Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 6

"Suffering of the Axis populations"
"They do this by downplaying its scale and whitewashing other Nazi war crimes while emphasizing the suffering of the Axis populations at the hands of the Allies and stating or implying that the Allies committed war crimes as well."

The sentence in bold should probably be rewrote, it seems to imply that Axis populations did not suffer during WWII, or that the Allies never committed questionable acts during WWII. I don't think that emphasizing the suffering of Axis civilians during, say, the bombing of Dresda or Hiroshima, qualifies as "negationism". I do believe in the Holocaust but I believe that bombing Hiroshima was a war crime, too... that makes me a "negationist"? --Lupo1982 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Some parts of the entire article text tend to mix revisionist claims on facts with moral assessments, in particular Holocaust denial with the assessment of Allied war crimes, or whether they may be compared to the Holocaust. However, the term of historical revisionism should be limited to claims on facts, not end up in a moral dispute. I deleted a part of the "Denial" section, which went beyond defining Historical revisionism, but headed towards equating the denunciation of Allied war crimes with Holocaust denial, albeit the first is a subjective assessment and not a claim on facts.

Also an object of reworking should be the part of the paragraph "Holocaust denial" where Holocaust deniers are related to the formerly large group of expelled Germans (Heimatvertriebene), with one claim already marked as "Citation needed" (that they blame Jews for the suffering of the expelled). The text is lacking clues where and how Holocaust deniers successfully searched for support among expelled Germans (more than among other social groups of post-war Germany), and even if there had been such support, it would contribute little to an article about Historical revisionism in general (but blow it up unnecessarily). If such a connection existed, it should be in the specific article about Holocaust denial. BBirke (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Negationism includes both denial of fact and attempts at negating the moral implications of past events by making new comparisons between historical events, for exaample trying to soften the burden of historical crimes by reference to other crimes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Negationism can involve manipulation of facts to enhance the arguments for equivalence. -- PBS (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is still a great difference between denying the Holocaust as a FACT and controversial OPINIONS about moral implications. To accept the Holocaust not "only" as a genocide crime, but as an unique, exceptional atrocity over all other mass murders and genocides, on the other hand all Allied atrocities as justified or at least condonable, is an OPINION (and in the latter part, a morally highly questionable one). Holocaust denial is simply wrong, no matter what moral implications one might draw from that. Rejecting the previously mentioned opinion in it's extreme form, is a legitimate, different opinion far from Holocaust denial, justification or even preparing similar crimes in the future.

There may be wrong and exaggerated numbers on casualites in Dresden. So, it's likely far closer to the proposed minimum of 25000 instead of an exaggerated 250000. Does this change the fact that especially the British air force commonly performed air raids targeted against civilians, even before WW2 in British colonial territories, and that Dresden was only the most infamous out of hundreds of such air raids?

Maybe the problem is that the Wikipedia article about historical revisionism is split into two, one rather serious about scientific revisionism, and the other (negationism) about "revisionism" on politically hot topics (genocides, esp. Holocaust), which are often subject to social and political dogmatism. Controversy is hindered by the risk of getting shunned, attacked or even become subject to criminal punishment (multiple countries penalize claims that their gouvernments have committed crimes, Holocaust denial in Germany being an exception). Recognizing Holocaust denial as a forgery and junk science should not mean that one also has to accept Allied war crimes in WW2 as justified or condonable. Text parts which equate a moral comparison of Allied war crimes and Holocaust, with Holocaust denial are plainly misleading and defamatory, even if these comparisons do frequently occur together with Holocaust denial or with intention to downplay it. BBirke (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Serbian War Crimes
How is denial of Serbian war crimes unacceptable, when denial of Muslim and Croat war crimes in the war is acceptable? This article is one-sided on the whole Yugoslavia thing, and negates to mention that all sides involved committed war crimes in that conflict. They do not deny that the camps exist, because they do, but HOW THEY were used. This is not denial of Serbian war crimes. Or denying that Alija Izetbegovic brought in Islamic militants in Yugoslavia. Is "negationism" even a word? Is the study of offering an argument different from the mainsteam about events in Yugoslavia false history? I think not. The American public has no idea that radical Islamic jihadists were over there and if you look at the evidence and the graphic photos of butchered Serbs around Srebrenica in 1995 by Naser Oric and his men. Criticizing Yugoslavia is not negationism. It is criticizing it with new evidence. This is offensive and does not take into account the various war crimes of the Army BiH, such as beheadings. Sky News reporter Tim Marshall did a report on Bosnia, in which he found video footage of Muslim war crimes on the tape. Rade Rogic was a Serbian POW beheaded by Muslim war crimes. How come denial of the Serbian crimes is not put The documentary Istina available on YouTube, also presents Croatian and Muslim war crimes. Yet denial of Croatian and Muslim crimes is not considered to be negationism. I am concerned with the paragraph that says Serbian War Crimes. History is written with political agenda because history is written by the victors and looking through their agenda. I question the legitimacy of this article, because historiography these days is laced with political agendas, especially on college campuses.

How come denial of the expulsion of the Serbs from the Krajina isn't listed here? Denial of Croat War crimes of World War II, especially those of the Ustase should be posted here as well. Denial of the fact that Izetbegovic was an Islamist and had links and advocated Radical Islamic ideas and was jailed for them in th 80s, should also be listed. Denying the crimes is a pretty strong word to be used in this sentence. Pamela Geller and Julia Gorin merely found evidence of Islamic jihadists in Bosnia and pointing out that the Izetbegovic faction was Islamist. How come denial of persecution of Serbs is not listed here?

Denying crimes is not negationism because people do not like to wrestle such ugly topics. No one wants to be accused of genocide and genocide is an ugly term. Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for genocide and nothing more. The article fails to take into account that John R. Schindler found evidence of Izetbegovic's Islamism. Denial is not negationism because if negationism is even a word, when the American public does not realize that Anti-Serbian propaganda of the evil Serbs was regularly aired on CNN and Serbs do not like to be called an evil bunch of fascists and so forth. Criticizing Srebrenica and the shrine-like obsession with the topic is not wrong. Indepedent investigators found evidence and used proper scientific research with DNA evidence, that some in the body count were misidentified as Muslims when in fact they were Serbs. Some of the "dead" in the body count were still leaving. The UN even has people that support the Serbs. The UN fact-finding teams over there were thorough and some of the figures were inflated by the media, because the media tends to exaggerate. The Muslims over there were jihadists. One of their popular songs was "We are Allah's Army. For Islam we fight" or Shahid's Depature Shehidski Rastanak by Safet Isovic, or other jihadist-themed music over ther. S The American public does not know the truth about Bosnia or that the Sarajevo Islamic leadership wanted an Islamic state over there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 (talk) 71.116.34.150 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)71.116.34.150 (talk)

In the Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, on Answers.com, Izetbegovic was listed as being arrested for Islamist activities in the 1980s by the Yugoslavian authorities for subversion. Izetbegovic was noted for his Islamist ideas in Bosnia and he was feared by Serb and Croat alive. The Islamists in Bosnia seized power and tried to turn the country into an Islamic state. Evan F. Kohlmann has written a book about Islamist agenda and the coming Islamic Caliphate in Bosnia, along with photographs on the internet of Bosnian soldiers wearing jihadist uniforms during a parade in Zenica in 1995. The Bosnians were feared by the Serbs. There are numerous accounts of Serbs being killed in gruesome ways, such as by impalement on a spear, and gouging their eyes out, raping women, UN reports in Bosnia where high numbers of Serbian women were raped in 1995. The Muslim paramilitaries around Srebrenica led by Oric destroyed a church. 50 Serbian villages were cleansed of their inhabitants. The film Istina on YouTube documents the war crimes of the Croats aand Muslims that were unreported in the Western media. The Croat and Muslim crimes in the Krajina and Bosnia are not mentioned. The HVO and HOS paramilitaries are not mentioned here and their heritage going back to the Ustase. Yet, this hypocritical pagges does not mentioned denialism by Marko Perkovic Thompson in his music or the denialism in Croatia that actively denies the Holocaust. Believe it or not, criticizng Bosnia in this way, has legitimate scholarship from historans like Edward S. Herman, or Fransisco Gil-White, how published several papers criticizing the war in Bosnia, exposes Izetbegovic's Islamism and the militant Islam practiced by Izetbegovic and his desire for a Muslim state. Denial of Markale Marketplace is not listed, even though official UN reported stated that the Muslim fired mortar fire from Muslim-held areas of the city and staged an incident. David Hackworth is a noted critic of the war in Bosnia and he states that Izetbegovic watched it from a bunker in Sarajevo. There are official UN reports that do say otherwise about Bosnia, are they "genocide denial" or "negationism" for offering a pro-Serb viewpoint and denying Muslim and Croat war crimes is not even mentioned and the obvious anti-Serb bias is telling in that whole paragraph. Please be a little more fair and honest with the article thank you. Republika Srpska has thorough investigations of the events, using professors from universities in Belgrade.

There are people that do not necessarily deny that there was a massacre at Srebrenica, but that many of the people killed there were soldiers armed with rifles shooting at Serb soldiers. Was it a massacre in the sense that the Muslims stood no chance against the Serbian army there with its better equipment and training and that they were massacred because they had no chance because they were beaten because they lacked the equipment the Serbs had. many of the dead there, that are listed are soldiers of the Bosnian Army that shot and participated in combat against Serb forces. Racak for example was a watershed moment. The people that died there were KLA fighters that shot at Serb forces. They even found the smell of gunpowder on one of the victims. The official Serbian police report says that they were responding to a disturbance in Racak and that a gun battle took place there. The KLA dresses their dead to look like civilians to fool observers and it worked for them. They do not deny that these events took place, but HOW they took place in the Balkans wars. I wonder how denial of Racak and Srebrenica is featured, but not denial of war crimes that took place elsewhere in Bosnia by Serb, Croat, and Muslim alike.

Why isn't that covered more thoroughly? I don't know. What I do know is that ALL SIDES committed war crimes over there. That's a proven and documented fact. You cannot deny that. All sided committed war crimes and has their fair share of war criminals. Denying should be a form of negationism.

02:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 (talk)

71.116.34.150 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.serbijana.com/Textovi/PDF/US/us%20army%20fmso%20-%20bosna1.pdf

22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See, critcism of the Balkan wars is legitimate and smearins any legitimate criticism as illegitimate when people have legitimate questions, is complete crap. People have a right to oppose things that they do not like, and legitimate reports based on UN reports in Bosnia, is quite legitimate because independent investigators have found data about srebrenica, contradicting the official accounts because they have exemued about 6,500 bodies after six years of digging, usinh legitimate methods.

Being opposed to war in Bosnia an Kosovo based on legitimate reasons is not illegitimate at all, and should be treated as a legitimate counterpoint argument, instead of being ridiculed like it it in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.rferl.org/content/bosnian_muslim_sentenced_for_war_crimes_against_croats/24205035.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=-4eKmp_qu_QC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Ethnic+cleansing+of+Serbs+in+Sarajevo&source=bl&ots=kBeUa7a0vU&sig=vI8SpIJL342-8lsGi3X5GLSNsCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m8xCT9rBCoWG0QGFssHMBw&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Ethnic%20cleansing%20of%20Serbs%20in%20Sarajevo&f=false

There was ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Sarajevo. The ethnically-cleansed refugees have a fair chance of living, even though they were driven from their homes, and I am not saying it was okay, but at least the refugees have a fair chance at living and they can move elsewhere. Ethnic cleansing has been defined as not beng genocide because of people being moved, Wikipedia article, on the subject. Not excusing anyone. All sides practiced ethnic cleansing to create purely Serbian and Muslim zones during the war and these people live again, even though their homes are gone. At least they survived being killed.

23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical revisionism (denial) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC) – I understand that a page is needed for the term negationism - I also see from the talk histories that the article's naming has been quite a battle. I think "negationism" is extremely important yet a confusing disambiguation from Historical revisionism. I understand from past posts that "historical revisionsim" is added into the title to increase traffic and familiarity of the term "negationism." I also, however, see that the term has created significant confusion about this page actually refers to. My proposal is to change the main title to Historical revisionsim (denial), and to create a section specifically for the "negationism" discussion. This change would allow for negationism to become more widely understood while also providing a surrounding context for the "historical revisionism" part of the title.

From past talk sections:
 * "There is also a practice by non-historians and non-scholars, who deny past events while claiming they're engaging in revising lies about the past. The second practice is also called Historical revisionism. Following wikipedia's naming policies, the first article gets the primary name, the second is disambiguated with the qualifier (negationism), as this is its primary feature: a denial about the past as agreed by the consensus of scholarly debate." said Fifelfoo on October 6, 2009.
 * "Historical revisionist (negationism)" can be for any fraudulent distortion of history for nationalistic, idelogical, commercial, or other nefarious reasons such as to gain notoriety." said PBS on October 4, 2010.
 * "The purpose of this article, IMO, is not to " demonize certain sections of the scholarly community" but to point out examples of those folks outside of the "scholarly community" who masquerade as scholars." said Tom (North Shoreman) on May 24th 2009

As each author points out, negationism is another term for the practice of denial. By changing negationism to denial, we can then develop a contextual framework to clearly explain the practice of negationism as it deserves.

Here's my reasoning (from Wikipedias suggestions on naming pages):
 * Recognizability – I agree that Historical revisionism should be the main title, but "negationism" as the disambiguation is not recognizable. Denial, however, gets at the same point and is better understood by the reader. Negationism should be featured on this page as a technique of historical revisionism, and perhaps a closely linked definition page would help our purpose of informing?


 * Naturalness – Because denial is a more common term, the point of this debate is easier to integrate into the surrounding body of literature and thought on this topic.


 * Precision – Right now, the precision factor of this page is high, but the clarity is not. Can we add clarity by changing it to "denial" and keep the high precision? I believe the switch would help accomplish that.


 * Conciseness – I'd put forth that denial gets to the point of the article faster than "negationism" does.


 * Consistency – By renaming the page "Historical revisionism (denial)," I think it is more consistent with the existing pages on Historical revisionsm by being a direct opposite. The main 'Historical Revisionism' page deals with the academic pursuit of accurate history (positive sense of the term). This proposed move would clarify the other (negative) use of the term.

Akay2 (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment "Denial" is certainly better than "negationism", which sounds made up. But denialism already has its own article. The disambiguator should not be a synonym, but a category that the article is an item within. Kauffner (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "historical revisionsim" was not added to the title. It started out as "historical revisionsim (political)", as it was a fork from "historical revisionsim". The problem was that in the course of discussions at "historical revisionism" it became clear that the term has two usages. In America it meant what the article currently defines, but in Britain outside professional history journals, "historical revisionsim" tends to be used in the press to mean well roughly denialism or negationism, (while professional historians tend to use it as it is used in America). This has lead to some embarrassment for professional historians trying to explain that while they are revisionists they mean it in a different way to the press (rather like the difference for programmers usage of hacker and that of its use in the press).


 * The problem we had with the extension political is it led to arguments about what political meant for example see English Civil War, clearly we do not want to have mention of Christopher Hill on this page. So I moved the article to the current name because at the time there were only a very few mentions of negationism in English sources (but its meaning was/is used far wider than it is in French where it has a specific meaning) but its English meaning, as used in the English sources, at the time I moved it was much closer to the meaning of historical revisionism as used in the British press than that of denialism. The problem one has with denialism is that it tends to be seen as a binary meaning. IE one denies an historical fact, the trouble is that historical revisionism as used by the British press does not necessary deny anything, for example it may simply be to argue that "What the Nazi's did was wrong but look at Dresden that was a 'bombing holocaust'.", implying that the Nazi's were just at one end of a continuum. It is no coincidence that is exactly the argument that David Irving put out for most of his career until the wheels came off it. This sort of comparative manipulation applies to many of the entries on this page. So that is one problem with changing the dab to "denial".


 * The other problem is that "Historical revisionism (denial)" can be seem that those on this page are supporting the accepted truth and that they are denying a historical revisionism of that truth, in other words such a title can be misunderstood to be the complete opposite of what is meant. -- PBS (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (As no one has replied to my points, I guess that we have said all that is to be said on the subject) for the reasons I gave above (and thank you for the quote by "Pascale Bloch" Akay2 which I have merged into this article (see:Historical_revisionism_(negationism) )that actually give a reasonable secondary source explanation why it is suitable as a dab extension to this page. -- PBS (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Yes, the disambiguator should be a category and not a synonym (my two cents are that denial is a category, but I gotcha - and I hadn't seen the denialism article, thanks!). And I’m agreed that it shouldn’t be “political” – I can see how that would open a whole array of problems.

And I think I understand why you say “denial” could make it seem like we oppose real revisionism… The title should be read: Historical revisionism as denial, not the denial of Historical revisionism, but of course, we can’t guarantee that. I concede on that point, too.

Can you clarify the point about Britain/America? I’ve read the paragraph so many times I’ve confused myself. Did you mean that in America the term historical revisionism tends to refer to the process of establishing good history, and in Britain the term pejoratively refers to negationism/denialism (with the exception of academic journals)? If that’s the case, then it would logically follow to have the “Historical revisionism” page as the American understanding, and the “Historical revisionism (negationism)” page as the British understanding, yes? And that’s what lead to the choice of Negationism as the title.

Really, I would like the point of this article to be more widely understood (in America, too!). Instead of “denial” Is there a different term we can use? Akay2 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it often comes as a surprise to me when a term I am familiar with has a different meaning in another place. I am not talking here about things like elevator or tram which the average English speaking person should be aware of. For example more than once the American usage of "we have cleared the wood" (village or whatever) has caused problems on NATO exercises because follow up British troops have assumed they have gone in and cleared out the enemy, but of course the Americans mean they have bypassed the obstacle. Whether this has actually proved a problem in a hot conflict is not something that I have read happening (but then it is unlikely to be publish if it has).


 * "Historical revisionism" in the serious press in Britain usually means negationism/denialism. Here is an example search from Google for the Times website for:
 * David Irving and revisionist. returns 18 pages (if "Revisionism" google is smart enough to return the same pages as "revisionist")
 * DI & Negationist  0 pages
 * DI & Denialism 0 pages

An example of where revisionism has bitten an historian is over the RAF's bombing of Germany: Jörg Friedrich stated to the British Press that he is a revisionist historian (in the professional sense of the term as his book emphasised bombing from the point of view of those on the ground rather than the more traditional POV of those in the air) which the British press chose to interpret as "he acknowledges he is a revisionist" (the word acknowledges making it sound like a crime) in the negative sense as they use it -- as it is used in this Wikipedia article (see ) -- PBS (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary; see my proposal below. Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legitimate Revisionism or Not?
There have been a number of scholars and political activists who have publicly disagreed with mainstream views of Serbian war crimes in the Yugoslav wars of 1991-1999. Among the points of contention are whether the victims of massacres such as the Račak massacre and Srebrenica massacre were unarmed civilians or armed resistance fighters, whether death tolls were inflated, and whether prison camps such as Sremska Mitrovica camp were sites of mass war crimes. Scholars, commentators, and activists who have taken contrarian/negationist views, arguing that reports of Serbian war crimes were exaggerated, include Diana Johnstone,[31] Lewis MacKenzie,[32][33] Milorad Dodik,[34] Pamela Geller[35][36] and Julia Gorin.[37]

What is meant by negationist/contrarian views of the article paragraph as stated above? They do not do this just to be contrary, crimes were committed on all sides in Yugoslavia and that does not minimize Serbian crimes in Bosnian Herzegovina as stated above. The investigative report of the Racak Massacre by a British team, later found out that they were KLA resistance fighters in civilian clothing. This is an official investigation. It is not negationism what these people say, becuase they are putting events into prespective, presenting the Serbian view of war crimes, the whole article does seem to not know the line between questioning whether or not death tolls were inflated, many of them were, but treating all claims of questioning the mainstream views on Bosnia Herzegovina as illegitimate revisionism when other investigations have numbers different from other investigations and ask questions and revise the history to be more correct. Not this is legitimate revisionism by these scholars and other people involved. And a part of historiography is to find out the numbers being correct and debate the evidence and this article just seemingly wants to shut down debate on the whole Yugoslavia thing. It is not negationism.

Besides, the real negationism is the failure of all 3 sides to admit that there were atrocities committed by the respective belligerents and the failure of the Bosnian Muslims to admit their fair share of war crimes.

It is not negationism at all.

18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

Vietnam War
To show historical revisionism or negation of the record of American actions in Vietnam there would have to be a showing that there was an attempt by either historians or government to revise or negate the historical record. As far as I know, there have been no such attempt, but, in fact, rather candid disclosure of questionable activities. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't cite this in the article, but I live in a more "liberal" state in the US (Washington), yet whenever I tell people about these things (about the nature of the war), they tell me they didn't know about any of it. So it seems as if it's not being taught (when it should be, as Germany teaches itself about its past), which is an indirect form of revisionism/negationism. And in any event, what about Guenter Lewy, R. J. Rummel, Michael Lind, etc.? These are all accepted members of the academic/intellectual community who deny what the US did in Vietnam.


 * You wouldn't have gotten far in Germany, and can't get far in Russia when trying to discuss details of Nazi or Stalinist atrocities. However, no serious effort is made by historians or the German or Russian government to deny them. Thoughtless denial is common in such situations; detailed knowledge is very painful. By the way:
 * Entry on John Rawls in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy All it contains are these two sentence: "Then in the 1960s Rawls spoke out against the US involvement in Vietnam. The Vietnam conflict impelled Rawls to analyze the defects in the American political system that led it to prosecute so ruthlessly what he saw as an unjust war, and to consider how citizens could conscientiously resist their government's aggressive policies."
 * "what about Guenter Lewy, R. J. Rummel, Michael Lind, etc.?" might be a good question, sources for that? User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Lewy's point of view is spelled out in his book AMERICA IN VIETNAM, which I cited in my edit. And I daresay I have ever heard anyone from the US government officially confess that our military illegally devastated Indochina. (Unofficially, well, there's Ellsberg for one.) --I don't understand why the Rawls citation being so limited counts against it? Prokaryote (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I need to find a more appropriate article for my citations than this one. Prokaryote (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Vietnam War. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In what ways were the actions of the United States a violation of international law? This is an actual good faith question. It is not something I have thought through. All actions, other than lapses in discipline, seem to be legal defensive acts, but I'm sure there is case to be made to the contrary. Perhaps that there was a grossly disproportionate response to communist aggression and revolution. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 160,000 tons of bombs destroyed 50% of Japan's cities. What do you think 50 times that amount of bombing did to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos? How could such an indiscriminate use of firepower--the most in all human history--*not* violate international law? Not to mention the constant *deliberate* attacks on civilians (e.g. the lepers at Quynh Lap). And there was no communist aggression, either: there was French aggression that the US supported, then US aggression in invading South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos and in bombing North Vietnam. The "government" of South Vietnam that the US created had virtually no legitimacy whatsoever, so even if it asked the US to stay, well, the rest of South Vietnam had told them to go. Prokaryote (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the recent addition of a section on the Vietnam War does not contain any allegations of illegitimate Historical revisionism, so I am removing the edits that created it. PBS (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Historical revisionism need not be illegitimate. The article covers both legitimate and illegitimate instances. This is more of questionable example. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, my mistake, if it belongs at all it is the article about legitimate historical revisionism, or at least debatable historical revisionism. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is overwhelming evidence that the US committed massive democide during the Vietnam War. Anyone who argues contrariwise can be shown to use all the standard historical-negationist techniques for denying obvious democide (e.g. Lewy fabricated a Navy report supporting his allegations about the Winter Soldier Investigation, a highly-credible report by US soldiers describing the murder of over a million people in South Vietnam). And this denial has consequences. As Nick Turse writes, "In fact, very few of the more than 30,000 books about the conflict plumb the depths of Vietnamese misery during the American War" ("The Pentagon Book Club"). And it exists in our government, in major leaders in the military: "Nguyen's skepticism was well founded, even if he knew nothing of the Crusaders or their revisionist histories. There's a moment in [General David] Petraeus's dissertation when he pauses to take stock of the 'impact of America's longest war' and its fallout. He devotes not a word to Vietnamese civilians. There's no mention of women with shrapnel still lurking beneath their skin, or the men with faces melted years ago by incendiary weapons, or the inconsolable people still grieving for mothers, fathers, siblings and children gunned down decades ago. Instead, Petraeus wrote, without apparent irony, that 'the psychic scars of the war may be deepest among the Army and Marine Corps leadership'" (ibid.). Prokaryote (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editor Prokaryote is here to promote an agenda, and I had to remove his edits to United States war crimes. I am not just going to let my country get away with forgetting this, he informs us.  "During the Vietnam War, the United States and major regional allies in Southeast Asia committed an interconnected series of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), thereby provoking a global religious, legal, political, and philosophical response against this wave of mass killing," he asserts in this user page.  His stated goal is to rewrite Wikipedia in support of a certain political agenda.   "There was no communist aggression, either: there was French aggression that the US supported, then US aggression in invading South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos and in bombing North Vietnam," he goes so far as to assure us.  His edits have major sourcing problems, as I described:


 * To begin with, he writes: "During the Vietnam War, the US dropped eight million tons of bombs on Southeast Asia[40] (compared to 160,000 on Japan during the Second World War[41])."  His comparison here qualifies as original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.  He apparently believes that we can draw conclusions from these two unrelated statistics.
 * To continue, he accuses the US of "killing over a million civilians in Vietnam." The cited source is both dubious and fails verification:  "Around two million Vietnamese civilians were killed by all parties to the conflict (Matthew White, THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF HORRIBLE THINGS: THE DEFINITIVE CHRONICLE OF HISTORY'S WORST 100 ATROCITIES)."  Well, estimates do vary widely in this case (as you can see on the Vietnam War article), so the statistic could be accurate.  Population and Development Review estimated that fewer than 1 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed by all sides (Charles Hirschman et al., "Vietnamese Casualties During the American War: A New Estimate," Population and Development Review, December 1995), but the communist government claimed that 4 million civilians died.  In any case, the book in question doesn't qualify as a very important or notable source, no page number or publisher is provided, and one cannot just assume that because 2 million died, probably around 1 million were killed by US bombing.  Again, original research.
 * He then asserts that US bombing killed "hundreds of thousands in Laos." The sources cited are actually credible, but again fail verification.  "350,000 Laotians may have died from all causes during the war," does not mean "virtually all of them are victims of American war crimes."  350,000 is far and away the highest estimate for the Laotian civil war, and 50,000 is the most common.  The Vietnam War article on Wikipedia states that "20,000–200,000 Laotians" died in the conflict, based on a wide range of sources.
 * He concludes by claiming that "from 50,000 to 800,000" were killed by the US in Cambodia. Here, he actually provides a range of estimates.  Both of his sources are bare URLs, however, which again demonstrates his propensity to sourcing errors.  The 50,000 estimate comes from Ben Kiernan, a renowned expert on Cambodia.  The latter is an unsupported guess as to the highest possible total from R.J. Rummel's self-published website, based in part on communist sources, and it is not Rummel's actual estimate.  With regard to such figures, Rummel has written:  "That I use biased or ideological sources, as of communist publications on American atrocities in Vietnam or official Iraq statistics for the death toll among Kurds during the civil war, is part of my attempt to get at the lowest or highest democide or war-dead estimates. There are therefore many items in my references that no self-respecting scholar would list normally. I include them because I use their estimates and not because I believe them objective or of high quality.  Moreover, the omission of a particular work from the references does not mean that I have not used it. I have consulted, read, or studied for this work many times more publications than the references list here."  Of the three, Cambodia is the country about which I am most knowledgeable.  There's no way that such a death toll is remotely possible, for several reasons.  The main reason is this:  Cambodia is a very small country, and there have been MASSIVE amounts of demographic studies on Cambodia in the seventies.  Scholars like Patrick Heuveline, Marek Sliwinski, Judith Banister and Paige Johnson have universally settled on a figure of around 200-300,000 deaths in the Cambodian civil war; Johnson and Banister called 275,000 "the highest mortality we can justify."  As for the bombing, Sliwinski puts the toll at 40,000.  This is comparable to Kiernan's estimate, but it is notable that both estimates are counting civilians and combatants.  The Documentation Center of Cambodia has found two mass graves with bombing victims and 20,000 filled with people executed by the Khmer Rouge; try to find a memoir about Cambodia in the seventies that mentions the death of a relative due to American bombing.  That the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1970 at the request of the Khmer Rouge following negotiations with Nuon Chea, according to the Soviet archives (see Dmitry Mosyakov, “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda Yale Genocide Studies Program Monograph Series No. 1, 2004, p54ff), also raises questions about how he can believe that "there was no communist aggression," but then I doubt that the North Vietnamese invasion of Laos shook him either--nor do the grisly massacres of tens of thousands of civilians by the Vietcong keep him up at night.
 * Obviously, we could just alter the figures to make them less exaggerated, improve the sourcing, and suggest a range; but his edits are totally inappropriate to begin with. He is asserting that any Americans who disagree with him are comparable to Holocaust deniers.  That is his opinion, but it is also POV.
 * "The Nazi occupation of the western USSR precipitated one of the largest counterinsurgency operations on record....likewise, South Vietnamese pacification" is even more original research.
 * "The evidence for American atrocities on a massive scale was so clear that figures....came out against the US mission" is even more original research.
 * One of his sources, H. Bruce Franklin, is an outright communist. Marilyn Young became famous for denying the Massacre at Hue and Vietnamese land reform bloodbaths, and blaming the American embargo for boat people deaths.  Who is the historical revisionist?
 * It would also be possible to take an article like The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh and accuse, say, Christopher Hitchens of historical revisionism for calling the Viet Cong "valiant guerillas"--but if I just took these two things and connected them, it would be original research unless I found a reliable third-party source describing the methods Hitchens employed to "revise" history, and included any rebuttals.
 * While I don’t trust Rummel’s "highest high" estimates to be valid (and neither does he), Prokaryote should be aware that Rummel's "highest high" figure for democide in North Vietnam in the fifties is 922,000 killed. The real number is probably only a third or fourth of that, if Robert F. Turner and Rummel’s mid-value are to be trusted.  But I wonder if he would object to Rummel’s highest high in both contexts, particularly because recent studies by Steve Rosefielde suggest that Rummel's figures for Vietnamese democide have aged better than those for American bombing in Cambodia (which relied heavily on statements by Sihanouk and other dubious figures)—or if Prokaryote would only cite him, and his absolute highest possible hypothetical estimates, when it helps to make the argument against US policy?  In fact, regardless of the number, Rummel only considered around 10% of the bombing to be democidal.
 * Prokaryote, if what you seek to use Wikipedia for is political proselytizing, then I might suggest a blog or self-published website. Obviously, Wikipedia has been exploited before, and it is far from perfect, but it aspires to be a neutral source.  If you come in thinking, as Noam Chomsky (a source you cite on your user page) said, that "America needs to be de-Nazified," and your goal is to aid that process; then I must warn you to not let that cloud your judgment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the answer to my question above: Rummel is one of many "accepted members of the academic/intellectual community who deny what the US did in Vietnam".  Then why, my dear Prokaryote, did you cite on this very page Rummel's "highest high" estimates for alleged US atrocities, which were several times his mid-value estimates and included combatants?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing all this work. I hope Prokaryote seriously considers the points you have made and becomes a better editor. Anachronism figures in this. Determined resistance to expansion of soviet style communism and heroic national liberation movements dominated by Marxists are, for the most part, cultural artifacts of another era; thus the decisions made by both sides 50 years ago seem irrational, even criminal. There was good faith belief on both sides that the terrible suffering of a major civil war was justified. Tragedy is not crime. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I only hope that writing this doesn't make me, too, part of a cabal of historical revisionists comparable to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, I'd like to state I am not in defense of any agenda, it's just that TheTimesAreAChanging made a remarks that I'd like to clear out. I can't understand how citing the total amount of bombing in Indochina and Japan qualifies as original research. It is not original research for Wikipedia's definition, as you could see at the page you cited by The TimesAre..., and it is not original research for academic standards.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings
The sub-sections in the section "Examples" are meant to be examples of negationism (not a definitive list of such). As such they should be clear and concise so that a person reading this article can then use the information contained in the article to decide for themselves whether another example they come across in a book or newspaper is a legitimate case of historical revisionism or an illegitimate one.

What is the section "Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings" trying to say? Who is accused of negationism and who is making the accusations? What I read is a section that contains three sentences that do not seem to be linked in any way, other than by implication and that would be a SYN.

So unless it can be cleaned up so that it is clear and coherent, I suggest that the section is removed. -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. It's another example of something that made sense at the time to participants, but makes no sense now. The notions that a nation should fight to the last man rather than surrender and that destroying cities was a legitimate act of war made sense in 1945. It is characterizing these events by the standards of another time, armed with 20/20 hindsight, that is historical revisionism, but not of a rigorous sort. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia
The section on Macedonia a) doesn't cite any sources, and b) is veeery politically tendentious. It should be either shaped up or deleted. 196.202.193.190 (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If mention of the "contention" (?) between the inhabitants of the modern states of Macedonia and Greece had any place in this article at all - then we would need at the very least a comprehensible statement of the dispute itself - something balanced in fact, rather than a badly written bleat from one side. This is almost a species of border dispute - in which very ancient history and racist assumptions between peoples more or less racially identical (!) have been dragged in, rather than a clear example of H.R. likely to be helpful in defining the subject of the article, especially remembering that we do not need to include every possible example of H.R. to explain what it is. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Serbian
I have no judgement whether the section in question describes actual revisionism or not. However in the current state it is completely inacceptable in wikipedia. All references given are to works of people who are labelled revisionist by this wikipedia article and no references actually argue that they are revisionist. In other words, the section is nothing but slander of some authors. In mild wikipedia terms: original research, an opinion of a wikipedian who read, e.g., the cited article by Diana Johnstone and concluded it is revisionist. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I Started the correct way of presentation of the section: NPOV and such. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * David Campbell has written of the now defunct British magazine Living Marxism that "LM’s intentions are clear from the way they have sought to publicize accounts of contemporary atrocities which suggest they were certainly not genocidal (as in the case of Rwanda), and perhaps did not even occur (as in the case of the murder of nearly 8,000 at Srebrenica)." Chris McGreal writing in The Guardian on 20 March 2000, stated that Fiona Fox writing under a pseudonym had contributed an article to Living Marxism which was part of a campaign by Living Marxism that denied that the event which occurred in Rwanda was a genocide.
 * Darko Trifunovic is an author of the Report about Case Srebrenica, which was commissioned by the government of the Republika Srpska. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reviewed the report and concluded that it "represent[ed] one of the worst examples of revisionism in relation to the mass executions of Bosnian Muslims committed in Srebrenica in July 1995". After the report was published on 3 September 2002, it provoked outrage and condemnation by a wide variety of Balkan and international figures, individuals and organizations.


 * Notes


 * Hope this helps --PBS (talk)
 * Yes it does. But why here and not directly into the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the information is already in another article specifically about Genocide denial, so there is no need to include it here. See also Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 14 and the Diana Johnstone article. --PBS (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still must be searchable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot overemphacise that wikipedia is not in the position to offer wikipedian's judgement, especially a negative one. "Negationism" is a heavy judgement, not a "physical fact", and therefore it must be clearly stated who gives this judgement and with respect to which statements of the accused. Diana Johnstone is a good example of gray area: from links provided by PBS I read that Diana wrote: “However, one thing should be obvious: one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children,” in reference to the fact that the fact that the Serbs who conquered Srebrenica offered safe passage to women and children. While her opinion may be disagreed (I am not expert in details legal definitions of "genocide"), it does sound reasonable: she does not deny the massacre itself, nor its scale, but disagrees as to how to classify it. She is entitled to her opinion (just like those with a bad opinion about her opinion) and it is to be respected as such, unless we can prove that arguments she uses are deliberately or cluelessly falsified. Only then the sticker "negationism" has due and independent weight. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * She quite proudly and explicitly denies that more than a couple hundred people were killed at Srebrenica, whereas most observers estimate several thousand. It's as if she claimed that a few hundred thousand Jews were killed in the Holocaust.  The quote you cite is equivalent to arguing that the first phase of the Holocaust, which only targeted Jewish males in Russia, was not truly genocidal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this article your opinion is irrelevant. Not to say that your language is biased. The term "denies" may mean that she says "I don't believe it. Period." If she presents arguments in support of her position, it is fair to provide a quotation which says, e.g., "she argues that <...>, but her arguments are invalid/falsified/clueless". A person who merely says "she is badass holocaust denier" without valid counter-arguments does not deserve to be cited in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not to indiscriminately document various bickering. My quote I cite does not equivalent to anything and must be judged by its own merits. Argumentum ad holocaustum is just as abusive as ad hitlerum. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @TheTimesAreAChanging you wrote "She quite proudly and explicitly denies that more than a couple hundred people were killed at Srebrenica" what is you reliable source for this statement? Also do you mean in Srebrenica, or murdered as prisoners elsewhere after the fall of Srebrenica? -- PBS (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want quotes from her: "Muslim military force stationed in Srebrenica - some 5,000 men under the command of Naser Oric, had carried out murderous raids against nearby Serb villages"; "Bosnian President Izetbegovic pulled Naser Oric out of Srebrenica prior to the anticipated Serb offensive, deliberately leaving the enclave undefended"; "insofar as Muslims were actually executed following the fall of Srebrenica, such crimes bear all the signs of spontaneous acts of revenge rather than a project of genocide"; "199 [bodies in the area] were found to have been bound or blindfolded, and must reasonably be presumed on the basis of the material evidence to have been executed". (Source: Fools Crusade p. 109-118).  In other words:  The Muslims provoked the "massacre"; the Muslims deliberately left themselves defenseless to knowingly encourage a "massacre"; the Muslims inflated the scale of the "massacre"; the "massacre" involved mere "executions" but was also carried out by a vengeful mob, in a fashion totally inconsistent with orders from the top.  Yes, she does use scare quotes around "massacre".  The more important point is that she insists that no genocide occurred and that abuses were isolated instances, despite the findings of courts.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that you are putting you own spin on her words, and while I may not disagree with you, you have to understand that other interpretations can be put on the words. For example if President Izetbegovic and his military advisers decided that Srebrenica was military indefensible, then pulling out Bosnian Muslim troops and making the area a demilitarised one under the auspice of the UN, may have been the best of a set of bad options, rather than the Machiavellian move you are asserting she implies. You put her words in quotes and separate the quotes with ";" Are those extracts from one continuous extract or are they selective with sections of text missing between the quotes? If they are not continuous it is not possible from those extracts to draw the conclusions that you do, because they do not explicitly support the conclusions you have drawn. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let's focus on undisputed facts. Fools Crusade clearly states that no genocide occurred: "One does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children."  It further states (and here is a complete quote):  "Six years after the summer of 1995, ICTY forensic teams had exhumed 2,631 bodies in the region, and identified fewer than 50. In an area where fighting had raged for years, some of the bodies were certainly of Serbs as well as of Muslims. Of these bodies, 199 were found to have been bound or blindfolded, and must reasonably be presumed on the basis of the material evidence to have been executed."  It maintains that these "executions" were a response to "murderous raids against nearby Serb villages" and were "spontaneous acts of revenge."
 * Let's compare that portrait of events with reality: In 2004, in a unanimous ruling on the case of Prosecutor v. Krstić, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in the Hague, ruled that the massacre of the enclave's male inhabitants constituted genocide.  In February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concurred with the ICTY judgement, stating:  "The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995." The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,373 names, some 500 of them under 18, and includes several dozen women and girls.  As of July 2012, 6,838 genocide victims have been identified through DNA analysis of body parts recovered from mass graves.  During the war, not even one Serb city was under siege by Bosniak forces; in fact, the majority of Serb civilian casualties were caused by the Serbian army.
 * Fools Crusade states that: "War crimes? The Serbs themselves do not deny that crimes were committed. Part of a plan of genocide? For this there is no evidence whatsoever."  This is revisionism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, a wikipedian's judgement is irrelevant. Period. If someone in reliable sources argues that Fools Crusade is revisionism, it is relevant. However we shall distinguish whether the source was just a polemic/slander by an opponent or a judgement based on serious arguments. And so on.  The "focus on undisputed facts" of TheTimesAreAChanging is undisputed. However TheTimesAreAChanging  as a wikipedian has no business to pass their own judgement of facts however undisputed they seem or be. The job of  TheTimesAreAChanging   is to report judgements published elsewere. For example, here is a small pebble to shatter the "unidsputed facts" a bit. The book was published in 2003, written even earlier. The ruling you cite is dated 2004. How a 2003 book may be revisionism of a 2004 ruling beats logic. And please don't start telling me that there was a 2002 ruling or 1999 ruling or etc. I will tell you again: your opinion may be correct but it is irrelevant and this thread is waste of time for the purpose of wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the conversation is only unclear because you continue to obfuscate the issue. Nobody disputes that Johnstone denies that genocide occured, insists that the death toll was far lower than widely accepted, puts the word "genocide" is derisory quotation marks, and claims that the killings were inconsistent with higher commands.  Johnstone is quite outspoken in her advocacy of these positions, and she has been labelled "revisionist" by reliable sources.  It was you who started injecting your opinion into this factual discussion, by insisting that the section should be removed unless it could be "proven" that Johnstone is a "revisionist" (how can you "prove" that those who minimize the crimes of Imperial Japan are revisionists?).  You then said that Johnstone was a victim of "libel".  What is the point you are trying to make?  Did Johnstone change her mind about the death toll being in the hundreds after more bodies were uncovered?  Did the court rulings cause her to repent?  The sources do argue that Johnstone is a revisionist.  You continue to act as though her widely accepted revisionism is a fringe theory.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What a weird accusation. If you care to look into article history, it was actully me who recently added proper references which describe Johnstone as revisionist. I didn't say whe was victim of libel. Whether she repented or not is the matter of finding references. YOu continue to act as though you cannot read what other people wrote. I did not inject "my opinion" in this discussiojn. I am injecting the wikipedia community opinion that opinion of a wikipedian is irrelevant. Here. I typed it boldface. Can you read it now? And I have no objection for you to add other names I deleted from the section provided you supply the accusations with proper references, otherwise it is nothing but slander. Can you recognize the two core wikipedia policies now? Which I insist to be followed in this contentious area? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Slander is spoken, not written. Are you satisfied with the section as currently written?  If so, then we are talking in circles.  You just suggested that I "add other names"--but I haven't brought up those you removed.  I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I wrote; my comments were only about Johnstone, not anyone else.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, if other authors were victims of libel, that isn't my fault; it's not like I wrote the section. I just found your comments about how "reasonable" Johnstone's position is to be fairly bizarre.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, her postion does sound reasonable for a person who does not know the whole story. Exactly for this reason one needs solid arguments rather than just a label (btw. thanks for teaching me English). But the detail belong to the article about her, not here. Here a reference is ehough. And yes I am OK with the current verison of the section. I started this talk to explain my deletion of some text, per wikipedia rule of editing. Somehow it was blown out of proportions. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My main objection was your claim that "she does not deny the massacre itself, nor its scale, but disagrees as to how to classify it". This is at least partially incorrect, not merely in my opinion, but as a matter of fact.  She asserted that the death toll was between 199 and 2,000--which is not supportable in light of the nearly 7,000 bodies that have been uncovered and identified with DNA, and in any case does contradict the widely accepted estimates of over 8,000 killed on the question of "scale".  She was clearly working from flawed data, but she hasn't backed down in light of recent evidence.
 * Moving on, why can't this be added to the section?: "Darko Trifunovic is an author of the Report about Case Srebrenica,[5] which was commissioned by the government of the Republika Srpska.[6] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reviewed the report and concluded that it "represent[ed] one of the worst examples of revisionism in relation to the mass executions of Bosnian Muslims committed in Srebrenica in July 1995".[7] After the report was published on 3 September 2002, it provoked outrage and condemnation by a wide variety of Balkan and international figures, individuals and organizations.[6][8]" It seems relevant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying A you have to say B (and trim the verbosity): << The Report about Case Srebrenica by Darko Trifunovic, commissioned by the Republika Srpska, was described by International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as "one of the worst examples of revisionism." The provoked international outcry and pressure had eventually forced the Republika Srpska to disown the report and to issue an apology for the massacre.>> Staszek Lem (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging not that I particularly mind, but please read Plagiarism and Copying within Wikipedia. You need to revert you last edit and then reinstate it with a comment in the edit history such as I placed this page "Copied from the article genocide denial". This, or one of the other recommended methods of attribution, has to be done whenever text is copied from one Wikipedia article to another (an obvious example is when two articles are merged) to meet Copyright requirements and Wikipedia policy. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I'll do that.  Thank you for telling me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
Where's this country ? Azerbaijan has a state program that magnifies the Albanians as the alleged ancestors of Azerbaijanis for historical study in territorial disputes with Armenia StarBoyGarik (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)