentioned above.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The opening sentence calls it both a genocide and a genocidal killing: "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim[s]." What's the problem with that? Also, "genocide" encompasses more than killing. The UN Convention defines 5 genocidal acts only one of which is killing. (See Article II here) Using the term "genocidal killing" is therefore the correct subset for this particular genocide. DeCausa (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

My friend, so you also agree that this sentence can be interpreted as saying: "Srebrenica massacre... was the July 1995 genocide, (the type of genocide which involves killing)." If something is defined as a genocide (which is the case here), then it should be named so. I see no point in saying that this event is also known as a genocide, if we define it as a genocide in the first place. It is like we are saying: A ball, also known as a sphere, is a spherical object. That is duplicating, and duplicating is neither a good style nor a encyclopedic.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The main issue is what genocidal killings actually mean in this context. If it the other way of saying that Srebrenica massacre is a genocide (the type of genocide that involves killings), then there is no point in keeping the part of the sentence that says: also known as Srebrenica genocide. In other words, that's repeating.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All the more reason why this should be named Srebrenica genocide is that the term genocidal killings used in the opening sentence actually leads to the article genocide.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are talking about? What specifically do you want changed? DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't you see there is a repetition in the opening sentence? "Srebrenica massacre, also known as Srebrenica genocide, is a genocide..." Genocidal killings is just another way of saying a genocide that involves mass killings... Even the link in the sentence leads to the article related to genocide. From what I see here, this should be named Srebrenica genocide. The only problem, as far as was able to see, is that sources tend to use the term massacre, rather that genocide. Also, the article is part of the category Bosnian genocide. So Srebrenica massacre is either part of the Bosnian genocide, of which we don't have an article, or a genocide itself. The first sentence says everything.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't know what you want to change it to? I don't see any problem with the current sentence so what are you proposing it to be changed to? Or are you just talking about the article title. You need to be clear - what are you proposing?DeCausa (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am saying from what is given here, in this article, this should be named Srebrenica genocide. You don't see any repetition? That is strange. This sentence would sound more natural had it been written this way: Srebrenica genocide, also known as Srebrenica massacre, was the act of killing etc.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, can't do that. We follow WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre is perhaps a more common name than Srebrenica genocide, but Srebrenica massacre is defined as genocide here. Thus, this article is essentially about genocide, but the genocide is titled as massacre.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There has only just recently been a move discussion, to rename, followed by a review of the move discussion, followed by … .

That bird has flown I'm afraid, whatever anyone's notion of what the article title should be, it's 'massacre' for the foreseeable future, because that is still the name most commonly used to describe the event. Quite a few genocides don't have that word in their title, most obviously the Holocaust. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither the bird has flown, nor the ship has sailed away. How did you come to such a conclusion? Did you read a lot of articles and books on the subject, or do you just suppose it this as you say it is? Holocaust is a different story. It was coined before the term genocide was introduced. This article is related to an instance of genocide (genocidal killings, as you say), but, strangely, you refuse to name it the same way. So Srebrenica massacre it is a genocide after all. But you just do not want to allow it to be titled likewise. It is essential to be aware of that fact. Now I can add the article to a category related to genocides.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is already added to a genocide category. Look at the list of categories at the bottom of the. article. You seem to fail to understand Wikipedia article naming policy or previous discussions including the RfC. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen several sources cited in this article that use the term genocide in the title, yet still, you keep saying the more common name is the Srebrenica massacre. Where is your evidence that the latter is true? Few months ago the UN declaration was adopted, removing any ambiguity about interpreting this event. It should be viewed as an act of genocide. Naturally, the Serbian side has maintained its separate stance, but that does not mean others should follow the Serbian suit. Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

have seen several sources cited in this article that use the term genocide in the title, yet still, you keep saying the more common name is the Srebrenica massacre. Where is your evidence that the latter is true? Errrr No one disputes that some sources refer to the incident as SG (that's why it's an alternative title FFS!). The UN and ICTY use both terms in different contexts, the UN has recently favoured SG, but we don't follow UN usages.

The evidence that SM was much more common than SG in the past and is now slightly more common is in the move discussion, please read it. We don't follow, nor seek to go against fringe positions, such as Serb deniers, just as we don't seek to marginalise flat-earthers or covid conspirators. Pincrete (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've also not seen the evidence that the most common name is massacre. The move request is pending review. Also, Pincrete, I wasn't really convinced by this comment of yours [6]. Also, I'm very well familiar that the genocide is heavily denied in Serbia and it's just natural that people who deny the genocide would like to "lower" it to "only" massacre. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much problems with the lead sentece regarding the info presented. It clearly defines the event as genocide. I'm not really interested whether it can be forumated in a better way, just the info given. I was advocating to rename the article into the Srebrenica genocide because that term is more precise and it can't be misinterpreted as "mearley a massacre, but not genocide". Trimpops2 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead alone currently uses 'genocide' or 'genocidal' nine times, that's eight times more than the Holocaust I believe! While I would not wish to give comfort to 'deniers', countering them isn't our purpose, they wouldn't take us seriously anyway IMO. Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have probems with article text in regards that it describes the even as genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I remind you that Holocaust was coined before the term genocide was introduced. Holocaust was introduced to emphasize those murders carried out by the Nazis.

Errrr No one disputes that some sources refer to the incident as SG (that's why it's an alternative title FFS!).

Come on, Pincrete, you can do better than that. SG wasn't merely an incident. The killings were committed on purpose. Systematically. Even the Dutch forces helped Mladic realize his evil plans (unintentionally and indirectly, of course) by handing over those civilians (unarmed men). Those were cold bloody murders. No one can deny that. Even the Serbian side can't deny they actually took place. I remember the time when they denied they even happened on their watch. They wanted the world to think some other forces carried out those attrocities and that no killing was committed on Serbian part. Incident? That is exactly what those deniers expect us to think. They don't want any responsibilities on their shoulders. And you should not make it easy for them. There are a lot of references that mention the event as SG. I haven't started counting them, but I think I should do that.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are free to edit the article. I don't see why Pincrete would have any objections to different forumation for the lead sentece as long as it contains all info as present sentece. It doesn't matter if the presente sentece is longstanding. If you think it can have a better formulation that's more clear and less repetative, I don't see any problems there. What's your purposed sentece? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No one has said "merely an incident". An incident = an event (the term you use) = something that happened! Pincrete (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

But, can you understand that some have implied "merely" a massacre , but not genocide? Or merely war crime, but not genocide, or merely killings, but not genocide? Do you understand that not every massacre is genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think I have ever heard anyone say "merely" a massacre , but not genocide, though I've heard all kinds of 'denial' iro Srebrenica. If they have said this then it's an extremely odd thing to say. It's like saying "merely" a bloodbath , but not murder, "merely" mass slaughter, but not homicide. It isn't even clear what these mean.

But people will find all sorts of ways to 'downplay' extreme behaviour if they are determined to do so. Holocaust deniers will typically say that "the numbers who died are greatly exaggerated", without saying how they know this or what the 'real' numbers are. WP is an encyc making available factual info to those curious enough to want to read it, it isn't an organisation seeking to fight or negate 'denial'. When challenged about this earlier you produced ample sources that said that Serb politicians denied the genocide, but none that appeared to have said "merely" a massacre. Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I said that they implied the word "merely". What they say is something like "a terrible massacre, but not genocide". Do you understand that the meaning is the same? Not genocide is the key point there. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment on the article title

It's surprising that opponents of the move are being labeled as giving cover for genocide deniers when one good reason to use the massacre title imo is that it leaves ambiguity between the view that the Bosnian genocide did not extend beyond srebrenica (the view of the icj and icty iirc) and the view that it was a broader event (favored by more than a few historians and scholars such as Martin Shaw). Moving the page to srebrenica genocide indicates the former position, while the current title leaves open the interpretation that it was part of a genocide, rather like the Babi Yar massacre (not Babi Yar genocide). (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica changed title to Srebrenica genocide

Check it here: https://www.britannica.com/event/Srebrenica-genocide 77.77.216.185 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

2020 addition to Srebrenica

An issue had been noticed at Talk:Srebrenica#"British Army documents declassified in 2019". This was apparently added in an anonymous edit in 2020. If there's something useful for this topic there, it should be added here instead. --Joy (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

BTW in 2024, another editor had also amended it with this change with the edit summary: Added a page that has the quoted letter visible - source is very pro-serb, shows other articles at end though. --Joy (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)