The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Bleiburg repatriations is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles
Bleiburg repatriations is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
I have been actively participating in an ongoing move request for the [Srebrenica massacre page] and have found myself reminded of this article's title several times (I am hardly the first and will probably not be the last editor to suggest these two articles are similar in apparent controversy). I have always considered myself as strongly preferring the current title to the previous title, but am realizing that this may be a violation of WP:RGW(at least on my part).
This article was originally titled Bleiburg massacre, but one of the running themes of the 2014 move request was that 'massacre' was WP:POV and so the title necessarily needed to change [1]. However, is massacre inherently POV in this context, given the article itself discusses 'massacre' as an outcome, and there are several sources in this article which characterize the event as a massacre? Further, since Google Search, Google Trends, and Google Scholar all point towards Bleiburg massacre as the WP:COMMONNAME over Bleiburg repatriations, what is the explanation for the current title of this article, and/or what would be the objections raised in a move request to restore the previous title? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the same arguments used in previous move requests. If you haven’t read all the previous move requests and the arguments and sources referred to, I strongly suggest you do so. Most of what you have stated above just isn’t borne out by the evidence. I also reject the argument that there is any real comparison between the titling issues here and the Srebrenica article.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did so and would ask you to clarify as my questions come after reading those things. My question/points are based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines and evidence, which to me suggest the article should be Bleiburg massacre. Suppose this is my first day on this site. What's the short, simple explanation you'd give me? --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is described most recently at /Archive 6. We would need to split the article to distinguish the repatriation that happened at Bleiburg and the massacres that happened elsewhere. If you have time to start drafting such new articles, please feel free. --Joy (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it unfair to paraphase as such; "If two titles are non-optimal, whatever the current title is persists, even if it's the less optimal of the two titles?" Couldn't editors just race to be the first to title an article and then maintain it indefinitely by pointing out technical deficiencies with any alternate, even if it's a better title? Does this site not have a remedy for that? --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either you have not read it or you have not absorbed the arguments. You ask questions already answered in those discussions, and make statements unsupported by the reliable sources. I have had a look at the Srebrenica article talk page, and have no wish to be bludgeoned with walls of text. If the way you have dismissed the important point Joy made above is indicative of what we can expect, then I have neither the time nor the patience to lead you through the arguments which have been set down quite clearly in the talk archive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the time nor the patience to be talked down with so much sanctimony versus answer a simple question. Yes, I read the discussion and absorbed the arguments. I do not "buy" the arguments. I suspect Wikipedians have learned how to 'weaponize' policy as bludgeons and the long existence of the site has served as a sort of 'evolutionary pressure' to select for those most capable of that kind of ingenious weaponization of the judiciary. I'm open to have my mind changed and am asking fairly open-ended questions to collect information, and where I find apparent inconsistencies I ask for clarification to understand what I'm overlooking. Whether on serious topics like genocide or as light-hearted and trivial as Korean pop music, I've encountered obnoxious editors such as yourself who want to tell me how little "time" you have. If you don't have time to help, don't reply at all. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AVNOJ1989 you started talking about "editors racing to be the first to title an article and then maintain it indefinitely". This is simply not what happened, and that fact is well documented in the talk archives that have been very clearly linked. The current article title was chosen as a rough compromise after a community discussion, and later discussions failed to produce a new consensus. Not because of any sort of an editor conspiracy, but for reasons that should be made clear by reading those arguments. The remedy for that issue is further consensus-building discussion, not shooting from the hip like you did and then continuing to flame someone who told you that you were doing that. You will find that people are more willing to listen if you in turn actually listen to them. --Joy (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
