Talk:Bosnian genocide denial/Archive 3

"only men of military age"
The claim that only men of military age were killed towards the end of para 2 of "Left" revisionists - is actually Herman and Peterson and is citable from page 30 of the Genocide denial report, and indirectly from Haaretz: ''"Chomsky penned the forward for a book called The Politics of Genocide, written by … Herman and … Peterson, which (made) the … claim that the Bosnian Serbs only killed Bosniak men of military age."

We currently ascribe authorship to an unidentified "they" and cite primary sources written by Herman and Mackenzie, Herman's cite is the wrong book and Mackenzie's says something very different. I tried to move and fix the claim, but honestly that para is so muddled and incoherent that I'm not sure what is being claimed to have been said by whom about what. I leave the info here in the hope that someone can make the 'fix', which I came upon by accident while looking at something else.Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a standard claim, most repeated of all arguments, not just for these "far-leftists" (defined by Hoare pp.1-3), they all repeat that among other things, even Zuroff, or Geller, or some of the omitted who are among worst deniers (IMHO) / vociferous revisionists (Lara J. Nettelfield, Sarah Wagner p.374 notations) like John Laughland and Andy Wilcoxson - those four refs have it but spread through out the text, no author conveniently write about these people and what they said so that would befit our summarized paragraph - every author take the issue case by case - Taylor book talks about them on pages ranging from 135 to 180, Hoare's papers talk about them from the page 2 or 3 to the very end, but they nowhere write about them by cramming them into one sentence or paragraph like we do; no one describes them conveniently for our need so that we can just rephrase it into neat para with precise ref parameters.
 * It must be considered that during the review process there was a lot of rewriting and/or moving around of whole paragraphs, some ref could be misplaced.
 * Line "For these claims "left" revisionists rely on information provided by another researcher, Diana Johnstone," is mine, paraphrased it directly from (most likely) Hoare, but I still can't remember which text.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not an unidentified "they", it is these two specifically - Herman and Peterson. I understand if there is some confusion about the sources - as I said, during the review process there was a lot of rewriting and/or moving around of sentences and even whole paragraphs, some ref could be misplaced - so I intend to re-check them. You should too.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's 'unidentified' to the extent that the names are given 4 lines before - and interrupted by at least one other name and a good many subsidiary thoughts - and the 'they' are not the people cited at the end of the sentence. I'm not being perverse, I tried to tidy that para and found it impossible to work out what was being said about whom and what was and wasn't being claimed by which reference.Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn’t catch when chipped in above (under Zuroff text) - I trust their ability to re-phrase Zuroff’s entry in a neutral tone and most importantly, better English, so in case that they are willing to suggest how they would (re)write that entry, it would be great, I would certainly appreciate it.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  00:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay ; if Pincrete consents to this I will be back with a proposed wording some time in a few days. I'm about to take a technology break for now. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I continue to believe that we should be giving Zuroff's reasons for disagreeing with the use of the term - especially as so much text is devoted to 'shaming him' in very emotive terms along with a quote box. I also believe that talking about things being done for 'political reasons' is so vague as to be pointless unless the political reasons are given. It sounds like a conspiracy theory when un-specified.
 * However, on a temp basis I'll accept a text that removes the uncited 'close ties' and editorialising and incorrect quote from him (he says Srebrenica wasn't genocide, because genocide was 'a whole people' (or similar) - not that the Serbs did not have 'genocidal intent' - which is very different). I haven't seen a source where he speaks of intent AT ALL. I may or may not also have time to make the - minimal - edit.
 * We should not have had it stated in Wikivoice that Zuroff has "close ties" to Serbia. We can either attribute it to the accuser(s) -- for one example, Peled, who said . But the furor directed at Zuroff is not just because or even mainly because of the "conspiracy theory"; rather what is DUE to discuss (aside from being less defamatory) is that which reflects Israel Charny's more conceptual argument , as follows If we want to include responses to him, a better -- and less potentially defamatory line -- could be that he . This can be placed after Zuroff's stated personal reasons. Thoughts? --Calthinus (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Initial thoughts. It's very long. I approve of the removal of 'close ties'. Frankly the Peled "accolades" seems like a whole bunch of text to smear Zuroff. I am consistent in that as I would want to keep out 'sneary asides' about anyone in this debate, they simply detract from the substance IMO and even if we concede that Serbia probably had ulterior motives in making its award, that doesn't mean Zuroff was influenced by that-and Peled isn't even claiming he was. The other long quote appears to be arguing about how genocide should be defined - which isn't really the subject of THIS article. Zuroff's "women and children" argument is recorded in many/most of the sources. Overall, I would ask are we trying to record what he said and the nature of the accusation and debate which this led to, or are we trying to prove him wrong? Zuroff is out of step with modern judicial and academic concensus - that is surely almost a given and doesn't need 'proving' at length. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed quote consists of and . I don't consider that long. I don't agree that it is "almost a given". All sorts of people may read this page, who may or may not have a background in understanding the concept of genocide. Without it, one may come to the conclusion that what Zuroff said is an uncontroversial part of discourse motivated by his ~background~ (something with quite uncomfortable downstream effects, cf issues concerning allegations of some sort of organized denial of the Armenian Genocide on the part of not Turks but, quote-endquote, the "Jewish lobby"...). It is, in fact, necessary to clarify why that is not the case, especially if we have the quote about his explanation which falls back on that. --Calthinus (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing this IN ADDITION to the present 'reaction text'? And are you proposing to put this in the 'Zuroff' section or the reactions? It seems to me that we are massively overloaded already with reaction (and much of it is emotive). It should IMO be possible to say in the 'Zuroff' section what he said and it should be possible to say it fairly neutrally and succinctly. He said it wasn't genocide because in his understanding genocide was a whole people and it wasn't genocide because women and children were spared (obviously I paraphrase, but if I recall, those were his main points - whether we include his analogies is debatable) - some people criticised him heavily as a result. However much 'reaction/response' is included, I believe it makes sense to keep the two elements seperate. Present text IMO tries too hard to condemn people 'as it goes along' - that isn't our job and it doesn't work. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When I said 'a given', I meant a given within the article - that courts have ruled on the matter and elaborate 're-arguing' of the case shouldn't be necessary. It's a simple fact that Zuroff's beliefs are 'out of step' with court decisions - that's why he is included here after all!Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Before I comment on above discussion,, I would like that we clarify following: did you put "killings" in parentheses, with a footnotes 123 and 124, under the "Reactions" subsection - that looks like this: (who does not deny the killings, but who claims they did not constitute genocide[124][123])? If so, can you explain what exactly "killings" mean in this context, or what exactly Zuroff means when he says "killings"?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Short answer, is that I think Zuroff is on record as saying that people were killed in Srebrenica - that the killings constituted a war crime and that he endorsed the Mladic verdict and sentence - I believe all three of those are on record. Whether Zuroff uses 'killings' or 'murder' or 'massacre' I don't recall. Can you give me the diff you are talking about? I don't remember intentionally addinga ny footnote, or adding to one. If I recall properly, I added a parenthesis to the 'reaction' text. I don't necessarily ask that this be put in the reactions section so long as precisely what he said is recorded neutrally in 'his' text. I cannot escape the conviction that - not only do you have a very low opinion of Zuroff, morally - but that you see the purpose of the article to communicate that low opinion. Even if it were the case that the majority of sources share your low opinion - which is not what I see - it should be expressed as what it is, an opinion and not be 'argued for' or expressed in WPVOICE . Pincrete (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ps When you say 'footnote', do you mean 'ref/cite'. I believe I did 're-use' an existing ref. Should I not have done?Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know why we complicate things. Efraim Zuroff denies that in Srebrenica was genocide because this act "doesn't fit definition of genocide". Also he claim that the decision to call it genocide "was made for political reasons". Whether his additional elaboration(of his reasons) are necessary when we have his reasons in the article? We cannot list all "definition of genocide". In any case, he denies genocide and this is not a retrial where we state why this is not genocide. When the court made a decision and ruled that it was genocide he(court) know what "definition of genocide" is. Efraim Zuroff is not judge in this case, he is a person who denies genocide and a final court decision. And that's what the article is about. Mikola22 (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that we list all definitions. No one is suggesting that we de-list Zuroff here. He is accused of having denied genocide, so clearly he belongs in this article. People question court decisions and rulings all the time, I'd hate to think of a world in which they didn't, or felt they couldn't - even if this 'silencing' were being done for 'moral' reasons. Specifying briefly WHY someone questions the ruling - rather than simply saying that they had the effrontery to disagree with judges and academics! Doing this is a great deal more informative to the reader. Are you really saying that you see no distinction between someone who acknowledges ethnic-mass-murder, but thinks 'genocide' is an inapt term, and someone else who plain denies that anything bad happened AT ALL? Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * my proposal, if you read it, was to replace the then-current text about his "ties" with The accusation of definitionalism. As for him supporting the court sentence for war crimes... I appear to have missed this as I do not see it reflected in the sources. Saying war crimes occurred and supporting a sentence are different. Regarding your concern about there being I don't think anyone would argue that, however, the fact of the matter is both are denialists, and when we speak of Holocaust denial or Armenian Genocide denial especially, this is the largest category of deniers. Again, especially in the latter case, where the fact that a war was going on is used as a mitigating excuse for the "regrettable" things that happened. What is critical is the denial of the genocidal motive. --Calthinus (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try to understand what you mean by this replacement, but initial reaction is WHY? Obvious content would simply be a fairly concise account of what Zuroff said, That is after all what is at the centre of the 'charge' against him, not abstract arguments, which might belong somewhere else, but which are not central to the event.


 * Times of Israel article: "One of the world’s best-known Nazi hunters, Efraim Zuroff, welcomed the punishment levied on Serbian nationalist Ratko Mladić but called his conviction for genocide in Srebrenica politicized and unjust. Zuroff’s claim that Mladic committed atrocities but not genocide has exposed him to criticism by another leading expert on the Holocaust." … "Zuroff, an Israel-based historian of the Holocaust … … welcomed the punishment given to Mladic by the three-judge panel at the Hague-based court … … “What happened at Srebrenica was a terrible and murderous war crime and a tragedy for which Mladic and all other responsible should receive the maximum legal punishment,” Zuroff told JTA. “But it wasn’t genocide,” he added, citing the sparing of the women and girls. … The verdict was “politicized” as was the indictment against Mladić, charged Zuroff. He said the United States sought to convict Mladić of genocide for political reasons after failing to recognize the Rwandan genocide as such in time." It's unclear whether it is Zuroff or T of Is who say 'unjust', but the rest is pretty explicit.Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ps having looked at your proposal more closely, which if I understand it correctly, is an initial summary of Zuroff's claims/the event, pruned of the unsourced and 'editorialising' followed later by a rewritten 'reactions' - which need not necessarily be in seperate sections. I have in principle no objections. Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pincrete, and that particular explanation of his, actually, is a textbook example of an argument usually espoused by denialist in general - Charny and Stanley Cohen explain that and Genevieve Parent applied it on Bosnian case perfectly. And now, if we accept that, then there is no reason to factor it into the text where we describing his case. Regarding "killings" - I can't remember if I put that one myself, and then you repeated it in another para - I am almost certain that I removed one instance of that line in parenthesis after you put it somewhere, but now I found it at this other place and I am not sure if I put it there or you, but it doesn't matter. The "killings" is so ambiguous that even Serbian denialists use it to make a pretense of being neutral and honest about their description of Srebrenica, usually as a kinda battle casualties and/or pov's "execution" with little bit of revenge mixed in, and all that - what matters is that this kind of description is ambiguous and inaccurate.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

So we are clear...

The section currently has:

Proposed replacement:

I do not exactly find this "abstract", and it gets to the issue much more than the tangent about his "ties", which as I understand it was your original beef. On the other hand, if we have his "definitionalism" hanging around, naked without the clothing of the context where his colleagues are not exactly in line with that argument, it's not WP:DUE and can come off as a promotional. --Calthinus (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Reaction He doesn't in any of the refs speak of "genocidal intent". Neither having or not having it AFAIK, certainly not the ones we use. So I suggest we jump straight to "doesn't fit definition of", though I would continue that quote slightly as he says he thinks genocide is the destruction of a whole people - or similar - which is the core of why he thinks the word is wrong. Again including his claim of "political reasons", without saying what he thinks those were is a bit pointless. Either we say briefly what the reasons were (failure to act over Rwanda) or we omit IMO.


 * I don't see why we don't use his actual words regarding comparisons with the holocaust (he thinks such comparisons are absurd and the words you put in quotes are not his, if I remember correctly) The reasons he gives for the comparison being absurd are the 'women and children' argument, which can be stated succinctly I believe, and the 'whole people' argument. No one has asked for him to provide examples of the comparison AFAIK, that text was added very recently. I think it's editorialising and I don't think it is in the source. Nor do I understand what it is asking for, the comparison between the holocaust and Srebrenica is made surely in his pov by using the same word, for both events.


 * I don't mind how the 'counter-arguments' are made (including 'definitionalism') and don't mind if they are expanded here, as long as they are reduced later (in 'reactions'). There is no reason why the two sets of arguments should have equal space, the demands of condensing them to their most important points, should take preceedence imo, but at present Zuroff isn't presented neutrally and the counter arguments are given masses of space. These two sets of arguments are the core of the initial controversy, but his reaction to the Mladic verdict should also be noted in my view, though it could well be at the end of 'his' text, since this is several years after the initial 'debate'. There are a few minor 'quibbles' - 'denies' should be 'denied' - the definition of genocide. If I am able, I'll try to propose a text myself later.Pincrete (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ps I appear to have mis-remenbered, or cannot now find Zuroff's comments about 'a whole people'. An earlier figure is quoted as voicing a similar thought in one of the articles about the Zuroff controversy, but it is not usable as neither said by Zuroff, nor a reaction to his remarks. Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I can't find anyone pointing out that he used a strawman. We can simply remove the off-topic Holocaust comparisons, then, which also assuages the quote attribution problem: --Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He DOESN"T speak about Serb intent AT ALL, that's a WP invention AFAI can see, and the holocaust comparison is crucial, even if it is now the 'women and children were spared' logic only. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. ? --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We have to be careful in giving extra space to genocide deniers because readers might think that not everything is clear here and that this decision is controversial. We have a lot of people here who deny genocide and because of that we have to make sure that article doesn’t turn into a space where claims that it "wasn’t genocide" are promoted(if we give extra space to everyone). Normally and their side must be heard but it must be within some limits. That is my humble opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. I became involved here because at one point the text under Zuroff appeared flat out promotional -- first stating his credentials, then giving his views, and then becoming a coatrack for his own Holocaust comparison strawman rant. --Calthinus (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Pincrete, it is my impression, you have shown a quite a tendency for WP:IDHT, which can be annoying when repeated - he DOES talks about INTENT, and is quoted by Nezavisne as saying literally: "Genocid je pokušaj totalnog brisanja jedne nacije, dakle holokaust i Ruanda jesu bili genocid. Darfur nije jasan. U BiH nije bilo genocida".-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Santasa, thanks for this, this was useful, but I do want to say I know Pincrete from elsewhere (Iran stuff etc) and while he is stubborn he is not unreasonable, and can be worked with. I'm confident we will all agree this is better than where we started in the end. Also, its especially helpful to get us refs in BCMS because not all of us have Google settings for which they'll come up, and many of us also don't speak it -- so thanks. We'll probably have to re-include this now. --Calthinus (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I understand. Regarding attempt vs intent (I don't know how is your handling of Serbo-Croatian?), if one is not a lawyer, laws' interpretation is ambiguous: this and this, although both explanation say that attempt imply intent, or that you can't prosecute attempt without intent, and so on; now, in his case he clearly talks about intent, making distinction between successfully fulfilled intents with Bosnia where he does not see it.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  00:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what I get from your quote is "Genocide is an attempt to completely erase one nation, so the Holocaust and Rwanda were genocide. Darfur is not clear. There was no genocide in BiH." This is what I was looking for yesterday and couldn't find the 'completely erase one nation' element - though I'm sure I've seen it in English. This isn't speaking of intent, and it is especially dishonest IMO to 'put words into his mouth' by claiming some SYNTHed legal-ish argument about what constitutes intent. He doesn't speak of intent anywhere I've seen, so we can't say he does. FULL STOP. Since 'intent' is at the core of what constitutes genocide, if he had said it, it would completely alter what he was arguing and what he was accused of. As I've said earlier, my search engine gives this article (and some stuff about a Germany-Iran-Israel issue) as the SOLE finds for the worda Zuroff -genocidal -intent. I have some real world matters to deal with but will try to come back here later. Pincrete (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * okay, give me a ping when you do. I intend to resolve this. --Calthinus (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , now you are trying to synth some explanation for what constitute "core" of genocide definition, while disregarding what it means to HIM, what is the genocide as defined by HIM, and you would like to have it both ways: you would like that we respect that it's "intent" that sits at the core of genocide definition, and that HE does not speaks of "it"; in the same time you want to include his view on it in relation to Case Srebrenica/Bosnia but without taking into account HIS genocide definition, as HE defines it as "attempt to destroy entire group", instead you want his views but as if told by someone who defines it as "intent" and who accept definition in Genocide Convention. And for whats end - does readers really should have insight into reasoning of every individual deniers, their reasons, explanations, theories; or should we have it as some sort of mitigating and/or explanatory factor, which would then obviously make him, what, different kind of denier, less denier, or at least some other "category" of denier.
 * If you accept his explanations and theories as valid and relevant for the article, then you have to accept that all of it comes from the "definition" as he espoused it, and we have it in quotes from Nezavisne, which is still a "definition" of a "chief Nazi hunter" and prominent "genocide scholar", not some dilettante - it does not matter if he said "attempt" or "intent", the word he used sits at the heart of his definition of the genocide, anyway, and from HIS point of defining it HE denies genocide ever happened in Bosnia. Everything else, HIS definition and theories belong to his own BLP.
 * This is at the "core" of this kilometer long discussion, which, unfortunately, gave away a sense of deeply troubled article, with fundamental problems all-around. I didn't want to disrupt flow in the debate by placing this reply at the bottom, hoping that Calthinus and you are at the verge of some kind of resolution, but maybe I should have, because I want to see this post as well.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  18:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say this, because I respect the fact that you have obviously researched the wider subject much more than I, but you don't know what you are talking about on this particular matter. 'Intent' is different in different contexts. 'Intent' is at the core of genocide in the sense that intent to destroy the ethnic group is central to the definition of what genocide is. It's a hideously brutal - but necessary - question for courts and sources, but exactly how many bodies of which gender spread over how large a geographic area over what period of time is sufficient to satisfy 'intent to destroy the ethnic group' - as opposed to 'just' murdering X,000 people. There is no simple answer to that question and the ICTY judges came to a judgement that most people, but not everyone, agrees with. Zuroff disagrees, some people think that constitutes heartless denial on his part, let them put their case. 'Intent' in the case of 'murder', means that I really intended to kill those people, killing them was premeditated and not simply me getting 'carried away in the moment' or accidentally killing them. Only a very small number of very fringe sources  - not Zuroff AFAIK - claim that the Srebrenica killings were anything OTHER than planned, premeditated mass murder ie there was a conscious, planned intention to kill the 8,000 men and boys.


 * The bottom line here is that Zuroff simply does not say ANYTHING about Serb intent, (or attempt) in ANY sources - you've INVENTED it or misunderstood a source. There would not be a chance in hell IMO of an RfC, WP:OR noticeboard or any other WP forum endorsing that text since he simply HASN'T SAID IT in any source given here or that I have seen. He hasn't said it - but it wouldn't be clear what it meant if he had. Would it mean he was denying 'intent to murder 8,000' or 'intent to destroy the whole racial group"? What alerted me was the ambiguity of the text, but I was quite shocked to discover he hadn't said it. I can only assume that you want this text because it condemns Zuroff more clearly - it 'outs' him as a 'total' denier in a way that is clearly your opinion of him, but which is not in the sources, even those which don't like him much. The majority of sources relate a disagreement about definition. An impassioned disagreement at times certainly.


 * Please, if you want to claim that Zuroff had said something - simply find a source that makes what you think he has said explicit. Convoluted arguments which I'm afraid boil down to "I User:Santasa99 know what he REALLY MEANT when he said something completely different" aren't going to get us anywhere. There is a world of difference between SYNTH or OR on the talk page, which one may use to try to explain, and inserting SYNTH or OR or opinion into the article. I don't believe I have done the second. I'm open to discussion about what should be written about Zuroff - but, sorry I think you simply want to write an essay condemning him and almost anyone else so accused. WP is not the place for that, it's a repository of reliable NPOV info, not an advocacy site. I'm afraid the reason we disagree is because you think it should be.Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is pointless - I put forth one argument, and you respond with a long explanation that goes in some other direction.
 * Very shortly: Zuroff's definition of genocide is based on "attempt to destroy entire group", so my mistake is that instead of using word "intent" I should have used word "attempt" - so, there is nothing "shocking" nor "invented".
 * As for my personal opinion on Zuroff, and entire phenomenon of Jewish genocide scholars' and institutions' denial of genocide on Bosnian Muslims, is rather complex and far from being reflected in my editing. The only thing that may have some influence over my take on Zuroff's denial is his eagerness to hang with known Serbian ultra-nationalists and ethno-religious fundamentalists, an ardent racists and Islamophobes; his eagerness to accept a nomination for Noble Peace Prize from them and get showered with myriad of state and institutional awards, all for his staunch denial in line with usual Serb(ian) tropes; to hang with Serbian scholars who espouse pseudo-historical claims and engage in negative historical revisionism and negationism, while with same eagerness visits Republika Srpska institutions and conferences with people who celebrate Karadžić and Mladić, and just few dozens of kilometers from Srebrenica, Manjaća, Keraterm, and other places of death, rape and destruction, where he never deign to set foot or speak with a survivors and offer them condolences.
 * I hope that we can finally bring this to an end and move on toward further improvements.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "A myriad of awards" = one fairly minor award AFAIK. I've asked for sources previously regarding other accusations against him - so far I haven't seen them. The shocking thing is that he hasn't said something which is in the article and which has been time and time again defended and which fundamentally changes what he is accused of. I get no pleasure from having had to repeat the same thing in 100 different ways, but also hope we can move forward. Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Forget the awards, and Nobel nomination - awards or not, he still hangs around racist and Islamophobes who think and say that what happened in Bosnia was/is legitimate Serb cause, legitimately pursued, while celebrating genocidal maniacs. But it still intrigues me, what exactly do you mean when you say he was accused, and of what exactly? And how does that fundamentally change things?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring in this instance to your accusations - including who he supposedly hangs around with, which I have yet to see any RS about. Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pincrete, first of all this last exchange is on my personal opinion, and you confirm that with your last post, but even in the article, the very first sentences have RS attached with it in the current paragraph on him - namely, refs 117, 118, 119, and 120 - and mention honorary citizenship of Serbia; strengthening cooperation between Serbia and Israel in Holocaust research and remembrance with Milošević's chief party propagandist during the war; receiving Golden Medal for Merit from Chetnik's vojvoda during the war and Šešeljs deputy, Tomislav Nikolić, these two meat on more than a few occasions; for the Noble you can search Google yourself.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's WP:OR to attach any significance to these awards. I'm sure that there are also those who have been honoured by Croatia, Bosnia, or US or UK for championing the cause of one group or another, but if we start insinuating cynical motives for everyone, it's a slippery slope downward into mud-slinging IMO. It's counter-productive also IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not OR because there are sources (Peled etc) who say it. POV, yes, arguably counterproductive, yeah possibly. --Calthinus (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Zuroff text - proposal

 * Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center office in Israel claimed that "genocide is an attempt to completely erase one nation, so the Holocaust and Rwanda were genocide" but "there was no genocide in BiH" and reportedly said that Srebrenica could not have been genocide because the Serbs had spared the women and children at Srebrenica. He later said that comparing the Srebrenica massacre and the Holocaust was "horrible' and "absurd", again citing the sparing of women and children: "I wish the Nazis moved aside Jewish women and children before their bloody rampage, instead of murdering them, but that, as we know, did not happen." Zuroff welcomed the life sentence given to Ratko Mladić by the ICTY in November 2017, but continued: "what happened at Srebrenica was a terrible and murderous war crime … for which Mladic and all other responsible [sic] should receive the maximum legal punishment … but it wasn’t genocide.” Zuroff repeated earlier claims that Mladić's indictment for genocide had been “politicized”, claiming that the United States had sought to convict Mladić of genocide because of its failure to recognize the Rwandan genocide sufficiently early. Others criticized him for, among other reasons, "definitionalism"[cite], with Israeli genocide scholar Israel Charny arguing that "we have no right" to exclude the events in Bosnia from "our study... ethical concern and protest".[cite] Also, Menachem Rosensaft, who had already clashed with Zuroff over his remarks in 2015, dismissed Zuroff’s response to the  Mladić verdict, calling those who did not regard the Srebrenica massacre as genocide “wrong” from a legal point of view.

, Ok above is a proposed text. I have consciously made it slightly over-long and won't object if (for example), the 'women and children' argument as text (that Serbs had separated out the women and children.) and as 'quote' ("I wish the Nazis moved aside Jewish women and children … but that, as we know, did not happen") are pruned, if one or other is deemed clearer. I've tried to give some sense of time (the controversy seemes to have stretched over several years) - but doing this without SYNTHing things said on separate occasions, is not easy. I've given an expanded version of the 'political reasons', because to do otherwise IMO simply whets the appetite without satisfying it. Everything done by an international court set up by the UN and financed by UN members is 'political' to a degree - so what specific take did Zuroff have on the political reasons here?. Obviously I've left the Charny "definitionalism" text in a raw state. I've also included some of Rosensaft's criticism which is currently in 'reactions to', because it seemed to be directly related to the "completely erase one nation" issue. If kept here it should be pruned there. My text is pedestrian I think on re-reading, but delaying proposing something for any longer wasn't an option. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This will be good to go from me if we do the following things:
 * . "claimed" -> "argued that" (WP:CLAIM, here it actually sounds too hostile to Zuroff, oddly enough)
 * . Removal of '"I wish the Nazis moved aside Jewish women and children before their bloody rampage, instead of murdering them, but that, as we know, did not happen." -- this is just emotion baiting that adds nothing and is probably offensive to many. There's no point in having this.
 * . We can shorten "Zuroff welcomed the life sentence given to Ratko Mladić by the ICTY in November 2017, but continued: "what happened at Srebrenica was a terrible and murderous war crime … for which Mladic and all other responsible [sic] should receive the maximum legal punishment … but it wasn’t genocide." to "While still maintaining he wasn't guilty of genocide, Zuroff did welcome the life sentence given to Ratko Mladić by the ICTY in 2017 for war crimes in Srebrenica." All text cut is largely redundant. I think you said before we don't need his section so huge.
 * . Cut this "Zuroff repeated earlier claims that Mladić's indictment for genocide had been “politicized”, claiming that the United States had sought to convict Mladić of genocide because of its failure to recognize the Rwandan genocide sufficiently early.". This is giving oxygen to conspiracy theories, and going rather far in-depth (and just like with the Holocaust, continues Zuroff's habit of pitting victims' experiences against each other, which this page is not a platform for).
 * Other than that, it's good and I'd argue in favor of it. --Calthinus (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's mine:
 * Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center office in Israel said, in an interview that "genocide is an attempt to completely erase one nation" and "there was no genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina [/Bosnia]". He reportedly said that Srebrenica could not have been genocide because the Serbs had spared the women and children. Zuroff welcomed the life sentence given to Ratko Mladić by the ICTY in November 2017, but repeated earlier claims that Mladić's indictment for genocide had been “politicized”. For his denial, Zurrof received criticism from Israel Charny, Rosensaft, Institute for Genocide Research, [... and whoever].-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would agree to pruning the opening sentence as suggested above, if it became "genocide is an attempt to completely erase one nation" so "there was no genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina", it's slightly synth-y, but the two thoughts are clearly linked in the original longer sentence. I'd happily agree to omitting references to 'politicised indictment' COMPLETELY - as I think Calthinus meant, but not to this pruning, nor the current 'political reasons' text. The claims he repeated would thus become 'not genocide'. It's obvious that absolutely everything done by a UN-established body is ultimately 'political', so we either say why Zuroff thinks the political decision was made, or we ignore that element as academic to the controversy between Zurrof and his detractors. In general terms I would have thought that saying WHAT the counter arguments made were is more informative than saying who opposed him, but  I wouldn't object to the Santasa99 text.Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with the "synth", if my four amendments are carried out alongside it. --Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added what is approx the agreed text, but NOT all of the points (and cites) wanted by Calthinus or the 'critics' wanted by Santasa99. Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

New edit in Efraim Zuroff case
"genocide is an attempt to completely erase one nation", so "there was no genocide in BiH" (Bosnia)
 * I personally as editor can't support this information because the international court made a decision that genocide was committed in Srebrenica. This decision was made on the basis of international law. Efraim Zuroff based his thesis or statement on international law. By promoting this information  which was based on international law, in fact we directly challenging the court's decision, and in my opinion this should not be visible as information. This misleads readers but also promotes alleged non-compliance with international law (in this court decision). Mikola22 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See discussion(s) above. Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021
Change “ant-war” to “anti-war” in the first paragraph of “Revisionism and denialism abroad” 96.230.57.27 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Gideon Greif
Add him to "Other individuals and groups engaging in denial":

In 2019, Grief was appointed by Bosnia's Serb entity Republika Srpska leader Milorad Dodik to head a self-identified "independent" International Commission of Inquiry to probe the events of the Srebrenica massacre during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995).[3][18][19] The concluding report published in 2021 denies Bosnian genocide and genocide in Srebrenica, "also repeatedly casts the Bosniaks as aggressors and the Bosnian Serbs as victims in a rewriting of history reminiscent of Third Reich Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels’ justifications for Nazi German antisemitism".[3]

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as well as the International Court of Justice and domestic courts have characterised these killings as genocide. American and U.N. diplomats and the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial Center commented that the commission was a bid to rewrite history, as the Republika Srpska's officials, including Milorad Dodik, had openly minimised the number of killed or denied it was a genocide (see Bosnian genocide denial#Denial by officials).[20][21][22] General Counsel of the World Jewish Congress, Menachem Z. Rosensaft, who teaches genocide law at Columbia Law School, strongly criticised the report, calling it an "embarrassment".[3][14][23] As described by Aleksandar Brezar of Haaretz, the Serb ethnonationalist politicians "are hiring Jewish experts on the Holocaust – and not for their expertise. Rather, they need Jews as tokens to legitimize their projects of historical revisionism".[24] Writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Rosensaft also criticized Greif for declaring on Republika Srpska television that "I am Jewish, I know what genocide means… Nobody can tell me what genocide is, and this event was no genocide."[25]

In November 2021, Greif was announced as a recipient for an award of special achievement by the German government for his work on the Holocaust.[26] However, following immediate diplomatic fallout in Germany due to his denial of the Srebrenica genocide and attempt to whitewash the mass murder of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serb forces in 1995,[23] the German embassy in December 2021 announced that the award has been cancelled.[27] --89.172.150.124 (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Weight of Chains
I have an issue with noting the film "The Weight of Chains" as being a part of the "Bosnian genocide denial" article, considering that the film doesn't make the claim that a genocide didn't happen in Bosnia - in fact, the film notes that "the United Nations declared that this was genocide" (actual quote from the film), while the segment in this article would make the reader believe that the film claims the opposite. Indeed, the film does present claims by Srdja Trifkovic who talks about the circumstances that led to what happened in Srebrenica, but doesn't discuss whether Srebrenica was a genocide or wasn't a genocide. Tristan Miller from the Socialist Party of Great Britain, who wrote the article that is the only source for this segment (and I'm not sure how a political party is a reliable source for film reviews), makes the claim that the film's director presents the Srebrenica "civilian death toll as no larger than the number of Serbs killed in the surrounding area", when upon watching the film, it's clear that the film notes that Phillip Corwin, UN observer, made this claim, not the director. What's more reliable when it comes to this film - the film itself or others talking about the film? User:Pincrete, when reverting my good faith edits, noted that it was WP:OR to use the film as a source for the film, but this isn't true according to WP:PLOTCITE - "primary source citations are appropriate when including notable quotes from the work, citing the act/chapter/page/verse/etc." What the film says can certainly be used as a source for what the film says. Yet, the part where Phillip Corwin is mentioned was deleted by User:Pincrete. I'm not going to engage in a revert war. In essence, I think the two appropriate options are either bringing back the Phillip Corwin part, or better yet, deleting all mention of the film here, because nowhere in the film is it said that a genocide didn't happen. Miller even makes the claim that the film says Srebrenica was used "to justify NATO military intervention against Serbia" - against Serbia? Trifkovic does make the claim that Srebrenica was used as a justification for intervention, but this is in reference to the 1995 NATO intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina, not Serbia. The intervention in Serbia was in 1999 and had nothing to do with Srebrenica, which, again, talks about how inaccurate Miller was in his article. But that's also irrelevant to this article. The source makes no claim the film denies a genocide happened. The film doesn't deny a genocide happened - it even clearly says the UN declared Srebrenica a genocide. So, why is this film even mentioned in this article? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * the film notes that "the United Nations declared that this was genocide" isn't the same thing as the film saying that the genocide happened. That's simply playing with words, reporting that the UN called it a genocide doesn't contradict denying that it was. Genocide denial is usually understood anyhow to mean minimising a genocide, or responsibility for it, not only saying it didn't happen - the majority of instances iro Bosnia take this form. Miller obviously thought that the film endorsed the Corwin claim, not simply quoted it - he says so "it’s particularly distasteful how Malagurski trivialises the village’s civilian death toll as ‘no larger than the number of Serbs killed’ in the surrounding area, without any pretence of distinguishing between combatant and non-combatant deaths." You may not like or agree with Miller's view,but it is his view.


 * I note you don't attempt to refute that the film presents the "Srebrenica massacre as a ‘stage-managed’ ploy by the Bosnians and Americans to justify NATO military intervention against Serbia". Nor that it contains the specific Trifković' claim that: "Srebrenica was deliberately sacrificed by Izetbegović in order to provide this burnt offering to the White House", which attempts the incredible conspiratorial feat of passing responsibility for the killings from those who actually carried them out onto Clinton and Izetbegović! Poor old Ratko, outfoxed by this devious duo!


 * This item is much more specific and attributed that many of the items in this article, which I think is correct. The article should be precise about what each 'denier' is accused of denying. But the point is not whether you think that Weight of Chains denies - or in this case - minimalises genocide, it's whether Miller does, and he clearly does. Pincrete (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "Genocide denial is usually understood anyhow to mean minimising a genocide, or responsibility for it" - The film presented what the UN said about Srebrenica and what Corwin said about Srebrenica. That one sentence in the film is the only one that discusses the topic of genocide and it merely presents two viewpoints on the issue. I can agree with you what genocide denial is, but saying that there are multiple viewpoints is not genocide denial. If you deny genocide and I say "User:Pincrete denies genocide", I'm not a genocide denier - can we agree on that? It's a weak argument and against Wikipedia policy to claim a film denies that a genocide took place based on one source that doesn't even make that claim. It's your interpretation of what the source meant to say (to quote you: "Miller obviously thought..."), so as per WP:PRIMARY, we'd need "a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." And, as I said, that source has several errors in depicting the film's narrative, so if "this item is much more specific and attributed than many of the items in this article" with one source, which is flawed, that would suggest that the other items have no sources whatsoever. Miller's viewpoint is listed in The Weight of Chains article under the "Critical response" section, but the film doesn't fit in the "Bosnian genocide denial" article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wonderful abstract obfuscating nonsense. There hasn't yet been a single Western review of the film AFAIK that thinks that the UN version and the Trifković/Corwin versions (which practically everyone in the West sees as hollow, discredited, a-historical conspiracy theories anyhow) of what happened are presented neutrally in the film. That one sentence in the film is the only one that discusses the topic of genocide, anything said about the topic of the killings at Srebrenica is relevant, whether a sentence speaks specifically of genocide or not and this article doesn't make the claims you say it makes. Anyway, let's see what other editors think about inclusion/phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, you're talking about your personal interpretation of what the author of the source meant, not what he actually said. At no point did Miller claim the film was denying genocide. It would be legitimate if the author wrote something along the lines of: "Because the film includes this and this, I believe this constitutes genocide denial", but at this point that is one of many interpretations. Another interpretation could be, for example: "Because the film discusses other victims, I believe there were multiple acts of genocide", but it's up to reliable sources to make that connection, not Wikipedia's editors. Does that make sense? --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the review in question does not explicitly describe the documentary or its creator of having engaged in genocide denial. In fact, the only thing it accuses the film of denying is that ethnic minorities were oppressed in socialist-era Serbia. The only mention of the word genocide is in the context of socialist views of the "ancient hatreds" theory of what led to the Yugoslav Wars. Given the inherent WP:BLP implications here, it is probably best to remove the passage entirely if multiple reliable sources can't be found which describe it as a genocide-denying documentary. This is part of a wider WP:OR (and in some cases, WP:SYNTH) problem with this article, which describes numerous individuals as genocide deniers without the sources it is citing explicitly doing so themselves. A WP:GA/R should probably be initiated. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I rarely edit this article, since I have found the experience too frustrating. When I have edited it has tended to be removing or clarifying content such that precisely who is accused of precisely what and by by whom is made clear, rather than the present 'grape-shotting' and labelling of people as 'deniers' in WP:VOICE. Much of the article would probably need to go if it were limited to those whom multiple sources have agreed were deniers, but a clear accusation from a non-trivial source should probaby be part of minimum criteria for inclusion. So to be consistent, I now agree that the Miller content probably doesn't belong here. That Miller is accusing Malagurski of trivialising the village’s (Srebrenica's) civilian death toll is said explicitly, but whether that is sufficiently synonymous with accusing Malagurski of 'denying genocide' is more moot.


 * I'll "go with the flow" on this, but wanted other editors' input here as UrbanVillager is basically an SPA dedicated to creating and curating Malagurski articles for the last twelve years on English and about 6 or 8 other national WPs, therefore IMO not the most neutral of editors on this subject. In this instance however, UV is probably right.


 * Amanuensis Balkanicus, I agree that it is difficult to see why this article has GA status. I personally know of names included whom no source whatsoever has accused of doing anything iro Bosnia, beyond holding similar opinions to those accused of denial, on unrelated topics (eg Tariq Ali who seems to be included here solely because he has been mentioned as holding similar left-wing views to people who really have been accused of denial). Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. If you don't have any objections, I'll remove the documentary passage. Didn't know that about Urban Villager, but I think the points I made stand regardless, and I'm glad you agree. I'll also comb through the article soon and likely start a GAR. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these inputs. I disagree with outright removal of that para, not least because it was challenged by biased editor whose history of curating Malagurski articles exclusively for decade makes him too close to the subject - some fixes if necessary would be normal thing to do, however, I expect it to be restored until we sort it out and/or decide differently, Our project article on Genocide denial says this about the fenomenon: Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an incidence of genocide [...] The distinction between respectable academic historians and those of illegitimate historical negationists, including genocide deniers, rests on the techniques used to write such histories. Illegitimate revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using falsification and rhetorical fallacies to obtain their results. Basically, we don't need explicit accusation using "genocide denier/denial" wording to include people in this article, which has no BLP issues as this isn't BLP article to begin with, while (or since) we use prim and secondary sources of mainstream legal, media and academic provenience here. As for your bewilderment, Pincrete, about the article's stable GA status, you can always check and inform yourself about quality and integrity of GA review process, preformed, at the time, by an editor in good standing and unrelated to problematic Balkans environment (he does not come from that milieu characterized by nationalistic petulancy), while few other participated in many improvements, among which Calthinus stands out as very serious and neutral wikipedian. You also made many changes, for better or worse, which is up to community to decide if they are any good - I had no objection on those which I noticed. One thing you are right: there hasn't been a single Western review of the film that says that its author was neutrally presenting situation surrounding genocide in Bosnia and what happened in Srebrenica.  ౪ Santa ౪  99°  02:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically, we don't need explicit accusation using "genocide denier/denial" wording to include people in this article, Actually that is precisely what you need, otherwise it is simply YOUR opinion that what the person has done constitutes denial. This article, which has no BLP issues as this isn't BLP article to begin with, this remark shows how little you understand or care about BLP policy. It is the mention of a living person that gives rise to BLP considerations - not the nature of the article. To give a specific example of how carelessly the "grape-shot" accusation is thrown around in this article, Tariq Ali, and most of those in the list with him to the best of my knowledge does not "identify with the "far-left" -  he may well "be identified with the "far-left", by others, but AFAIK Ali has never said a word about genocide in Bosnia, neither to confirm nor deny AFAIK, but if he has done so this WP article won't tell me when and what Ali is supposed to have said. Some of the other people in that list are widely written about as deniers, but no distinction is made. Simply naming people as deniers without saying who has accused them and precisely what they have supposedly denied is a pointless exercise - this article might as well be called 'list of bad people', for all the info it imparts in places. I for one am interested and take Ali simply as an example - I don't agree with Ali about almost anything and don't share his political views - but that doesn't mean I need to demonise him alongside others who have perversely held to denialist views and been widely recognised for doing so. Maybe Ali has done so as well, or maybe just one commentator thinks Ali has done, the article tells me nothing either way. Ali is a bad person - outrage is satisfied - no one needs to know what Ali is supposed to have said or done or when. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not "precisely what you need", as per wikipedia article Genocide denial, but we have that "condition" fulfilled anyway! Meanwhile, you're stuck with Ali, your ultimate "specific example of how carelessly the "grape-shot" accusation is thrown around in this article" - what other of these "thrown around" examples we may have?
 * Here's one reason Ali is here: "left-wing intellectual camp of genocide deniers include John Pilger, Michael Parenti, Jared Israel, Tariq Ali, Mick Hume, and Diana Johnstone."- page 30, Srebrenica Genocide Denial Report, May 2020 (pdf).
 * As I said, many reliable and neutral editors participated in polishing article for GA status, before review and afterward, so baseless and unsubstantiated kind of remarks such as Some of the other people in that list are widely written about as deniers, but no distinction is made. Simply naming people as deniers without saying who has accused them and precisely what they have supposedly denied is a pointless exercise - this article might as well be called 'list of bad people', for all the info it imparts in places. are being thrown into their faces too. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  01:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm aware of the Srebrenica Genocide Denial Report, quote, but first of all it's a single source. Finding a single source that claims ANYTHING is not sufficient to frame text in WP:VOICE - ie as a fact, especially when accusing a person - where BLP applies. If I find a source that says - as an arbitary example - that Donald Trump is racist and sexist, is that going to be put in WP as a fact? Of course not, the very idea is ridiculous, it justifies that an attributed claim is made against Trump AT MOST, and if the source doesn't incude specifics of when and how Trump has behaved as a racist/sexist - it's simply pointless, it tells me nothing except that some people don't like Trump!
 * Just as importantly IMO is that the Srebrenica Genocide Denial Report, simply lists a bunch of people - all of whom are probably generally seen as "left-wing intellectuals" - but none of whom AFAIK actually describe themselves as such (the article claims these people are "Revisionists mainly identifying with the "far-left" of the ideological and political spectrum" - very possibly because whoever wrote this does not understand basic English grammar distinctions. The source you supply does not describe them either as "revisionists", nor as "far-left" and certainly not as people who describe themselves as "far-left"). We learn nothing about how or when Ali actually said anything about Bosnia, either to confirm or deny 'genocide'. Also in that list are people whom I know to have said more serious specific 'denialist' things, but once again the article does not mention what those more serious 'denialists' have said or when. So 'grape-shot' is perfectly appropriate - firing randomly against anyone whom someone else has accused of having insufficiently endorsed 'genocide' in Bosnia. The article informs very little - and seems unconcerned about - what specific people are accused of doing, by whom and when. It is IMO an approach which, apart from being unfair on some named individuals, much more importantly informs the reader of very little, except that a handful of sources magnified by WP editors think that the named individual is a 'bad person' who holds/has held opinions that the source and/or WP editors think that they shouldn't/shouldn't have.
 * There is no polite way to say this, but parts of the article are barely English, and certainly not coherent. The opening sentence is "Bosnian genocide denial is an act of denying or asserting that the … . How can anything be both the act of denying or asserting anything? What is probably meant is something like that it is the act of denying the genocide happened or asserting that it didn't happen" - although the two are virtually the same, so one of the two is probably redundant/tautological,  - Atheism is denying the existence of any God(s) or asserting that they don't exist"? There are then so many subordinate clauses that it is impossible to understand what is being said unless you already understand the subject rather better than the article itself does.
 * Minimalising the scale of killing, or trivialising it, is usually seen as an aspect of denial, so needs to be worked in - but all the stuff about the genocide being defined by Serb academic/political/military narratives is simply 'fluff' preventing any coherent definition of the topic itself. If included, it doesn't belong in the opening defining sentence, which is so long and convoluted that it is incomprehensible and self-contradicting. The topic is meant to be phrased so as to be comprehensible to a reasonably educated reader, it is also meant to inform, not simply "name and shame". IMO it fails on both counts - and I am someone who has contributed to quite a number of 'genocide' articles and quite a number of 'Bosnia' articles. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not single source, and those people are researchers, they are linked with other researchers, such as Hoare, Shaw, and so on. Consider following (and I am using my browser's older bookmarks, while Google could possibly give some newers):
 * https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/06/04/why-noam-chomsky-tariq-ali-arundhati-roy-and-their-co-thinkers-should-apologise-ove
 * https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/james-bloodworth/sections-of-the-left-shou_b_1520929.html
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/17/nick-cohen-democracy-murdoch-mladic


 * In my POV, minimising the scale of genocide shouldn't be equalized as outright denial, but certain trivialisation depending on nature and context could very well be denial.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The new sources you give support that Ali signed a letter defending the publication of an article, and 2002 book - which was written by Johnstone, someone who fairly certainly sought to deny the scale of killings - among her many other "anti-NATO/anti-US" views. This makes Ali a defender of the right to hold and publish unpopular views. Nowhere is it suggested in the sources that Ali has denied - or even ever mentioned - genocide or killing in Bosnia. One of the sources is fairly fringe, all three are opinion pieces by non-experts (though there may be no such thing as an objective expert on what is/is not denial iro Bosnia), but even these partisan sources don't accuse Ali of denying anything. You are proving my point exactly, that the article fires grape-shot in all directions rather than identifying who has been accused of what by whom. I'm no fan of Ali, nor of most of these left-wingers, who IMO were being incredibly naive at best, but I'm a big fan of accuracy and completeness of info especially where BLP is involved. No one doubts that there are some left-wingers who have, and/or may still hold views which denied or minimalised the violence in Bosnia, that doesn't make every left-winger, or even every friend of those left-wingers or defender of open discussion into a denier- which the article is effectively claiming at present.Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

New copy-edit
, a new copy-edit is now requested at the Guild. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  03:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Could be of some use
@Pincrete, if you are interested here's an interesting read - How Google Has Allowed Fake News About The Srebrenica Genocide To Flourish - if you can think of some use for it, great, if not I will come back later to find if it could be placed as ref somewhere. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  01:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't surprise me, particularly 'locally'. Not dissimilar to how some in the West end up in their own ideological 'echo chamber'. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Removed text
CC-BY-SA; text in this section has been copied from the article; see the article's history for full attribution. I've removed the material for reasons stated below: references may be useful for future editors. The following was removed because it failed verification; I checked the source and confirmed this.  Baffle☿gab  02:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

From Tactics and methods

 * The finding of genocide by the ICJ and the ICTY has been disputed on evidential and theoretical grounds. The number of dead and the nature of their deaths have been questioned.

Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  02:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I thought it will be lot more unrefed txt when I said I will get back to you later, but since it is just one line, I have time to reply immediately: this line doesn't make sense anyway and is most likely added in POV, but skipped scrutiny and went unnoticed by Pincrete and/or me. You did excellent job spotting it. No need for further concerns over it. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  05:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * However, the ref itself (Karlsson) is most likely completely valid for the text before these two sentences, which are probably just inserted there in unfortunate place without its own ref(s)- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  06:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It was me who recently added the 'failed verification' tag. The statement about what has been disputed is itself certainly true, but it isn't specifically confirmed by any source. Similarly, the definition section has numerous sources - which I simply 'parked' at the end of a paragraph, which I pruned heavily, but none of the sources actually defines denial I believe! Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that I confused few things here - in reality these two sentences should have come from me, initially at least. It was my attempt to convey what RS have been describing as a background, from where and how denial is based on both "evidential and theoretical grounds", and that "the number of dead and the nature of their deaths have been questioned"; I find it really strange that references for this are lacking, because anyone who researched denial, and I included many sources if not here than certainly elsewhere (although it is possible that somehow they were removed by accident) has to strat from these two premises. This needs careful re-checking as soon as copy-edit is finished. From top of my mind, this early in the morning, both Biserko and Baečirević should be enough for confirmation. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  07:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up from c/e
I've now finished my copy-edit; it was less bothersome than I'd expected. A few ideas for improvements:
 * The lede should summarise the whole article in a neutral and balanced fashion, per the MOS.
 * I tagged two quotations in the lede and a couple elsewhere with [citation needed]; direct quotations in the lede still need to be directly cited, per the MOS.
 * I tagged a few sentences with [excessive citations]; in one instance, eight citations are used to verify a single sentence. There are some sentences with four citations but I didn't tag those. This is far too many refs; remove the least-important citations and leave the most-reliable ones—two per point at the most.
 * I thought some of the text in "Denial by other individuals and groups" could be merged with responses noted in the subsection --> "Reactions"; this would allow readers to immediately see the reactions and might lead to removal of repeated text.

Anyway there it is; I'm finished here. Good luck with the article and cheers,  Baffle☿gab  05:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Baffle, I really appreciate it. This is by any measure gargantuan work. If we add to it your recent Stjepan Vukčić sweep, and the fact that majority of combined sources are in Serbo-Croatian, then it deserves huge appreciation. I will work with Pincrete to resolve these issues and allow me to ping you in case that something needs explanation or advice. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  10:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's all in a few days' work and the bill's in the post. ;-) I translated a couple of sources in Google Translate to fact-check some minor points. Yes, it will take lots of work but it's an important article. The best way to get my attention is to post on my talk page; I've turned off pings in my preferences. Anyway, good luck with the article and cheers,  Baffle☿gab  19:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"libertarian" right-wingers ?
The end of the lead says: "Serb policies and their foremost protagonists have been whitewashed and justified …, mostly on the left side of the ideological spectrum, but also by "libertarian" right-wingers, and this has sometimes become outright denial."

Who are these "libertarian" right-wingers? The article doesn't appear to say. The left-wingers accused are identified clearly and local Serb-'nationalist' politicians and to some extent in the diaspora as well, but who are these "libertarian" right-wingers ? The article doesn't appear to expand on either word. The text uses quote marks for "libertarian", but why is unclear, Pincrete (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, looking down the article, the same text is repeated later with three cites, the first (Hoare) is a detailed critique of left-wingers, but doesn't mention right-wingers. The second (Monbiot) is mainly about the Living Marxism case, but Monbiot labels LM as "a hard-right libertarian paper", which I sympathise with, but which is not the general nor WP description of LM. (LM's politics were perverse, seemingly contrarian and uncategorizable, but LM cannot be pillaried for being left-wing and as "hard-right libertarian" at the same time without some clarifying context).

Monbiot later says: But genocide denial is just as embarrassing to the left as it is to the libertarian right. Is he referring to LM? He goes on to mention one person: ''Last week, Edward Herman, … best known for co-authoring Manufacturing Consent with Noam Chomsky, published a new book called The Srebrenica Massacre(16). It claims that the 8,000 deaths at Srebrenica are “an unsupportable exaggeration. The true figure may be closer to 800.”'' I cannot access the third cite (Schulman). This is the only mention of liberatarians or Western right-wingers I can see. To make it more complicated, we list Herman among the "Left-wing revisionists" who get an entire section. Herman's own article does not list him anywhere on the L-R spectrum.

Does the mention of libertarian right-wingers add anything? The term is plural, but it doesn't seem agreed by sources or clear as to who they are or what either LM's or Herman's L-R position is. That both are widely accused of denial, I don't doubt in the slightest. Pincrete (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)