Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Is the term massacre for Srebrenica genocide controversial?

The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". (Changed from this [1], to have sentence that is sourced)

1. Is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide? (Note that I changed it with from this [2], I hope that no one will complain that I changed the meaning of the question )
2. Should the article have a separate section explaining that controversy

Trimpops2 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree on point 1, as the term is massively used in some countries to deny the genocide. Agree on point 2 as the readers are not being served neutral information by ommiting the wide usage of the term to paint a completely different narrative to the event. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• (1) Is the term massacre controversial? Yes, when deliberately used instead of 'genocide' in this specific context. One need only look at this article's talk history and the ongoing move request to see there is a controversy regarding the choice of terminology. In 2013, the then-Serbian prime minister acknowledged a "crime" took place at Srebrenica, but felt short of calling it a genocide [3]. For those who wish to deny the genocide, this seems to be the approach they prefer to take. For example, there is a text called The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics [4], which is dedicated to discrediting evidence proving a genocide took place (it is the sort of text which puts the word genocide in quotes). You will find, however, it has no problems using the term "Srebrenica massacre".

(2) Should the article have a separate section explaining that controversy? I think a section not dissimilar to what exists on the Bleiburg repatriations page may be appropriate (not for nothing, that page used to be called "Bleiburg massacre"). However, it's a section which any editor should take great care to avoid veering into original research regarding. I am not sure if there is any primary literature that's comprehensively documented who chooses to refer to it by which name and what those individuals/organizations believe they achieve in doing so. 122141510 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the term "massacre" is also used by objective sources which do not deny the genocide. However, it is widespreadly used in Serbia to deny the "mens rea". Terms massacre and genocide are not equivalent as not all massacres are commited with "mens rea" , thus not constituting genocide. This is why it's prefferable in Serbia to use the term "massacre". It's not controversial when it's related to actus reus of the genocide, but cannot be used to deny the "mens rea". This is widespreadly used in Serbia by long standing president and the whole goverment for the past 2 decades, which led to the recent UN resolution condemning such acts of denial. It's not controversial for all parts of the world, but is controversial in Serbia where most of the population would argue the term "genocide" is controversial, based on the argument that "massacre" is not "genocide". Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 21:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

One other thing I'd add – the parallels to the Bleiburg repatriation article are abound on top of what I already mentioned. In 2016, an editor asked if the article should be moved back to 'Bleiburg massacre', editors offered an emphatic "NO" because they felt 'massacre' was POV [5]. Likewise, several editors supported that article's 2014 move because they felt 'massacre' was controversial [6]. Obviously, there are contexts where the term is controversial. --122141510 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Also the whole discussion above and the lead sentence "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide" is ridiculous to me. How to compare which term is more common when those two termy are not equivalent? Massacre is not genocide without "mens rea". Massacre is "actus reus" while genocide is "actus reus" and "mens rea". A massacre can't be "also known as" genocide regardless of how many sources are using which term. It simply isn't correct and I'm sure that objective sources explain this difference in the text, by not negating that "mens rea" had happened. As I said, not all massacres are genocides. The proper lead sentece should be someting line "Srebrenica Massacre which constitutes genocide". To repeat, you can't compare which term is more common of 2 distinct terms. Every objective source which is using the term "massacre" will definately mention that this specific massacre constitutes a genocide since "mens rea" was proved in front of international courts. In that case we can't cout that the source is using the term massacre in contrast to genocide as it is using both. I don't intend to read walls of text above, but you cannot count sources distnctly to "massacre" or "genocide" bucket. This is simply wrong and I would argue , deliberate. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The terms are not equivalent but many reputable sources refer to it as such. Wikipedia is not an area for original research but synthesizes information from primary resources, including the terminology they use, and does not necessarily comment on that terminology unless it finds a source that comments on it. As the first example which comes to mind, even though Caryn Elaine Johnson is her real name, everyone knows her as Whoopi Goldberg, and so that is the title of her Wikipedia article – but both names are mentioned in the lede. I firmly believe that this article should be moved to Srebrenica genocide, but do not think there is a strong case to remove the term 'Srebrenica massacre' from the lede (never mind the rest of the title). It's comparable to those who question the legitimacy of the vote that passed the resolution to recognize the Srebrenica genocide as such – they're missing the point entirely. Even if they convinced us the method was completely illegitimated, it wouldn't change the fact the resolution passed, and the resolution passed using that terminology. I believe you could make a convincing case that the term "Srebrenica massacre" is technically incorrect, but it wouldn't change the fact the term is commonly used and there are a number of sources that use that terminology. --122141510 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I'm not arguing to remove the term massacre nor that it's incorrect, nor that some sources are using that term. I was arguing that the term is widespreadly used in some countries , most notable Serbia, to negate that the genocide had happened. In my opinion that kind of usage is controverisal as none of the objective sources are negating the genocide had happened, regardles of which terminology they use. And if the article is going to use "massacre" terminology, this controvery should be explained in the article. It should be clear to the editor that the term massacre is used in controversial way by some who use it in such regard to negate the genocide and that the article , although using the term (since objective sources do), is not using it to deny the genocide. I'm arguing to mention the controversy, and that would make the reader aware that the term "massacre" is used objective in this article. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if the word 'massacre' is really being used to deny genocide, then it is certainly controversial. And yes, given that, there should be a section discussing it. Coalcity58 (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment This is a totally pointless and invalid RfC, it doesn't ask a specific question, it doesn't suggest a remedy, it isn't framed neutrally and there was no prior discussion to establish what the stumbling block is. The proposer is a new editor, and may well not be familiar with WP procedures, but someone needs to close this. But to respond to them briefly, I have no idea whether 'deniers' in Serbia or elsewhere use the word to downplay the seriousness of the event, in my limited experience not, they simply find ingenious 'defences' to deflect all guilt on any level. There is no reason to think they would "see the light" if a different word were employed. However if the proposer can find reliable sources that say that the choice of the term 'massacre' is used by denialists in that way, they can bring proposed text to this article or the related Bosnian genocide denial article. It would be unlikely to deserve a section unless there was widespread coverage in good sources. They don't need to waste editors' time by creating this 'talking shop'. Content is decided by prevalence in reliable sources, not what editors think.Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In your upper posts, you are saying "'Genocide' is only more precise if you think that legal rulings as to the intent of the event are the defining factor. They both convey aspects of what happened and neither 'pulls its punches'", "Androcide would actually be a more precise description of what happened.", "but this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide', " , "The ICTY ruling has been embraced by some to break with normal convention,", " the greatest war crime", " Whether it met the legal definition of genocide has been decided by a court and I have no reason to either dispute the court's findings, nor any obligation to endorse them by adopting their terminology".

You in fact are denying "mens rea" of the genocide. Genocide deyiers are accepting actus reus, and denying "mens rea". Their talkpoints are the same as you have just repeated, consise said: "it was a terrible crime (massacre...etc) , but no genocide".

Rfc is proper, I do suggest a remedy. The suggestion is to add a section to the article explaining the controversial meaning of the word. I haven't written the section in my purposal, but left it for the discussion. That's perfectly fine to do, I'm not writing a whole section in my purposal, which needs to be concise and clear.

I didn't post sources but it's well known how the genocide is denyed in Serbia, hence the recent UN resolution was brought to condemn such behavior. I can post some sources.

Reliable source do cover this widepread denial of genocide in Serbia ans some other countries. And since the term "massacre" is used in the article title, it has to be perfectly know that the term is controversial, and that the article doesn't conform to this controversial meaning of the term Trimpops2 (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You and some other editors are failing to recognise the difference between the statements: "This is a massacre , but not genocide" and "this is a massacre which is genocide". Massacre without "mens rea" is not genocide. Not all massacres are genocides. You are comparing two terms with different meaning to be the same. And when you say " the greatest war crime" and fail to follow up that this greatest war crime had the intent to destroy the group , you are just denying the genocide. No objective sources would fail to complemen the " the greatest war crime" claim with the info that this specific war crime is a genocide, unless they specifically deny the genocide in the later text. And those are the sources you are using. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources:

1. "Serbia’s president apologized Thursday for the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, but declined to characterize the killings as an act of genocide." [7]

2. "Srebrenica was a “mistake” and a “huge crime,” ,“But it wasn’t genocide.” Bosnian Serb separatist leader Milorad Dodik told" [8]

3. "Montenegrin lawmakers on Thursday ousted a pro-Serb government minister who denied the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica was genocide." [9]

4. It would be good to find one such statement from current Serbian president , but he's more careful in his wording when giving statements on English. I'll have to search through Serbian sources later.

Trimpops2 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As shown here, those who deny the genocide are using the term "massacre" or some other equivalent term like "huge crime" to recognize actus reus, but they are denying the genocide by denying "mens rea". Trimpops2 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This are just examples, but the denial is widespread. I could post numerous other sources, but I don't want to wate my time for such an obvious thing. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)want to wate my time for such an obvious thing. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, I myself referred to Nikolic earlier when I spoke of a handful of Serb politicians accept the term 'massacre' but dispute 'genocide', they don't offer reasons for their distinction I think,. The sources you offer endorse that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. They don't say why he did that, nor AFAIK has any WP:RS even conjectured why, what his motive was. Certainly not the motives you ascribe to him. Nikolic's rejection is, and has long been in this article already, but there is no way WP is going to endorse the addition you want those who deny the genocide are using the term "massacre" or some other equivalent term like "huge crime" to recognize actus reus. It might seem obvious to you that this is what is happening and the motive for it, but the sources simply you offer don't justify including it, even ascribed as someone's opinion. You are trying to 'prove' what your own assessment is, rather than reflect what sources actually say. This is WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH at least. Ask another editor more aligned with your viewpoint if you don't believe me. Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources you offer endorse that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. Exactly what I was trying to argue here.

TThey don't say why he did that, nor AFAIK has any WP:RS even conjectured why, what his motive was Why should I care about why he said that? Not my interest.

Certainly not the motives you ascribe to him. Where do I ascribe any motives? I'm certainly not doing so.

As I said in my initial post. People who deny the genocide are using the term massacre (or some equivalent term like huge crime, mistake....etc). Also, there are sources that use the term massacre, but are not denying the genocide. This makes the term controversial, when used in the context which denies the genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The article already records, (twice), that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. So what addition are you proposing? You don't need to argue anything, he said it, we record it (twice).

Great, no objective regarding objectivity there. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why should I care about why he said that (his motives)? Not my interest, because you want to ascribe a motive to his actions (to recognise "actus reus" but deny "mens rea"), that is pure speculation on your part and, frankly. needlessly convoluted logic. My own conjecture was that he wanted to appease his 'foreign' audience, in order to encourage investment and improve his county's image, while not offending his local Serbian electorate, but neither of our interpretations is going to go into the article, both are surmisals. Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ascribing motives. You are with your "conjecture". I don't care about motives.

No specilations on my part. My argument is that to accept that a war crime , or "massacre" has happened, but to deny the gencoide is factually wrong, and that makes the term massacre controversial , because it's used to deny the genocide. Why would I need to speculate why someone is accepting massacre, but denying genocide? I don't need to do that. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

But, just for your info, to paraphase those who deny genocide , something what they are explicitly saying would go like this "Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide". This isn't even a discussion about this, but a discussion whether this makes the term controversia.

So to ask you directly. If I put forward the quote "Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide", do you agree that the term massacre is here used in this controversial context? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide". If anyone remotely important has said this fairly explicitly (not your paraphrase), or if an academic or similar has said that this is a phenomenon in Serb societal opinion., and if you have sources that make either claim explicitly, then it can probably go in this article or the related 'denial' article. Otherwise you are just wasting your time (and frankly ours). Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided sources which say that massacre happened, but genocide didn't. You agreed on that.

To admit that massacre happened, but genocide didn't. That conforms to my argument that the term massacre is controversial, because it's being used in the context of denying the genocide.

I don't need to answer why someone gave that statemet. Why would I?

I don't need to explain what that person who gave the statement thinks what lacks for massacre to become gencoide.

I'm just reporting that he does think so and that's a fact.

A reasonable explanation would be that they are denying the intent to destroy. This isn't only a reasonable explanation, but I've seen that explanation many times. I may go and find sources which explicitly say that, but I don't need that.

Please, explain why would I need to explain the reasoning behind someone's statement that massacre happened but not genocide, to claim that the term massacre in that statement is used in the context to deny the genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

My RfC question doesn't ask for any such question. I was very clear. I asked, is the term massacre controversial when used in context which denies genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I gave the best advice I could simply because you are a new editor and may not understand WP norms, such as the most basic one that every claim must be independently verifiable. A reasonable explanation would be that they are denying the intent to destroy. isn't verifying, it's conjecturing about what you personally think the explanation for this behaviour could be ie it's WP:OR.

I've given the best advice I could, but as I said before, if you don't believe me, ask another experienced editor if the sources you have provided verify the claims you want to make.

You don't need an RfC, you just need reliable sources that say the things you want to say explicitly. Pincrete (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not true. I can make conjecturing on talk page. I don't need to post sources for each of my claims. However, I have done so , but you are either not acknowledging them or are misreading. OR or SYNTH shouldn't enter the article, but I'm not suggesting so. So, if you are going to label someone a new editor, and give advices, don't give false advices. You made no effort to read my sources, let alone to find other source which would help this dicussion. You are just complaining about literally everything. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've given the best advice I could, but as I said before, if you don't believe me, ask another experienced editor if the sources you have provided verify the claims you want to make. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please quote any of my claims which isn't supported by sources. I went far and beond to do that, although that's not a requirement on talk page, contrary to your false advices. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment. It seems that some claims and suggestions, that are being made in this RfC, are very removed from any serious attempt to initiate a meaningful discussion on terminology. If some users are truly interested in terminological standards and scholarly applications of those terms, there are several well known scientific papers on the subject, written by foreign scholars. Here is a good example of the fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" in relation to other relevant terms ("The Bosnian Genocide and the Srebrenica massacre" by Marko Attila Hoare). That paper is using the term without any hint of denial, examining the entire issue in a wider context that is related to the term Bosnian genocide. The same terminological structure is reflected here, in present titles of articles on EW. In scholarly circles, fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" is not controversial. Sorabino (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

From Hoare; "The judicial recognition of the Srebrenica genocide was the result of a process that was not foreordained. [...] Not all the ICTY prosecutors wanted to prosecute suspects for genocide [as] there were those, such as Geoffrey Nice, who wanted to stick to lesser charges more likely to result in convictions. This reflected a difference of opinion, among prosecutors, as to whether the ICTY’s purpose was to put perpetrators behind bars, or to establish the correct historical record." I read this as showing how the framing of the events at Srebrenica is actively disputed. Some prosecutors wanted to stick to lesser charges that they felt were more 'effective', and some wanted to stick to more accurate charges that were more precise. Thank you for sharing this source. 122141510 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

122141510, Hoare is describing a dilemma common to many prosecutions, whether to "go for gold: and risk failure or whether to choose a lesser charge with more likelihood of success. The choice wasn't of course 'massacre' or 'genocide', since 'massacre' isn't a crime as such, in fact the two are 'chalk and cheese'. Is a cat a 'feline quadruped mammal' or is it a 'common domestic pet', obviously both terms are equally 'accurate'. 'Massacre' describes a mass-murder event, 'genocide' describes a crime - which usually, though not necessarily - involves mass killing, but which is crucially defined by intent to destroy … . Hoare says that the prosecution team thought that 'genocide' would establish the correct historical record, ie was more accurate than whatever the alternative crime they considered charging the accused with. That isn't surprising as it would be a strange prosecution team who didn't believe in the aptness of the charges being brought. How much proof the team had available to them as to intent, planning, etc., I don't know, but the racial motive was anyhow almost self-evident to a layman.

However, what the prosecution team thought was 'accurate' has no bearing whatsoever on this naming dispute. No one AFAIK, has ever argued in this dispute, or to the best of my memory on this talk page (except the occasional 'parachute in' IP) that what happened at Srebrenica was not planned and intended to destroy in part the Bosniak population of that region, (with the broader strategic aim of creating a geographically continuous, viable, ethnically 'pure' 'micro state' which could potentially attach itself to Serbia). Editors might quibble with the details of what I've just written, and I, and outside scholars, occassionally quibble with aspects of the use of the word 'genocide', but fundamentally you are 'kicking at an open door'. The discussion isn't about which term is more 'accurate', nor is 'genocide' more precise than whatever alternatives were available to the prosecutors.

No serious person now doubts the fundamentals of what happened at Srebrenica, but it is no part of our mission to track down and adopt the name we consider is is more 'accurate', nor to endorse it, nor, as it happens, to decide, or imply, as several people have done in this discussion, including yourself, that those who use or prefer a less contentious, better established name, must have sinister motives. Humankind decides COMMONNAME, based on usage, not the prosecution team at the trial, nor the UN, nor the US nor anyone else whose opinions have been invoked in this name discussion. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I was very clear. The term "massacre" or equivalent terms like "terrible crime", etc, are used by those who deny the genocide. Their stand is that although actus reus of the genocide had happened, there was no mens rea, thus there was no genocide. This is the official stand of the country of Serbia.

I have no problem when the term massacre is used, as long as there is no doubt that mens rea is being denied. This article is an example where the term massacre is being used objectively [10]. The article uses "massacre" in the title, but is not denying the genocide. There is no problem with that.

The controversy over the them "massacre" comes from that double usage. One usage is objective when genocide is not denied. The other usage is controverisal, when it is said that "only a massacre happened, but not genocide". I feel I'm repeating myself, but you keep misunderstanding the point.

I have no problem with your sources. Those are using the term, but are explaining that genocide happened.

I have problems when editors who say "this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide'" are arguing that the term massacre should be used.

Genocide is a higher crime than massacre. That's why they want to use the term massacre, not because they are objective.

Ok, let them push the term massacre to the title, by having the opinion that "this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide'", but the article must explain this controversy. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is a higher crime than massacre, no actually massacre isn't a crime at all. It's a generalised term like 'slaughter' used to describe cruel mass-murder, whereas 'genocide' is very specifically defined, but doesn't necessarily involve killing anyone. America, and several other countries, has formally recognised the Uyghur Genocide by the Chinese state, although we don't know of anyone having been killed. America etc argue that the Uyghurs are being persecuted to such an extent, that the intent is to destroy them as a people. 'Genocide' is generally thought of as being 'the worst crime of all' in general public use, but that's a different matter. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? The Srebrenica Massacre was a war crime, and that isn't disputed by anyone. By the Genocide Convention, genocide is a higher crime than the war crime of massacre. This really isn't open for a debate. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"A massacre isn't a crime" is going to be my example par excellence of Wikipedia editors that are lost in the sauce. I believe this is one of the only times (ever?) that anyone has ever put those words together in that order and meant to be taken seriously. 122141510 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A massacre isn't a crime as such. There is no named crime of "massacre". Depending on the circumstances, the perpetrators might be later charged with murder, racketeering or failing that, simply tax evasion, might be court martialled and afterwards subject to house arrest.They might ultimately be charged with extensive war crimes, but not genocide, which existed as a term but not as a crime at the time, or nothing might happen to them, as is the case with the vast majority of historic massacres.

If you can find an example of anyone ever being charged with 'massacre' (or 'slaughter' or other similar terms) I'd stand corrected, until then yes I did put those words together, yes they are factually correct, and yes I do expect to be taken seriously. Someone might be charges with a named crime because of their role in a massacre, but no one can be charged with a massacre, since it simply isn't a crime as such. Btw, I haven't touched the sauce since Xmas. Apology accepted. Pincrete (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You can go somewhere else to discuss sematics or law terminology. The Srebrenica Massacre is a war crime which constitutes actus reus of the genocide as proven before international courts. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't fundamentally dispute the second sentence, but using words accurately is important in an encyclopedia and isn't mere 'semantics'. The law terminology was introduced by you, no one else has even mentioned "actus reus" or "mens rea", I had to remind myself of approximately what they mean. Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If we talk about accuracy. Term genocide is more accurate, because, if you use the term massacre, and fail to further explain that this specific massacre constitutes genocide, this is factually incorrect. That is why the term genocide is more accurate because it consists of both "actus reus" and "mens rea".

And those who deny the genocide is Srebrenica are often admitting the "actus reus", that is, "massacre", "terrible crime", "huge crime", but are then denying the "mens rea". That makes the term massacre controversial, not because objective sources use it, but because those who deny the "mens rea". Trimpops2 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"A massacre isn't a crime as such." This is Wikipedia, not a high school debate club. In real terms, for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating. 122141510 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating I'm surprised that you aren't keen to endorse the very real difference between defined crimes (like murder, crimes against humanity, genocide etc etc) and generalised descriptors of killings which express disapproval, but have little specific, little common, and zero defined criminal element (massacre, slaughter, outrage, carnage, bloodbath etc). You can spend the rest of your life in prison if you commit one of the former, you can't if you commit any of the latter unless one of the former is also proven. I'm sorry that you see that difference as trivial, it actually endorses your position more than it endorses mine.

It wasn't me that initially tried to 'weigh' the seriousness of the two 'crimes', perhaps you should take up your argument (and insults) with the editor that did.Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment. It seems that some claims and suggestions, that are being made in this RfC, are very removed from any serious attempt to initiate a meaningful discussion on terminology. If some users are truly interested in terminological standards and scholarly applications of those terms, there are several well known scientific papers on the subject, written by foreign scholars. Here is a good example of the fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" in relation to other relevant terms ("The Bosnian Genocide and the Srebrenica massacre" by Marko Attila Hoare). That paper is using the term without any hint of denial, examining the entire issue in a wider context that is related to the term Bosnian genocide. The same terminological structure is reflected here, in present titles of articles on EW. In scholarly circles, fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" is not controversial. Sorabino (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

From Hoare; "The judicial recognition of the Srebrenica genocide was the result of a process that was not foreordained. [...] Not all the ICTY prosecutors wanted to prosecute suspects for genocide [as] there were those, such as Geoffrey Nice, who wanted to stick to lesser charges more likely to result in convictions. This reflected a difference of opinion, among prosecutors, as to whether the ICTY’s purpose was to put perpetrators behind bars, or to establish the correct historical record." I read this as showing how the framing of the events at Srebrenica is actively disputed. Some prosecutors wanted to stick to lesser charges that they felt were more 'effective', and some wanted to stick to more accurate charges that were more precise. Thank you for sharing this source. 122141510 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

122141510, Hoare is describing a dilemma common to many prosecutions, whether to "go for gold: and risk failure or whether to choose a lesser charge with more likelihood of success. The choice wasn't of course 'massacre' or 'genocide', since 'massacre' isn't a crime as such, in fact the two are 'chalk and cheese'. Is a cat a 'feline quadruped mammal' or is it a 'common domestic pet', obviously both terms are equally 'accurate'. 'Massacre' describes a mass-murder event, 'genocide' describes a crime - which usually, though not necessarily - involves mass killing, but which is crucially defined by intent to destroy … . Hoare says that the prosecution team thought that 'genocide' would establish the correct historical record, ie was more accurate than whatever the alternative crime they considered charging the accused with. That isn't surprising as it would be a strange prosecution team who didn't believe in the aptness of the charges being brought. How much proof the team had available to them as to intent, planning, etc., I don't know, but the racial motive was anyhow almost self-evident to a layman.

However, what the prosecution team thought was 'accurate' has no bearing whatsoever on this naming dispute. No one AFAIK, has ever argued in this dispute, or to the best of my memory on this talk page (except the occasional 'parachute in' IP) that what happened at Srebrenica was not planned and intended to destroy in part the Bosniak population of that region, (with the broader strategic aim of creating a geographically continuous, viable, ethnically 'pure' 'micro state' which could potentially attach itself to Serbia). Editors might quibble with the details of what I've just written, and I, and outside scholars, occassionally quibble with aspects of the use of the word 'genocide', but fundamentally you are 'kicking at an open door'. The discussion isn't about which term is more 'accurate', nor is 'genocide' more precise than whatever alternatives were available to the prosecutors.

No serious person now doubts the fundamentals of what happened at Srebrenica, but it is no part of our mission to track down and adopt the name we consider is is more 'accurate', nor to endorse it, nor, as it happens, to decide, or imply, as several people have done in this discussion, including yourself, that those who use or prefer a less contentious, better established name, must have sinister motives. Humankind decides COMMONNAME, based on usage, not the prosecution team at the trial, nor the UN, nor the US nor anyone else whose opinions have been invoked in this name discussion. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I was very clear. The term "massacre" or equivalent terms like "terrible crime", etc, are used by those who deny the genocide. Their stand is that although actus reus of the genocide had happened, there was no mens rea, thus there was no genocide. This is the official stand of the country of Serbia.

I have no problem when the term massacre is used, as long as there is no doubt that mens rea is being denied. This article is an example where the term massacre is being used objectively [11]. The article uses "massacre" in the title, but is not denying the genocide. There is no problem with that.

The controversy over the them "massacre" comes from that double usage. One usage is objective when genocide is not denied. The other usage is controverisal, when it is said that "only a massacre happened, but not genocide". I feel I'm repeating myself, but you keep misunderstanding the point.

I have no problem with your sources. Those are using the term, but are explaining that genocide happened.

I have problems when editors who say "this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide'" are arguing that the term massacre should be used.

Genocide is a higher crime than massacre. That's why they want to use the term massacre, not because they are objective.

Ok, let them push the term massacre to the title, by having the opinion that "this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide'", but the article must explain this controversy. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is a higher crime than massacre, no actually massacre isn't a crime at all. It's a generalised term like 'slaughter' used to describe cruel mass-murder, whereas 'genocide' is very specifically defined, but doesn't necessarily involve killing anyone. America, and several other countries, has formally recognised the Uyghur Genocide by the Chinese state, although we don't know of anyone having been killed. America etc argue that the Uyghurs are being persecuted to such an extent, that the intent is to destroy them as a people. 'Genocide' is generally thought of as being 'the worst crime of all' in general public use, but that's a different matter. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? The Srebrenica Massacre was a war crime, and that isn't disputed by anyone. By the Genocide Convention, genocide is a higher crime than the war crime of massacre. This really isn't open for a debate. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"A massacre isn't a crime" is going to be my example par excellence of Wikipedia editors that are lost in the sauce. I believe this is one of the only times (ever?) that anyone has ever put those words together in that order and meant to be taken seriously. 122141510 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A massacre isn't a crime as such. There is no named crime of "massacre". Depending on the circumstances, the perpetrators might be later charged with murder, racketeering or failing that, simply tax evasion, might be court martialled and afterwards subject to house arrest.They might ultimately be charged with extensive war crimes, but not genocide, which existed as a term but not as a crime at the time, or nothing might happen to them, as is the case with the vast majority of historic massacres.

If you can find an example of anyone ever being charged with 'massacre' (or 'slaughter' or other similar terms) I'd stand corrected, until then yes I did put those words together, yes they are factually correct, and yes I do expect to be taken seriously. Someone might be charges with a named crime because of their role in a massacre, but no one can be charged with a massacre, since it simply isn't a crime as such. Btw, I haven't touched the sauce since Xmas. Apology accepted. Pincrete (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You can go somewhere else to discuss sematics or law terminology. The Srebrenica Massacre is a war crime which constitutes actus reus of the genocide as proven before international courts. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't fundamentally dispute the second sentence, but using words accurately is important in an encyclopedia and isn't mere 'semantics'. The law terminology was introduced by you, no one else has even mentioned "actus reus" or "mens rea", I had to remind myself of approximately what they mean. Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If we talk about accuracy. Term genocide is more accurate, because, if you use the term massacre, and fail to further explain that this specific massacre constitutes genocide, this is factually incorrect. That is why the term genocide is more accurate because it consists of both "actus reus" and "mens rea".

And those who deny the genocide is Srebrenica are often admitting the "actus reus", that is, "massacre", "terrible crime", "huge crime", but are then denying the "mens rea". That makes the term massacre controversial, not because objective sources use it, but because those who deny the "mens rea". Trimpops2 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"A massacre isn't a crime as such." This is Wikipedia, not a high school debate club. In real terms, for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating. 122141510 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating I'm surprised that you aren't keen to endorse the very real difference between defined crimes (like murder, crimes against humanity, genocide etc etc) and generalised descriptors of killings which express disapproval, but have little specific, little common, and zero defined criminal element (massacre, slaughter, outrage, carnage, bloodbath etc). You can spend the rest of your life in prison if you commit one of the former, you can't if you commit any of the latter unless one of the former is also proven. I'm sorry that you see that difference as trivial, it actually endorses your position more than it endorses mine.

It wasn't me that initially tried to 'weigh' the seriousness of the two 'crimes', perhaps you should take up your argument (and insults) with the editor that did.Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"I'm surprised that you aren't keen to endorse the very real difference..." I'm very keen to elaborate the very real difference, but not as you've delineated it. You act like your arguments are rational and represent common consensus and convention, and regularly reject the idea your assertions have a burden of proof, but your arguments are fantastical and your assertion you have some neutral or 'common sense' bias is incorrect when you're willing to throw everything and the kitchen sink to assert that 'massacre' is the correct term here. In this case, it's the idea of a "massacre not being a crime", which is a phrase that that has barely ever been uttered in the English language. From ChatGPT; "A massacre, by definition, involves the indiscriminate and brutal killing of a large number of people, typically viewed as an atrocity and a crime". The 'exceptions' to the typical are provided as ancient warfare, colonial conquest, reprisals and collective punishment, and biblical accounts, in the context that these acts are sometimes not considered as crimes at the times they were done. It concludes with the statement that "It's important to note that modern legal and ethical standards almost universally regard massacres as crimes against humanity." So once again, you might try to shift the burden of proof back onto me, but it's on you to more clearly identify what universe you are in where a massacre is not a crime, and explain the relevance of your little slice of reality to Wikipedia and its readers. 122141510 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's pointless to discuss with that user and some other's here. He's literally complaining about everyhing. Now we are to explain to him that a massacre is a crime because it inovles killings. Then he's say that this is SYNTH that no source says that a crime that involves killings are massacre...at some point it's pointless to discuss with someone who is acting that way. Let the RfC do it's thing and if needed the formal closure will objectively distinguish between such comments and normal and objective comments. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

when you're willing to throw everything and the kitchen sink to assert that 'massacre' is the correct term here. Never once have I said that any term is the 'correct' one, not even 'more correct' or any synonym I believe. Nor do I personally believe any word is - meaningfully - more 'correct'. There are several terms which have commonly been used since the 1990s,some of which are still in common use, each has its virtues. The position that anyone not using a single 'official' term ought to change their usage and must have some sinister motive, for not doing so has (repeatedly) been the stance of those wanting a move and has been one of the ugliest manifestations of this move discussion. Assuming good faith is not optional. Newbies and IPs are forgiven for not knowing that, established editors really ought to know better.

You have made several very insulting responses to my attempt to explain to a newbie editor, whose first language may not be English, why the sentence Genocide is a higher crime than massacre doesn't really mean very much. Just as "genocide is a higher crime than bloodbath", wouldn't mean anything. 'Genocide' is a defined crime, massacre/bloodbath/carnage etc aren't. You take great umbrage and attempt to prove to me the fairly obvious (and acknowledged) fact that someone can be charged with specific crimes because of their participation in a massacre, but the sentence Genocide is a higher crime than massacre still doesn't actually mean anything. 'Genocide' is commonly perceived to be the "the epitome of human evil", which I also acknowledged, but massacre still isn't a crime in any meaningful sense. I imagine that even ChatGPT understands the difference between "typically viewed as (an atrocity and a crime) and "is".Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't call me newbie. And don't question my knowledge of English. I explained it at leat a dozen times that genocide is a higher crime than massacre in the sense that not only the crime itself needs to be proven, that is actus reus, but also the intent to destroy the group, that is , mens rea. Higer in the legal sense that it also needs the intent to destry to be proven. Why are you failing to acknowledge that? And when I say massacre I mean The Srebrenica Massacre which is a war crime. I don't mean just massacre, but and war crime, killings...etc. This is not open for debate, as this is only reporting how the The Genocide Convention defines genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Newbie" is fairly standard WP slang for a newly registered editor. No offence was meant, but I won't refer to you in that way agaim. Mistakes in your grammar and spelling, and remarks that you have made imply that English isn't your first language. That's an observation, not a criticism. Many non-native speakers make notable contributions to WP.

Massacre isn't a defined crime in any legal system AFAIK, so nothing can, or needs to be proven about it, except that people died. You are trying to compare two distinct things, one is a defined crime the other is a descriptive term, like 'slaughter' or 'bloodbath'.

Mens rea is a necessary precondition for conviction in most countries for almost all serious crimes, it isn't unique to genocide. It largely means that someone understood and intended the harm done by their guilty actions (if I understand the term correctly, I'm not a lawyer). Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Acting like it is an attack on you when you are asked to justify or elaborate on your viewpoint doesn't make your viewpoint any less WP:FRINGE. 122141510 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My views on the COMMONNAME of the murderous events that took place in Srebrenica are clearly endorsed by half of academia now, and more than that until the very recent past. My personal views on the event itself are totally my own business, and not a subject to be interrogated on by you or anyone. Even so, I could not possibly have been clearer or more explicit in my total and absolute condemnation of the killings and my clear statements about who was responsible for planning and carrying out those killings. What's fringe about any of that?

Even if what you say were even partly true, Assuming good faith is not optional. I don't consider people speculating about what kind of Serb apologist I am, or what kind of bad faith actor(as you did), or multiple insults because I point out that 'massacre' is a generic descriptive term, not a defined crime to be acting like it is an attack on me. Is that your idea of asking someone to justify or elaborate" their viewpoint? It isn't going to work well for you if it is. Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Quoting WP:AGW doesn't give you carte blanche to be a disruptive contributor to a discussion and object to being called out as disruptive. Half of academia does not agree with your fringe views, which are, expressly, the idea that a "massacre is not a crime" – as discussed later in this talk page, this is a phrase which has barely any inclusion in the recorded history of the English language prior to your statement of it here. This is just the latest of multiple disingenuous attempts on your part to reframe a conversation to feign innocence and cast aspersions on others. I haven't had time before, but will take you up on escalating to WP:ANI. You will be notified on your talk page when I have submitted a case there. 122141510 (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If a 'crime' is something which someone can be charged with in a criminal court, tried on, and punished for, (the most usual meaning) then a massacre isn't a crime. One can of course be charged with many things because of one's role in a massacre, from the relatively trivial, all the way up to murder, war crimes, genocide etc. This meaning was obvious from my first post, but your attempts to make the words mean something strange or sinister, simply fall flat.

If a 'crime' is no more than a generalised expression of disapproval, then 'a massacre' may well be described as being a crime, but then so would anything else that anyone has ever disapproved of! Pincrete (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat myself: the idea that a "massacre is not a crime" is a phrase which has barely any inclusion in the recorded history of the English language prior to your statement of it here. When your thought experiment leads to you repeating the same conclusion ad nauseum, and contradicts the language conventions of the United Nations (see above move request conversation for sources), US government (see above move request conversation for sources), government of British Columbia (see above move request conversation for sources), reliable mainstream media (see above move request conversation for sources), the International Court of Justice (see above move request conversation for sources), then you're either making some WP:POINT that has no bearing on reality and shouldn't be seen as instructive in Wikipedia conversations or editing, or else firmly believe in a WP:FRINGE view that doesn't deserve due weight in the article, or even the talk page for that matter. 122141510 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

More sources:

1 "Six months before the scandal, Serbian media reported extensively on the 25th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. However, the narrative focused not on the genocide and its victims but highlighted the date, July 11, as the anniversary of an alleged assassination attempt on Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic. " [12]

1.1 "No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide" [13]

1.2 "However, genocide denial has been the official policy of the Serbian state since the 1990s." [14]

3 "Vucic told U.N. members after the vote that all those involved in the Srebrenica massacre have already been convicted and sentenced to prison" , "Both Serbia and Bosnian Serbs have denied that genocide happened in Srebrenica although this has been established by two U.N. courts." [15]

Trimpops2 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources provide info that the official stand is to deny genocide. Thus all statements that are using the term "massacre" are using the controverisal meaning of "massacre". Trimpops2 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources you provide endorse the first sentence the official stand (stance??) is to deny genocide and that denial is widespread in Serbia/RS. They don't endorse the second, which is basically your own surmisal. Don't take my word for it, ask any other experienced editor. Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't a discussion about the second sentence from my intro to this RfC. I put forward 2 clear questions.

I'm allowed to put forward my explanation.

Second, the source 1.1 says "not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". This is what I'm in essence saying with my statement.

This is what I'm saying:

1. The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well) - confirmed by sources 1,2,3 of group 1 (as of now I posted 2 groups of sources)

2. The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide - confirmed by sources, confirmed by sources 1,2,3 of group 1

3. "to "lower" the event to the war crime "status" and negate that there was an intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national group" - I argue that source 1.1 of group 2 confirms it by saying "not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide"

I said "to "lower" the event to the war crime "status" - the source says "not contesting that the killings actually took place"

I said "and negate that there was an intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national group" - the source says "but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide" Trimpops2 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is here. Why do I have to explain it word by word? Trimpops2 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This 2 sentences are equivalent, and if you have problems with my sentence, I have no problems replacing mine with this one from the source. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Pincrete, I updated my original post for this request to a The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". With the question asked to a The Is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide?

I hope that now you'll stop with such unfounded objections you had. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The genocide in Srebrenica is often denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia Wholly agree and sourced but probably already in this article or almost certainly in the related 'denial' article. The term massacre has been used by some named politicians who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". Treading on eggshells here because you are trying to WP:SYNTH together a number of wholly true facts, to imply something not said by anyone. With the question asked … Is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide? Altering a question after an RfC has begun is a definite no-no. But the question is almost meaningless anyway now. You don't need an RfC you just need sources that say what you appear to be seeking to imply - that the use of 'maasacre' is used to deflect or downplay 'guilt. You may well be right, I've no idea, but you don't need to persuade me or other editors, you just need reliable sources saying exactly that. I haven't seen any yet.

as I said before, if you don't believe me, ask another experienced editor if the sources you have provided verify the claims you want to make Pincrete (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is sourced. My sentence: The term massacre has been used by some named politicians who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide"

Source: No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide Trimpops2 (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you be happier if I changed my RfC intro to this text: The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are objecting about my intro, but this is not important for RfC. The important is the question whether the term is controversial when used in the context of denying the genocide. Maybe you need a lesson about how Wikipedia works. I can delete my whole intro and it still is a valid RfC. Me and 2 other editors voted yes. You didn't even vote no. So, what the pont of your obections to my intro? This RfC currently has 3 YES votes and 0 NO votes. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My comment was a clear NO, since it is quite obvious that fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" is not controversial in scholarly circles, as shown above. Sorabino (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, too much text. Then we have 3 votes yes and 1 no. Is that correct?

BDW, there are scoolary sorces which deny genocide and accept the massacre. Not all scholarly sources accept that genocide happened.Trimpops2 (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

But looking again, I'm not seeing your clear NO. I just see you posted a comment. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Technical note. It seems that an entire section of this RfC was copied and pasted within this edit, thus doubling several posts by mistake. Can someone correct that? Sorabino (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything doubled. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Take another look above, several comments were doubled by that huge (20,379 bytes) edit. Sorabino (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sorabino, I tried to fix it with this edit. @Trimpops2, a bunch of text was clearly duplicated and the diff Sorabino presents above clearly shows you made a faulty edit. Can you please acknowedge your mistake. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Another hotly debated move request on this site [16] is also regarding whether the term 'massacre' is acceptable for a Wikipedia article title and the discussion has received significant attention outside of the site's usual group of editors [17]. 122141510 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely different discussions. Here's the situation more clear. I'm arguing that massacre in the context of denying genocide is controversial meaning, while using the term massacre while not denying genocide is not controversial. We have only 1 vote against my suggestion vs 3 for, and as I explained , the vote against is arguing that the term is not controversial since it's being used by objective sources which do not deny genocide. He voted NO, to something I didn't even ask as a question in this RfC. I'm also arguing that it's not controversial when used in the contexts which acknowledges genocide. I can't imagine that anyone would vote "NO" , that the term isn't controversial even if used in the context which denyes genocide. Genocide being here an established fact by international courts. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, I'm arguing that massacre in the context of denying genocide is (a/the) controversial meaning, while using the term massacre while not denying genocide is not controversial. We have only 1 vote against my suggestion vs 3 for etc. It really doesn't matter how many editors vote for or against your proposition. It isn't going to find its way into the article since it is based on your (and editors') opinions and conjecture, not on what RS say explicitly. Even if we all agreed, the immediate question would be "controversial how?", "controversial in what way?". Your question doesn't appear to be a real question framed neutrally, merely a rhetorical device for seeking to imply that 'deniers' employ 'massacre' as a device for deflecting guilt. That may very well be true of some deniers, but without WP:RS that say that explicitly, and ideally identify those who they say do it, the whole discussion/RfC is pointless. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

We obviously disagree. I'm satisfiled with the posted sources. I already introduced one of them to the article which explains that no government in Serbia acknowledged genocide while accepting that killings happened. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Serbia's official stance is, and has been, to accept that killings happened but deny that they constitute genocide, is in the article. What is this RfC seeking to accomplish? Pincrete (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked whether the term massacre is controversial when used in the context which is not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept genocide happened. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Your posts are completely missing the point and I don't see why you find them relevant for this discussion.

it is based on your (and editors') opinions and conjecture. I haven't purposed any edit to the article, so I don't know what "it" means when you say it's based on my opinion and conjecture. I haven't purposed the whole section in this RfC, I just asked whether the article needs the section which explains this controversial meaning. I find that is the case, because the term massacre is also used by objective sources which accept genocide.

"controversial how?", "controversial in what way?". As I asked in the RfC, controversial when used in the context which accepts that massacre happened, but denying the genocide. This is the answer to your questions.

but without WP:RS that say that explicitly, and ideally identify those who they say do it. I posted sources of those who are accpeting massacre and killings , but deny genocide. Namely, all Serbian governments, a minister in Montenegro, Serb leader in Bosnia... Trimpops2 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We are just repeating ourselves. I don't see why it's hard for you to understand that simple question I asked in the RfC. I even went so far to find the sources you were seeking. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

By focusing this RfC primarily on the term massacre, you failed to raise or address similar questions related to the misuse of the term genocide by various extremists or revisionists who are trying to undermine the Dayton Peace Agreement and its constitutional arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina, by labeling one of BH constituent entities (Republika Srpska) as a "genocidal creation". As stated above, that problem is already addressed in scholarly literature (Google Scholar search for "genocidal creation"). Those questions are very serious, and shouldn't be overlooked within these discussions on Srebrenica. Regarding the terminology of the title, various misuses and controversies related to the terms in question (both massacre and genocide) are very relevant for this process. Sorabino (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems that's your prevalent motivation in this discussionsTrimpops2 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

And a lot of pointless discusson about my intro sentence which isn't even important for the question of this RfC. The question stands with or without my intro sentence. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, stop misrepresenting statements of other users here. It seems that you are sometimes more interested in distorting views of other users then contributing to this discussion. Sorabino (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing misrepresented. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the term massacre is controversial, as it is used to minimise and trivialise the extent and impact of the events, which amount to genocide, as recognised by two international courts (ICTY in 2004 and ICJ in 2007), and now also at political level by the majority of the UN General Assembly. There is really no good reason left not to rename this page "Srebrenica genocide". --Dans (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi 122141510 , Pincrete ,Coalcity58, Sorabino, Dans . This RfC template has expired. As I can see, 122141510,Coalcity58, I and Dans agree, and Pincrete and Sorabino disagree. Can we discuss the content to add, or Sorabino, and Pincrete you would like a formal closure on this? Trimpops2 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

What do we disagree about? This RfC does not propose any text nor provide any sources for such proposed text. IMO no one would want to formally close under such circumstances, nor could they come to any conclusion beyond a vague summary of editor opinion. Pincrete (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, your generalisation of other users views is quite vague and inprecise, since discussions within this RfC were much wider in scope, including controversies on both terms (massacre and genocide). If we should discuss the content to add, those additions should address both questions that were raised within this RfC. Sorabino (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I wholly agree on point 1 but remain uncertain about how point (2) can be implemented into the document. Using Bleiburg Massacre#Terminology as a template, you would be able to compare and contrast the terminology used to refer to the event by various sources, but if you're looking to make a statement that there are a number of individuals and organizations who prefer to use the term Srebrenica massacre to downplay the fact the event was a genocide, I do not think there are sources which have documented and noted as such which could be cited to allow such a statement to stand in the article. 122141510 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I also don't know. I gave some purposals, but some editors are just making it more difficult than it has to be. I'm starting to think that leaving this discussion would be the best option, pending sources that I can enter into the article directly. No, there are sources, I posted tham in this discussion and one is already in the article. What I don't have is a generalized statement that this is done by some parties. What I have is that this is done by : every single Serbian government since 90', official in Montenegro, officials in Bosnia. I'm sure some others from denial section, etc. I mean, everyone can read denial section and see that this is widely done. No one in the denial section is disputing that killings took place. Literally no one. But all those from denial section dispute that this killing constitute genocide. And since objective sources are using the term massacre, and they also use it, but with different intentions, I thought that should be in the article. But maybe I'm trying to much to prove what's obvious from the denial section...Trimpops2 (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That every Serbian Govt, and large numbers of Serb politicians deny the genocide is a fact, how many of them employ the word 'massacre' instead isn't recorded anywhere AFAIK, therefore the argument that they are using the term 'massacre' in order to downplay the seriousness of the events falls at the first hurdle. No one in the denial section is disputing that killings took place. Literally no one, actually read the section again. Large numbers of people have claimed variants on the theme that numbers killed are vastly exaggerated, that the numbers killed are less than the number of Serbs killed in the surrounding areas or that the only killings were done by a few 'rogue' individuals, not as a coordinated, planned criminal enterprise. Related claims are that the coffins in the memorial have bodies of soldiers that died elsewhere or are actually empty. One local politician said: "the massacre is a lie; it is propaganda to paint a bad picture of the Serbian people. The Muslims are lying; they are manipulating the numbers; they are exaggerating what happened. Far more Serbs died at Srebrenica than Muslims." So how is that acknowledging the killings?

Some of these "it's all a lie" claims were made in the immediate aftermath of the war, but many others are relatively recent, so it simply isn't true that No one in the denial section is disputing that killings took place, that is precisely what some are disputing or questioning the numbers or manner of death (claiming it to be in combat for example).

There are many ways that some people seek to 'downplay' the character or seriousness of the killings, using 'massacre' instead of 'genocide' isn't a significant one AFAI can tell or AFA sources record. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

how many of them employ the word 'massacre' instead isn't recorded anywhere, why would I care how many? I said some. I'm perfectly fine with only one example so I can summerize to "some". You are complaining that I can't say some if I don't have the source says the word "some" , although I have that one single example. Ok, fine, I have more than one example and all are , or can be in the denial section and I think it's equivalent to saying some, maybe even better. But, you are here arguing article content based on Wiki guidelines, while you voted no to 1st question which is flawed. If you answered yes, this would have some sense. I have provided too many sources for you to ignore them and vote no to 1st question. Even without any sources the question stands. that numbers killed are vastly exaggerated there you go. You are just proving my point. No one denies that the killings actually took place. They minimaze them, but don't deny they took place. the massacre is a lie, yes but later he explained what he meant, he didn't deny the killings , but has minimized them. So how is that acknowledging the killings, he just said it Far more Serbs died at Srebrenica than Muslims. Literally no one is denying the killings. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

why would I care how many (use the term 'massacre' to downplay the serious of the crime). If you cannot find sources that say how prevalent this is nor even that say 'some do this', you have no sources. It's pure speculation on your part. It may possibly be true that some people do this or have done it, but I can equally conjecture other obvious reasons why Serb politicians might avoid the 'G-word'. I believe it is practically political suicide in Serbia or in RS for a mainstream politician to accept the 'genocide' ruling. Also there are explicitly given reasons why some academics/scholars have fully acknowledged the awfulness of the crime, but questioned whether it fits the usual legal definition of genocide. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Also there are explicitly given reasons why some academics/scholars have fully acknowledged the awfulness of the crime, but questioned whether it fits the usual legal definition of genocide. There you go, you have just agreed with me! You have just said that "some" are doing this. You again went into speculation to "why" for some reason. Why are you then answering NO to 1st question??? You are making no sense at all. You are free to say that I need a source that says "some" to have it in the articel , but this is rationale for 2nd question. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You are playing rather infantile semantic games, not actually proposing the addition of any sourced text. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You have just made an admission. Let's not go around it. I'll ask you again, is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide? And I'll ask you again, is this done by : every Serbian government since 90', Bosnian Serb leader, a state official in Montenegro. There you go, I named parties which do it. Sources are above, and I haven't used the word "some". Please answer those now since you made an admission. You are the one playing with sematics. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No you named parties that refuse to acknowledge that RS committed genocide at Srebrenica, some I believe acknowlege that killings took place there, but none AFAIK employ the word 'massacre' AFAIK. Most/many deny any improper or illegal acts took place there or were equalled by acts directed against them. Certainly no source presented says that they use 'massacre' in order to deny 'genocide'.

I've no idea what 'admission' I supposedly made and wasn't aware that I was being interrogated! The question you ask is so vague as to be meaningless for all practical purposes. I thonk what you mean is something like "do people use the word 'massacre' in order to deny, or downplay 'genocide'" to which my answer is I've no idea, maybe, maybe not, but what I - or any other editors - think is completely irrelevant as sources not editor opinions dictate content. So if we all agreed or all disagreed, the outcome would be exactly the same! Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Given you are now claiming there are no sources which identify the Srebrenica genocide as a genocide [18], I would invite you to respond to my inquiries about the consistency in the logic you apply to edits and participation in talk page conversations here before engaging in more arguments here of dubious merit. Perhaps it is not even an issue in consistency of logic – maybe you are having issues being able to appropriately and correctly read, assess, and evaluate sources in this topic area. Specific to the example in the diff I just linked, maybe you aren't able to load the pdf correctly and cannot read the ICJ judgment correctly. Let's tackle all that before you state as fact that the outcome of a conversation is foregone. 122141510 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Article content purposal

I mentioned section, but a simple sentence that reads like this would suffice:

The term Srebrenica Massacre is sometimes used by parties which deny the Srebrenica Genocide, by not contesting that the massacre actually took place, but refusing to accept the ICTY and ICJ rulings that Srebrenica Massacre consistutes genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a simple sentece that is virtaully already in the article. This is the sentece from the article: "No Serbian government has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide, as well as denying any responsibility on behalf of Serbia".

I've just generalized it by stating "some parties", because as sources list in denial section, it's not only Serbian government that's denying, but also officials in Bosnia, and other countries, as well a some officials in Israel...etc.. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The article already records the sourced fact that certain named (mainly Serb,) politicians and the Serbian govt deny genocide, but accept that a massacre occurred. Why would you want to alter this into a vague generalised, unsourced statement? You don't provide sources for this statement and you cannot hold an RfC and at the end of it propose text to add. Based on what?Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You are in minority. We have 4 editors agree that the term is controversial when used to deny the genocide. So either concede that we have a consensus and work to follow the consensus and enter this to the article, or I can ask for a formal closure, or we can have another RfC on the exact article sentence. This is not the continuation of the above debate. You are making this more complicated than it needs to be and you are wasting community's time. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You want to add text that says those those who deny genocide use the term Srebrenica massacre but you haven't provided a source that says that. The source you gave only says that some who deny genocide don't dispute that a massacre occurred. It doesn't say they use the term Srebrenica massacre to refer to the event as a result. You are cobbling up a bunch of sources and making a personal conclusion, and that conclusion is the text you want to add, which isn't explicitly stated by sources. That is a textbook case of synthesis and original research. So you are the one complicating things because instead of just finding a source that directly supports what you're saying, you have to resort to a confusing and pointless RfC. --24.114.50.223 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Btw, here are just two examples of news sources emphasizing the term massacre over genocide [19] [20] But I doubt anyone can accuse France24 or Voice of America of engaging in genocide denial. --24.114.50.223 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There is and never has been any specific proposed text and there is and never has been any sources to endorse that text. So you cannot have consensus in a vacuum, you cannot define the RfC text after the RfC has occurred, interpreting editors' comments to suit your personal beliefs. The RfC question itself is borderline meaningless the term is controversial when used to deny the genocide. Any denial of the genocide is controversial, whether it uses 'massacre' or not and how do we know that someone is using the term in order to deny 'genocide'? Are they going to tell us that is what they are doing? As the IP says, this is blatant WP:OR, because you personally think that everyone, or almost everyone, who uses 'massacre' does so to negate the crime. That may be true of specific 'deniers', but there simply aren't sources to endorse this as a general principle. As I said at the beginning, this whole RfC is and has been a gigantic waste of editors' time and goodwill and there isn't the smallest possibility of it being inserted in the article until/unless you can provide sources that endorse the specific text you retrospectively propose. Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

So you would rather have multiple entries into Denial Section from the presented sources, rather than have one sentece like this which states "some parties"? I don't see much difference between those 2. I'm fine either way. I also think I could find a source which speaks of this denial of "genocide" by accepting the "oridinary war crimes". I don't have time now, but I'll try. BDW, You know, IP and Pincrete, it's not prohibited for you to participate in building Wikipedia. I have raised a point that is very much obvious and instead of complaining, you can also try to find sources. I posted enough sources to be visible that this is done on a larger scale, and enough sources are posted in the Denial Section. You are just ignoring all that and complaining to me that I don't have sources which would say this in a generalized sentece, while I dozen of sources which specifically do that are aready in the article. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No, what we prefer is content which is verifiable to content which Trimpops2 (alone AFAI can see) considers very much obvious. Where people hold or held notable positions, (such as some Serb politicians), it is important to record exactly what they said and did, not render a mish-mashed simplified interpretation. There are possibly dozens of reasons why someone might prefer 'massacre' to 'genocide', apart from that posited, some very cynical, some not remotely so, such as some legal and genocide scholars have voiced. Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a dozen sources where people are denying genocide and stating that this massacre is a massacre, but not genocide. If this is so widespread, there should be sources that would read "some parties which accept the massacre and denying that this specific massacre constitutes genocide". You haven't done anything to help find those sources which obviously exist. As I said, I don't care about objective sources which don't deny the genocide, but are using the term massacre. I don't find that usage to be controversial. I find the usage controversial only when used in the way Serbian government is using it, as described by the source. You are making it more difficult than it is. It's not the problem that you would like to have sources, but you are disagreeing with that which isn't supported by sources and you are unwilling to help find sources. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You haven't done anything to help find those sources which obviously exist That's for two reasons, firstly because I don't believe they do exist and have better things to do than look for them, secondly, and more importantly, deciding text that you want to include and then desperately scouring the internet to find sources that justify that text is almost a textbook definition of WP:OR. We read the sources and only then decide what text to include. Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not the definition of OR. You have enough to answer 1st question as yes, but you are ignoring it. All your objections go towards the 2nd question. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Deciding on the text you want to include, and then looking for sources to justify it is clearly almost a textbook definition of WP:OR. We read the sources and only then decide what text to include. Expecting another editor to assist you in that 'wild goose chase' is just plain silly.

I've no idea what the two questions mean, they are phrased in a clearly non-neutral way more typical of a 'cold-call' telephone sales call than an RfC, they present no proposed text, they followed no prior discussion to resolve a specific matter and they provided no sources (ie, they broke almost every guideline of how an RfC should happen). Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. I have a dozen examples of this case and it's understandabe to state that some are doing this. It is a SYNTH, but not an illogical one to make. I've no idea what the two questions mean, great, we are discussing for weeks and now you are saying that you don't even know what the questions mean. You could have asked that weeks ago. RfC can ask a question without purposing a text which can be discussed later. The RfC is not non-neutral. It's neutral and proper, and to claim that after just admitting not understanding is absurd. You don't understand it, but you perfectly understand it's not neutral. Plain oxymoron. I don't have to provide any source to open a RfC. You are just making up rules. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a SYNTH, but not an illogical one to make. That's a self contradictory statement in WP terms. The reason I don't understand the questions is because they are so vague as to be - in practical WP terms - meaningless. If we all agreed that the term 'massacre' was controversial, or all disagreed, there would still be no sourced text to add and not even any agreement as to in what sense?/where?/ to whom?/why?/who says? the term is controversial. All of this was pointed out to you at the beginning of this - frankly, pointless - RfC. Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a self contradictory statement in WP terms No it's not. The questions are not vague. They are simple and clear to understand. Content can be further discussed. Are you willing to change your opinion on 1st question based on your previous admission? Trimpops2 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)