Talk:Dejan Jović

Criticism and controversies
It seems to me that this section gives undue weight to description and criticism on the content of the "First Do No Harm..." book (5 and a half lines or about 120 words). While I understand that some background to this "controversy" may be needed, this should be focused on the issues related to the content of Jović's review of this book and not the book of another author itself. At the moment, exactly the opposite is the case. There is no information on the content of the review and what was perceived controversial in it and criticized by ethnic diaspora organization in North America while out of scope content arguably insinuate defamatory claims.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The book was exposed beyond much doubt to promote revisionism and conspiracy theories by a specialist in the field, here, on pages 21-32, page 247 and 261. This was also echoed by another historian specializing in the Balkans (Josip Glaurdić) in his review of the book in International Affairs (journal) (vol. 86, no. 2, March 2010, pp. 555-556). Instead, you are making false assumptions and claim that these are merely "allegations", when they are proven beyond doubt with quotations (page 247). Jović (according to his critics) uncritically endorsed the book in his capacity as main advisor to president Josipović, which caused various Bosniak groups to criticize him, making the following charge against him: "Obraćamo Vam se u ime preživjelih žrtava genocida počinjenog u srbijanskoj agresiji na Bosnu i Hercegovinu. Glavni analitičar i specijalni vanjski savjetnik u Vašem uredu napisao je prošle godine potpuno nekritičku recenziju knjige 'Humanitarno razaranje Jugoslavije', autora dr. Davida Gibbsa. To samo po sebi ne bi bilo sporno da autor u knjizi koja je objavljena 2009., ne samo da otvoreno negira genocid u Srebrenici, nego genocid opravdava tobožnjom odmazdom imaginarnih ranije počinjenih zločina, tvrdi da je legalna i međunarodno priznata Vlada Republike BiH granatirala vlastite građane u opsjednutom Sarajevu. Autor knjige jedan je od neokomunističkih pristalica teorija zavjere koji u Slobodanu Miloševiću vidi borca protiv širenja NATO saveza, a ne balkanskog krvnika odgovornog za smrt stotina tisuća i progon milijuna ljudi u bivšoj Jugoslaviji. Dr. Jović javno podržava i hvali teze dr. Gibbsa o podjeli krivice za rat i tvrdi da 'Gibbsova knjiga predstavlja izvrstan, originalan i uvjerljiv argument koji relativizira dosadašnje interpretacije i postavlja im alternative.' Stvar je građana RH, ali ne samo njihova, što njihov predsjednik u svom Uredu drži autora ovih tvrdnji." Jović responded to these claims, in which essentially seems to boil down to making ad hominem attacks against his critics, continuing to praise the book and defend Gibbs. Jović first states that Gibbs does not engage in genocide denial, then contradicts himself couple of paragraphs below by trying to justify his genocide denial. This was already pointed out in Hoare's response in which he states: Jovic claims: ‘In criticising my review of Gibbs’s book, Hoare “forgets” that Gibbs personally replied to his thesis on “genocide denial” – and completely refuted it.’ But this is untrue. In his book (p. 281), Gibbs says of Srebrenica: ‘Certainly, the murder of eight thousand people is a grave crime, but to call it “genocide” needlessly exaggerates the scale of the crime’ (p. 281). Furthermore, Gibbs claims the massacre was provoked by the Bosniak victims: ‘The origin of the Srebrenica massacre lay in a series of Muslim attacks that began in the spring of 1995… Such actions invited Serb reprisals, and this dynamic contributed to the fall of the safe area’ (p. 160). As for Jovic’s claim that Gibbs ‘totally refuted’ my accusation of genocide denial: this is also untrue; Gibbs was completely unable to defend himself from the charge. Readers can view my refutation of him and see for themselves. and Jovic first tries to deny that Gibbs engages in genocide denial, then tries to justify Gibbs’s genocide denial. He argues that ‘in the academic community – not our own post-Yugoslav one, but more broadly – there is no consensus on whether in the wars in the former Yugoslavia genocide was committed or not.’ But none of the people he cites, in support of the view that there was no genocide, is an expert on the former Yugoslavia.. Jović apparently never responded to this.


 * Thus, it is fairly obvious what is being considered "controversial" or "scandalous", is that the main advisor to the president of the Republic of Croatia is uncritically endorsing a text which promotes not only disproven conspiracy theories (see page 21), but victim blaming and genocide denial regarding Srebrenica ([see page 261]), as well as other views described as "extremely anti-Croatian, anti-Bosniak".141.138.35.153 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dejan Jović is not the author of the book in question and therefore if it is really necessary there should probably be only some background without going into the book's details (if the book is notable, separate article can deal with it). Without going into Original research and keeping with strict neutrality (for example avoiding emotive superlatives as much as it may be hard), relevant criticism and response targeted at the book review itself is legitimate. This is particularly important since in its previous version one may get the wrong impression that Jović is genocide denier and it is libellous claim (take a look at the note at the top of the page). Further engagement from the community is welcome as I may potentially be a bit positively biased in the opposite direction and topic may be emotionally/politically sensitive. (note: Apologies, I did not have time to go into all provided links higher above)--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)