Talk:Bosnian genocide denial/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Latest changes

• I will first address arbitrariness of Buidhe removal of quote box under WP:DUE pretext ("excessive quote— we already have too much of Rosensaft opinion"). I will remind Buidhe that they should be more careful in removal of blocks of text without any discussion, not to mention consensus - "quotation" issue isn't something undiscussed on these pages, so if one looks through GA nomination discussion it becomes obvious that issue was on topic for discussion and we reached a consensus. Article of this standing and this kind of subject deserves better communication between editors, and consensus as a result.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I am not going to revert Buidhe completely, I will reinstate quote-box content only partial + its reference - the other trimming by Buidhe is, in my view, acceptable.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a sensitive area so any significant change should be exposed on talk page. That interested editors can see what it is all about. Mikola22 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe completely, there is far too much of this article which imparts little or no real information (including those long quotes) and far too much which is not neutrally phrased.Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete, don't get me wrong when I say that you have been aware of GA nomination, and long and thorough discussion, which led to acceptance of the nomination, and stabilization of the article, and you never felt compelled to come forth and resolve some issues which you find problematic at that point or even earlier. You never approached when we were a bunch, with several admins around, and with experienced editors conducting all kinds of check ups, copy-edits, and usual in case of such nominations. Only after achieving stable version you find that article needs substantial, no less, revision (rewriting) concerning writing styl, starting from lede, English and clumsy sentences - which is most bewildering in my eyes since we checked the language, grammar but also whether the sentences make sense, with good to native English speakers - and few content related issues as well.

I have not looked thoroughly at your changes in the text, but it seem, at this point, that I have little negative to say about them, or add to it, nevertheless I intend to take a better look at some bits, that in my opinion should be removed, later. I have removed excessive content in that particular quote box, but I feel that small quotation and its ref should remain (I noted in a previous comment that quotations were subject of discussion).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I only became aware of this article very recently, although I have long been involved with the genocide, Bosnian war, Srebrenica and other related subjects. I'm not going to get involved in discussions about good article status, precisely because I wasn't involved and have no idea how rigourous the process was. Some of the grammar and phrasing at the moment is actually pretty awful, but what concerns me more is the total absence of neutrality - I know about Zuroff for example, because he is briefly mentioned on the Srebrenica article. Until I recently rewrote 'his' section of this article, the article included just about everything prejudicial that could possibly be said about Zuroff (eg he got awards from Serbia), but almost nothing about what he actually said or believes - basically he doesn't dispute mass killings, but disputes that 'genocide' is the right word. In this article there were acres of (fairly emotive) criticism of Zuroff - but hardly a sentence about what he believes and why. Many people have taken his position - especially perhaps Jewish people - as the traditional definition of genocide is the attempted elimination of an entire racial group. The courts ruled in Bosnia that genocide occurred because of a more limited and slightly novel legal definition - which even to the judges was not obvious immediately. So, reasonable people can conclude that the judges 'got it wrong', without necessarily being monsters!

Denial in relation to Bosnia can probably be categorised in two ways (broadly speaking) - dispute about what happened (which was more common during and shortly after the war), and dispute about what to call it (specifically about whether 'genocide' is the best term). To fail to make any distinction between those who claim that as many Serbs were killed as Bosniaks (for example), or that no civilians were ever targeted, and those who do not doubt that terrible crimes occurred, but cannot agree as to what term to use - to fail to make such a distinction does a great disservice to the 'deniers' themselves, but more importantly the reader, who is not informed about the real dispute(s) involved here.Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I object to especially perhaps Jewish people. We are not a hive mind. We have a wide range of views and this matter can be quite vitriolic in Israel; indeed you can see that in the op-ed discussed further above where Yehuda Bauer was attacked by Peled and by Charny, both of whom were offended for what they perceived as him mitigating what they saw as genocidal. Thanks. --Calthinus (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It says "especially perhaps Jewish people", no offence was intended. If you are a member of the group that suffereed the defining, and most numerous genocide, views such as Zuroff's are not surprising. Nor do I suggest (or think) that all Jews think the same. Pincrete (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are a member of a group that suffered, you may interpret your history as it relates to that of other groups in one way, or you may interpret it in another way. That Charny and Peled (whether "as Jews" or not "as Jews") find views that downplay or deny what happened in Bosnia as downright offensive and worthy of public condemnation, and indeed that Bauer (who is somewhere in the middle and was condemned by Peled and Charny) also takes issue with the tendency among Jews and non-Jews alike to compare other genocides to the Holocaust so as to mitigate them, should underscore this point. One's views about an event that they have no relation to are formed by their interpretation of the facts which includes how they do (or do not) relate it to their own (group) history. But no, I'm not offended, don't worry. --Calthinus (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Any major 'victim group' in almost any circumstance, is more likely to be 'touchy' about - what it may see - as insensitive analogy. This is as much true about women and sexism, African Americans about slavery or racism - or pretty much any such 'victim group'. It's a common human trait, this was my intended inference.!

Pincrete, it was collaborative effort on one particular article on a scale unlike any I have experienced before in my 12 years on the project, so, I am really sorry, but that's why I feel that your evaluations and objections are excessive, maybe even over the top - namely "(s)ome of the grammar and phrasing at the moment is actually pretty awful", "total absence of neutrality"(!?), have you checked the article Revision history lately, say between 7 January and 21 May, at least.

Nevertheless, I really have no time nor energy to polemicize on what genocide definition is or what isn't, nor I wish to engage in invention of denial categories, so that article can make distinction between two or more kinds of denial (soft, hard, lesser, greater !?) - if such a categorization does not exist in the law, literature and conventions on genocide, then there should be no place for such acrobatics in this article either.

One of my main concerns was writing style and grammar, and possible problems with neutrality which could arise from that aspect of article writing, so I wanted editors to scrutinize that rigorously - brunt of that that job was done by colleague-editors User:Calthinus and User:Eisfbnore, both of whom demanded neutrality and checked for typos & MOS as well. The User:DePiep specifically checked for typos & MOS, and fixed it. The efforts of User:Mhare and User:Resnjari were also significant at the time, with an unusual frequency of visits by several administrators (User:Keith D (one of the earliest), User:Moneytrees, User:Drmies) who participated with more or less contributions (but I doubt they did not stop to read part or all of the article and check the remaining different things for problems). User:Philip Cross was here from the beginning, and, although they never contributed awfully large amounts of prose, they were aware of most of the changes, tweaking things here and there every now and then - unfortunately they never engaged in any conversation, although I was pinging them few times, because I wanted to here their opinion on article progress and possible issues, so I understood their silence as a form of agreement - I would still like to here from them, anyway.

That's why I find disturbing some of your changes and related positions expressed here. After long discussion, with Calthinus and his detailed analysis, they persuaded me that Bauer and Charny didn't denied sequence of events, as you propose above for others, instead, they argued against genocide categorization (say label) based on their dogmatic view (you say traditional) that genocide has to be complete annihilation, and so on and so forth (why they think so in the face of modern genocide scholarship is irrelevant(!) for the article, although Charny controversy gives some hints) (see this for full explanation and better understanding) - these two, Charny and Bauer, are not included into the article! At this point all further polemics about Zuroff would probably be unnecessary, however I doubt that you think the same, so here we go:

• Zuroff reiterates something in between usual and official Serbian and the narrative of Milorad Dodik and his Republika Srpska official stance, that is:
  1. he denies sequence of events (Muslims committed a war crimes around Srebrenica before Serb retaliated in an act of revenge)
  2. he denies nature of event ("killings happened", "tragedy happened", "people suffered" - what this could mean is ambiguous and could mean different things: a) killings of military targets in combat; b) killings of just a few hundreds of POW's in revenge for previous Muslims' killings of Serb civilians around Srebrenica and Bratunac, and especial for Kravica village; or c) it could be arbitrary and summary executions of Muslim civilians in thousands - what the "killings" mean for him is in line with deniers' narrative, which is a) and b))
• In relation to previous point: there is no need to elaborate, or anyone else to explain on his behalf, to any extent, his theories and what he believes that happened, why he say things he say, it is irrelevant and only important thing is that he denies genocide happened, both in sequence and in nature - particularly irrelevant is that strange assertion, included into article without consensus, that he thinks "killings happened" but not genocide. So, unlike Bauer and Charny, whose how and why exonerated them, Zuroff feature in this article as a denier, and nothing can warrant "explanations", that poor intellectual in him misunderstood or strongly believes "the judges 'got it wrong'", to alleviate his positions.
• On the other hand, his relation to Serbia, Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, Tomislav Nikolić, the fact that he received awards from these deniers, that he offers his services to them and to government of Republika Srpska and Dodik to preside a New Commission on Srebernica events, organized and financed by Dodik's government, with a goal of assessing Srebrenica happenings again, for the Nth time, and which is supposed to result in yet another, newest Report on Srebrenica, and that Zuroff, like his employers, obviously doesn't recognize previous one which was accepted by International community and all its institutions - all this, not only is important for shedding some light on his bias, but is important for it is defining characteristic of his engagements in Bosnian genocide affairs.
• The last, for now, would be inclusion without consensus of his idea that someone compared Holocaust to Srebrenica, not to mention that he doesn't say who compared one to another, where and when, it is also blatantly out of this article scope!

Thanks for your attention, and I apologize to everyone for the longer post - and if you are interested in further discussion on any of the changes to the article, I would appreciate, and I am sure you would too, if we could get rest, or at least some, of the editors who participated in its assessment for GA nom, on board. Good health to everyone--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I also agree with Buidhe's edits completey. The article is only starting to look decent now. It's a stroke of good luck that it good the GA status with such wording and lack of WP:NPOV. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

Some of the changes were useful. Others were not. The Zuroff section now reads like a coatrack for Zuroff's own strawman arguments against people comparing what happened in Bosnia to the Holocaust. This is clumsy at best and insensitive at worst, to say the worst, and should be amended immediately.--Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete:, @Calthinus:, I will later try to reinstate text that was there before following Pincrete change: 17:19, 30 November 2020 preview - so that we can properly make suggestions and reach agreement what should be done with it. I am not sure if these intended reinstatement are going to alleviate "the Zuroff problem", if not we can fix it additionally later. Another change: 13:57, 2 December 2020‎ preview - should be rewritten without Rwanda stuff in it, just a simple subsection intro consisting a line or two, or maybe not. I have now already made few tweaks on refs, and I intend to make few more (refs or small text tweaks), hopefully they will not be considered controversial, but I am open for all suggestions anyway and I think we can resolve anything.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the logic that "all denial is the same", which seems implicit in some posts here and some text in the article. Were that the case, there would be no distinction between those who mainly agree with most aspects of the historical view(that there was intentional, targeted killing of civilians, based on their ethnicity and that Serb forces were the primary perpetrators and Muslims - numerically at least - the main targets) - but who dispute - or have disputed - some aspect of the narrative, including disputing whether, 'genocide' is apt legally or otherwise - no distinction between THAT position and the position of others who strongly dispute events or who present themselves as the REAL victims. How, where, why, and when named people 'denied' is crucial to understanding the topic IMO.

Genocide is largely about intent rather than simply a 'numbers game'. Even judges did not rule that intent (to destroy the ethnic group) was proven iro each incident. Clearly anyone sourced as having denied any aspect of the genocide can legitimately be included in this article, but to fail to put their position, while simultaneously including masses of prejudicial irrelevancy about them (such as Zuroff's honours from Serbia and very emotive accusations from one of his critics), is neither neutral nor informative. Everyone gets 'paid', including judges - Lewis Mackenzie was paid by a US Serb organisation to give evidence to the US Senate/Congress I believe - however there is no reason to believe that the money had any effect on Mackenzie's assessment which he gave as evidence there. Nor is there any reason to believe that the - fairly trivial - honours given to Zuroff had any effect on his views, but including the info, especially early on, is a blatant attempt to discredit him by implying he'd been 'bought'.

As regards the English, I've posted in the above section criticism of the lead - which IMO fails to clearly identify the main points of the subject and which, in my assessment, is at least convoluted and possibly nonsense in places (denying and affirming the same thing?). I am someone with a reasonable level of education, native English and a reasonable knowledge of the topic, but I still can't identify PRECISELY what is being said there. I am forced to 'second-guess' intended meaning. No one so far has responded to my criticisms above - perhaps it's my fault, but the English phrasing appears inpenetrable to me. The definition of denial itself appears to be WP:OR, certainly by inserting so many subsidiary clauses relating to Serbian intelligentsia etc, who may well have roles in all aspects of the genocide, but who are NOT significant to defining 'denial' itself.

If/when I have time, I will attempt to come up with a suggestion for improving the lead. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Following points to reply to:

• Zuroff - inclusion is not based on one "emotive accusations from one of his critics", and I doubt that Peled approached to write her article from emotional stand point. It's based on both Peled and Charny's assessment, while we should not consider conclusions by victims, who are more than entitled to recognize and call deniers out, any less worthy and omit their protests, such as Letter to the Simon Wiesenthal Center Regarding Genocide Denial by Effraim Zuroff, from 2013 by the Institute for Research of Genocide in Canada.
• Denial "definition" - there is a very clear distinction between those who question "intent" and those who don't, regardless of any other kind of discussions whether on "narrative" or "numbers", and so on.
• OR claims - there is no extraordinary claims without extraordinary sources in this article, and unless a whole group of involved editors is somehow either incapable of spotting such issues or decided to play along and participate in creating their own narration and making stuff up. In Serbia and Republika Srpska, parts of intelligentsia is major part of the problem, however article only mentions Serbian academy and part of country's intelligentsia in context of plans and goals of war efforts. There is a small para where Biserko's and Bečirević's findings are included, and with a reason - they are scholars involved with a field and their work is impactful.
• Lede - haven't you already changed it - I haven't removed your edits in lede, nor reinstated title and intro for "Denial by officials".

But in cases when editor(s) sense ambiguities could be exploited, we generally should consider, and I don't wish to sound like editor who just mechanically repeating a cliche, that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Santasa99, firstly apologies, in some of your posts I have difficulty understanding PRECISELY what you are saying. Whether the fault is mine or yours, I don't know, but I say this in order to register the possibility that I may seem to be ignoring some of your points or may be misunderstanding some others.

Firstly, a couple of fairly trivial corrections. I have never said that Zuroff's inclusion is "based on one "emotive accusation(s) from one of his critics"." What I have said is that the critic is given undue prominence (including a fairly large quote box), to make his accusations while - not only is no effort made at all to render any nuance to Zuroff's position, - but also every effort is made to discredit Zuroff with WP:OR (which I will detail below) and editorialising (also below).

I have also never said or implied that Serb intellectuals, politicians and other public figures were not implicated throughout - from the rise of ethnic nationalism before the war, to partaking in 'denial after it. What I have said is that intruding their role into the first line of the first para of the lead a). gives them an importance which they don't IMO deserve and b). more importantly, it 'muddies the waters' by creating a convoluted first para which fails to clearly state the most basic info, but instead gets bogs down in incidentals - I am more specific in the section above.

Secondly, and more seriously, of course "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". But verifiability is precisely what I say is missing in quite a few important instances. So, yes Santasa99, editors here have "participate(d) in creating their own narration and making stuff up" in some instances. More precisely, what they appear to have done is provided sources which may IMPLY, or which could be construed as INDICATING the claim made, but which fail to STATE the claim - ie WP:OR interpretations of sources and WP:SYNTH - as well as generalised editorialising, which is a form of WP:OR based POV-pushing.

More specifically, where is the source that says that Tariq Ali has ever engaged in denial of the Bosnian genocide? Or the host of other sins that named members of the far left are all supposedly guilty of? Since the (book review) source used at present for Ali says no such thing, and doesn't even mention Bosnia or genocide but simply implies that Ali, and the writers of the book which he edited tend to blame everything bad (around the subject of Kosovo, not Bosnia) on the US, NATO, capitalism etc. and ignore the sins of people such as Milošević. Fair comment pehaps, but hardly an accusation of 'denial' without bucketloads of WP:OR. Also, hardly a RS for anything except the writer's opinion of the book Ali edited. This is a serious breach of BLP.

Where are the sources that even say that half the people in the ""Left" revisionists" section even ARE members of the "far left". Cetainly SOME OF THEM have denied all or some aspects of the horrors of the Bosnian war, but the whole section appears content to "fire grapeshot" against a whole bunch of people as though they were all "tarred with the same brush" and collectively guilty. I cover the Ali text more precisely in the section about Living Marxism above. Incidentally, no source actually says that LM engaged in "genocide denial", certaimly they engaged in 'atrocity denial' or some such description, but I cannot see any source that says "genocide" or "genocide denial". I don't necessarily object to inclusion of the LM section, since it is describing a related phenomenon, but I do think we should take into account that AFAIK, no one has ever said LM were "genocide deniers" - except WP editors seemingly.

Where also is the source that says that Zuroff has "close ties to Serbia and its political establishment"? I outline below how the sources currently used conspicuously FAIL to SAY this, though some editors might think the sources succeed in SHOWING ties, which is blatant WP:OR of course. Almost equally important is why is this very prejudicial comment placed in 'pole position' in his section. Who says the info is remotely relevant except WP editors? It is impossible for me to construe this sentence as anything other than a crude attempt to discredit Zuroff - which is how I would also describe other bits of editorialising in 'his' section.

As I say, I cover LM, Tariq Ali and "the far-left' in a section above and Zuroff in the sub section immediately below.

'Zuroff' text

I'm starting a new subsection here because of this revert of the 'Zuroff' text which now reads:

• Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center office in Israel, with a close ties to Serbia and its political establishment, also denies that Serb forces had genocidal intent. He tried to explain that "as far as I know what happened in Srebrenica" doesn't fit definition of genocide. He went on and also tried to explain how he believes that the decision to call it genocide was made for political reasons. Furthermore, he talked about what he called "Srebrenica's comparation with Holocaust", and without giving any of examples claimed "absurdity" of such analogy.

References

Firstly, you cannot "have a close ties" a is singular, ties is plural. This grotesque grammatical error has been in place for at least a year, which is indicative of how careless the GA review actually was. More importantly, the 4 refs endorsing Zuroff's 'close ties' to Serbia and its 'political establishment' are all primary sources - two are Serbian Govt sources, one is the Wiesenthal Center itself and the final one is 'Defending History' which says "the award, … was granted to Dr. Zuroff for “exceptional achievements” , which included “his selfless dedication to defending the truth about the suffering of Jews, and also Serbs, Roma and other nations during World War II.” - the award seems to have been given several years AFTER Zuroff's controversial 'Bosnia' statements and - needless to say NONE of the sources mention 'close ties'. IMO, the 'close ties' claim would be a fairly nasty effort to discredit Zuroff's views - by implying he had been 'bought off' - even if it were properly sourced, but they aren't sourced at all, they are blatant WP:OR based on editors' own analyses of primary sources.

There is also substantial editorialising present or recently added. Why is Zuroff referred to -several times- as "trying to explain". Why do we not simply record what he "said' or "wrote". The inference that Zuroff somehow failed to adequately make his point 'sticks out like a sore thumb'. Similarly, why " without giving any of examples claimed "absurdity" of such analogy" … a) this is terrible English (intended meaning is probably "without giving any examples, he claimed the analogy was "absurd") … b) Who claims either that he didn't give, or even thinks he should have given examples apart from the WP editor who inserted this? … c) Ironically, he does give a very precise example of how he thinks the holocaust was very different - he says the women and children in Srebrenica were allowed to live!

I continue to believe that it is necessary for us to state in the text here, precisely WHAT each person, or group are accused of denying, (and what aspects they affirm as true) - WHEN the accusation was made (since disagreeing with something during, or shortly after the war is not the same as doing so many years after the event) - WHO makes the accusation (unless it is almost universal), and of course all this needs to be WP:RS'ed, not synthed, 'beefed up' with editorialising, or seemingly invented, as is the case in some instances now.

There are other errors of grammar and phrasing in the 'Zuroff' text, but they are minor and fixable. The cavalier attitude to interpreting sources according to personal preference is NOT.

I apologise if this is a long post. I believe the length is justified. Pincrete (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum NONE of the sources used says that Zuroff "denies that Serb forces had genocidal intent". The reasons given for him denying the aptness of the term 'genocide' in the three sources are mainly the 'letting women and children go", and to a lesser extent the numbers involved. I cannot see anywhere he speaks of Serb intent at all. Pincrete (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

When I clicked to publish my previous post it hit me that I forgot to apologize for its enormity, but I expected that I will be compelled to apologize subsequently - now I am not sure it is necessary.

I am really disappointed: you are using one grammatical mistake, label it "grotesque", and proceeded to characterize entire GA process as "careless": grotesque grammatical error has been in place for at least a year, which is indicative of how careless the GA review actually was, I wonder, how would it fare if I reverse this attitude at you and conclude that this kind of innuendos are indicative of you approach as possibly dishonest and unfair, both to editors who participated, and article as it is.

You have made (at least) several good points, mostly concerning phrasing and fixing diction and syntax, with maybe some context, but you have buried them in this wall of text, mixing your own opinions and believes (how much of it is formed by ideology, how much is contrarian, how much by concern for the project - these are always fair question when one rely on opinions), also with your interpretation of both sources and Wikipedia guidelines and policies, there are some insinuations, while fair amount of irony and general cynicism is also palpable: innuendos about reliability of used sources, claims of "beefed up" and synthesized statements, or even claims that are invented altogether(!), with overzealous interpretation of OR, Synth, stating obvious, paraphrasing, and so on, but also patronizing and derisive tone regarding editors' usage of English language; and the nonchalant usage of "revert" term to introduce a reason for creation of Zuroff subsection here - you even properly gave a diff-link, but you did not explain (to editors who wish to participate) that this was not exactly a "revert" (of mine), which we all know is used as edit-warring tactics, instead it was TP announced "reinstatement" of text which was previously replaced by you with different text and without consensus.

It would be more efficient if you have used point by point method and expressed your concerns and objections with precise problem characterizations and identification, and without expressing your believes, opinions, impressions, and so on, so that we can check it point by point, search for appropriate policies and guidelines and check them as well, and where our views diverge on interpretation, whether concerning sources or policies and guidelines, we can then ask other editors who were involved in GA process and review to chip in with their own.

For instance, your objection on usage of "far-left" idiom - it is used by Hoare explicitly (along with radicals), but if you think that when others (Ed Vulliamy, Michael Deibert, Emma Brockes, to name a few off the top of my head) says that the group of revisionists and deniers belong to Trotskyist, Marxist and Bolshevik–Leninist or Marxist-Leninist ideological spectrum, what do you believe they are talking about - what do you think we should call them: social-democrats, progressive left, mainstream left or far-left?

where is the source that says that Tariq Ali has ever engaged in denial of the Bosnian genocide? Or the host of other sins that named members of the far left are all supposedly guilty of? - in article they are discussed as "revisionists"t, and subsection is titled accordingly - "Left revisionists". All including Ali, are labeled deniers by Hoare, described as such in Srebrenica Genocide Denial Report 2020 p.30 - namely Herman, Paterson, Israel, Johnston, Parenti, Robles, and Hume (+ Pilger) - Hoare refer to their engagements as "left revisionism's denial", and explains: "The use of the word “revisionist” to describe this current of opinion serves a dual purpose: on the one hand the revisionists seek to oppose what they see as the mainstream, orthodox view of the wars in the former Yugoslavia, and, on the other, to challenge the very notion that genocide took place." He also names them, many of whom are not even included into the article (like Pilger, Fisk, Pinter, Chomsky, Roy, Raimondo, Clark), but these boys are. Ali himself is mentioned in just about every report and/or research on Bosnian genocide denial and revisionism - it's not as if we are talking about his name appearing in some world/political affairs reviews in which we can't pinpoint nature of his naming in them.

Zurof: "Genocid je pokušaj totalnog brisanja jedne nacije, dakle holokaust i Ruanda jesu bili genocid. Darfur nije jasan. U BiH nije bilo genocida" - now I will leave up to you to translate these few lines.

Rosensaft (latest on 11 July 2020) and Charny, along with Institute for Genocide Research Canada (link), is more then enough RS and V for ending debate on him; as far as his reasons, motives and theories are concerned, I am referring you to Calthinus statement (regarding on-wiki take), which I fully support. For his "close tie", well, it's up to reader to imply what ever one wants - his ties with Nikolić and Dodik, Serbia and Republika Srpska are relevant to Peled and Charny, so it is relevant to me as a contributor.

As for your attempt to somehow sneak in some of the "explanations" for Zuroff or any other mentioned individual, for balancing sake or whatever: Stanley Cohen seminal work on denial indicates that three forms of denial are possible with respect to what is being denied: literal, interpretative and implicatory - literal denial implies that the knowledge or the raw facts are blatantly denied ("nothing happened", "there was no massacre"); interpretative denial, the raw facts are not denied but are attributed a different meaning ("collateral damage and not a massacre"); implicatory denial refers to the denial or the minimization of its significance or of its implications. Israel Charny also elaborated on denial - but nobody, nowhere, ever elaborated on explanations and justifications of denial or endorsed possibility that deniers should be listened for explanation. One is either denier or not, one's reasons and explanations are irrelevant! So, why should anyone know why they engage in denial. Thanks, wishing you all good health, and I apologies for another long post.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 I created this sub-section specifically to deal with the Zuroff text. I did this because I realise that discussing too many things in a single thread can get confusing - even to the participants - and impossible to follow to those watching. So I will deal here mainly with Zuroff.

You do not respond to my point above thst there are NO sources for the assertion that Zuroff has/had " close ties to Serbia and its political establishment", nor to my addendum that none of the given sources says that Zuroff "denies that Serb forces had genocidal intent" (if I put "Zuroff genocidal intent" into my search engine, it throws up this WP article and some stuff about Iran/Merkel/Israel) . Nor to my claim that there is substantial editorialising (several instances of "trying to explain" - " without giving any (of) examples") in that text.

Can I assume therefore that you don't object to the removal of these (prejudicial IMO, poorly phrased and uncited) parts of the Zuroff text?

I will leave aside for now whether what you characterise as my "attempt to somehow sneak in some of the "explanations" for Zuroff or any other mentioned individual, for balancing sake" but which I look upon as giving a fuller, fairer and more accurate account - precise targeting not grapeshot. I'm leaving it mainly because I want to give other editor's the opportunity to wade in. If there is no conclusion to that, I may start an RfC. I agree that there are different kinds of denial - especially in the years immediately following an event - how to characterise those differences may be problematic, but the PoV that you are articulating is -effectively - saying that the only thing that the reader needs to know is that person X has been declared guilty (by a single academic in some cases). I may not agree with Zuroff or Ali or many others here, but I have no problem in saying that I want to read a balanced account of what they have said and believe - which effectively means more than finding an editor using a source solely to declare the person 'guilty', but omitting everything in that same source which gives context or balance to the person's statements. This is what I believe you are arguing for iro of Zuroff, disregarding everything in the source that doesn't fit in with what you want to say about Zuroff.

Incidentally, this article for a long time had what I would call a 'fuller fairer' account of Zuroff's beliefs - it was almost as mangled linguistically as the present text - but it was both more concise and more balanced IMO. It was removed in February 2019.

It is NOT one grammatical error - I merely highlighted that one and it is an error so glaring that one would expect a child to spot it instantly, but when I first raised that aspect you virtually said that because the article had gone through GA process, it had to be flawless. Believe me, it isn't. Other errors include that in the first para, 'systemic' is used, which is probably the wrong word (systematic is probably what is meant, which means something different). The opening line speaks of denying or asserting the same thing (when you take away all the subsidiary clauses) - which as I point out above is nonsense. Of course I can guess the intended meaning there, but I shouldn't have to should I? When one looks back at the history, mangled grammar and use of the wrong words is almost the norm in some parts - other parts are well written. Of course I could fix much of this, but I'm afraid that bitter experience has made me disinclined to fix others' failings until AFTER content is agreed. Spending hours fixing grammar, phrasing, and mis-used words only to have it reverted by someone unwilling to admit that their English may be flawed, is not my idea of time well spent.

I have to work shortly, but will respond to the points about Ali and 'the left' later, and somehere else on this page - in order to keep each thread focused on a particular issue.Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum What on earth has a protest letter from a group of people complaining about his 'denial' got to do with anything? This supposedly proves what? Some of those speaking for the victims are appalled by what he said? So WP can write whatever it wants because only their voice is worth listening to? Regardless of any sympathies one might have for the victims, neither WP nor the wider world works like that. I'm not anyway arguing that he shouldn't be included in this article - with the views of both himself and his accusers stated as clearly and neutrally as possible - and fully cited.

As regards "For his "close tie", well, it's up to reader to imply what ever one wants" - (you probably mean infer, not imply btw - the two are as different as 'speak' and 'hear' ) - that's one of the more blatant excuses for WP:OR and POV editorialising I have ever read. The reader must NOT be allowed to come to their own conclusions about the extent or nature of the 'denialism' of Zuroff - even when the reasons he gives are covered by EVERY SOURCE used - but fairly repellent efforts to discredit him - based wholly on editors' own interpretation of primary sources - must stand? When exactly did "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" disappear down the toilet? Pincrete (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that you are enjoying yourself, polemicizing with walls of text about your objections, but you are constrained by WP:COATRACK for your attempts of maneuvering in opinions and believes of named individuals' and Zuroff in particular: I want to read a balanced account of what they have said and believe - basically, that would be WP:COATRACK, this is not article about them and their opinions and believes, this article is about genocide denial and revisionism, with naming the names of most prominent among deniers.

However, nothing is standing in your way to create subsections on these individuals respective BLP articles, where you can (according to WP guidelines) discusses their believes, opinions and other minutiae of their denialist rhetoric.

Further, it is your prerogative as an editor to try different approach and use different methods, but I have hard time shaking off the feeling that your RfC remark sounds almost like threat, that is, having in mind that I pinged 9 editors who participated in contribution and GA process and review, 7 of them are also non-Balkan and probably neutral, and only Calthinus responded with his only one short but resolute statement, and if, on the other hand, Rfc attracts Serbian perspective POV pushers, who are very active in the last few weeks on another topics involving Serbs and genocide, you would be able not only to turn this article into WP:COATRACK for whitewashing named deniers, with their reasons and explanations and "believes", but probably go much further.

Your argument declared guilty followed with (by a single academic in some cases) is not argument at all, even if we assume it is accurate one, but it isn't. No one is "declared guilty" and it's not "single academics" - these are innuendos which I was referring in previous post: Zuroff is named "denier" by two of his college genocide scholars; "far-leftists" are described in those terms by more than a "single academic".

So, what should we do:

1. obvious first thing that should be done is removal of references from the lede;
2. English should be fixed - for that we seek help from Copy-editing Guild and Wikipedia:Good articles - again;
3. we do not need to prove he said "intent", you are reaching, we have Rosensaft and Charny (and Peled), also Institute for Genocide Research on behalf of the victims - however, I linked you an article from Serbian press quoting him explicitly saying "there was no intent" (there are numerous articles in Serbo-Croatian, or rather Serbian language, where he is quoted saying exactly that) - but more importantly, his colleges genocide scholars say he is denier, victims' organisations say he is denier - for me, that’s the end of the story;
4. replace "close ties" with some better phrasing to include what is said by primary sources and confirmed by Peled (Serbo-Croatian/Serbian language articles exist, affirming his - how should we calls it, let's say: "warm relations", "cozy relations", ....(?);
5. I am not sure that WP:OBVIOUS and WP:COMMON is the same as EDITORIALIZING, SYNTH or OR - particularly regarding "far-left" and Zuroff and his Holocaust-Bosnian genocide analogy allegations - if he thinks that someone compared Holocaust and Bosnian genocide and never stated who, where and when, there is no reason for us to shy away of stating obvious: that he never explained where he got these ideas from (by the way, why are so reluctant to give readers that context, while you would like to make this article into a coat-rack for named peoples believes!?).

I do not wish to respond to your "(w)hat on earth has a protest letter from a group of people complaining about his 'denial' got to do with anything?", and everything that follows in that addendum para - that's how you perceive the reaction by Institute for Genocide Research on behalf of the victims. I guess, you find more important to include some explanations for their denial than what victims, or as you call them, accusers, has to say about it. You never made clear from what sources, exactly, you think should these explanations find its way into article; and even if we completely disregard WP:COATRACK, purpose these would serve is neutrality. What kind of neutrality exists in genocide denial phenomenon is truly bewildering to me, and unless you think whitewashing, than you probably think that there is "denial" and "denial with explanations" - actually, you have elaborated at length on exactly these improbable points, expressing an idea that we should consider different categories of denial.

My proposal to you for the any eventual following post, is that you raise one point at the time, and without lengthy elaborations: line is broken, this is the way it should be fixed. Although I addressed some if not most of your concerns at this point--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the "ties", or whatever it is that he maintains with Serbia/Srpska, are not intended to discredit him (he discredited himself when he denied genocide), but to establish a context, that his strange position on genocide in Bosnia brought him into good relations with Serbia and RSrpska, that there is a context for why he heads a new commission with a goal of rewriting history, yet again.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

So you agree that there is no source describing Zuroff having close ties with Serbia, nor any rephrasing or euphemising of that - nor - more importantly - any source establishing the relevance of the (trivial) award he was given to his earlier expressed views - but you wish to retain it anyway. You agree that the sources don't claim that he said "Serbs didn't have genocidal intent" (certainly not those sources used), but again you wish to retain this phrasing despite it NOT being what he said. Nor any source that asks him to give examples - or comments on, or infers anything from, their absence. But again you consider it should be kept ANYWAY.

I've already said, I am quite happy to leave it to the judgement of others as to whether -what I call- 'balancing info' should be included. Your comments about what you perceive as my prejudices vis-a-vis victims and 'deniers' are pretty cheap. You have absolutely no idea what my viewpoint is on that subject nor what I may have done to benefit victims on or off WP. But we aren't here to champion their cause, all sorts of orgs do that, but not us. We are here to present a NPOV account of the whole subject. Pincrete (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, talking about "cheep talk" - no, I am saying that Charny, Rosensaft, with Peled (including, but still not used as reference anywhere, even Institute for Genocide Research), are enough for Zuroff inclusion as denier. On top of that we can include myriad of Serbian lang. sources to see how he denies genocide - for instance Nezavisne quoting him saying:"Genocid je pokušaj totalnog brisanja jedne nacije, dakle holokaust i Ruanda jesu bili genocid. Darfur nije jasan. U BiH nije bilo genocida"

His relation with Serbian and Srpska establishment is well documented, and even elaborated by Peled and to some extent Charny, but especially in Serbian lang. source (some of which are used, and I suppose better exist) - how you going to phrase (or call) the fact that Zuroff for his denial is getting awards from Nikolić in capacity of the president of Serbia, a radical nationalist Serb, "vojvoda" during the wars, and denier himself; or how you going to describe that Zuroff is regular participant in various conferences whit a goal of proving that there was no genocide and justifying what happened in Srebrenica, and across the Bosnia - are these trivial info, I don't think so. No one wish to discredit him by claiming that he was paid, quite the contrary, his opinion is highly prejudicial one, and involves at least two ideological and emotional preconceptions. I don’t believe this is trivial information, nor did all the other editors think it was trivial, until you raised the issue. So, if you get my point - it should be understandable that the opinion of one editor cannot be applied to an article without prior consensus.

I am happy too, if we can avoid bringing into conversation local impassioned editors, majority of whom can't edit without absolute collective identity loyalty. I am not sure, but in some case we can randomly pick and alert uninvolved editors in WP:3O; or, at least, we could randomly handpick uninvolved editor that we both agree would be neutral and experienced enough to help us resolve the issue - otherwise, as I said previously, it is very likely that you will be able to attract attention of the very eager local editors who are biased to Serbian perspective, which can't be helpful. Actually, I am almost certain that if you suggest 2-3 such editors that I will agree on 1-2 if not on all - so take this as my proposal, you pick 3 editors for 3O, and I will agree on one of them to help us resolve this issue.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Then provide a source that makes explicit his relationship to the Serbian establishment and - its relevance to his earlier comments. I could probably provide sources that point out how person X is paid by institution Y or had his expenses paid to attend conference Z, or sold books or got promoted - even judges get paid you know - but that is a very low and sordid route to follow. Until someone fairly RS is willing to make explicit that they think that ANY of the key figures speaking on ANY side of this debate has in some sense been 'bought', whether with cash or honours or prestige, we leave that kind of innuendo outside the door. Apart from amything else, it's counter-productive IMO, it detracts from saying who has been accused of what. You may despise Zuroff for his beliefs but we need a good reason to think that he was voicing anything other than his real convictions. Is it really so difficult to imagine that a man of his age - involved with 'Nazi-hunting' for much of his life, would not need any inducement to say the things he did?

Equally if there are actually RS saying that he endorses denial to some greater degree - produce them. The award was given because of his work relating to WWII through the Simon W centre. That this may not have been the REAL reason is nothing but your private opinion and is borderline conspiracy theory IMO.

RfC's and OR, neutrality and RS noticeboards are all available routes.Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

PS, the quote says nothing new "Genocide is an attempt to completely erase one nation". We may even use it, if not it's certainly in one of the sources we use. He thinks it cannot be genocide when the women and children are spared and there cannot be 'local', genocide. He thinks there are other words for such events. Just about the whole world (including the academic and judicial world) would have agreed with him before the 1990's.Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

In Srebrenica was committed genocide. Then everyone could quote that "women and children are spared" etc and it is not genocide anymore. Current president of Serbia could also use this claim as an argument (maybe he use that I don't know). In any case, the trial is over and in Srebrenica was established genocide. Any opinion which refute this fact is genocide denial. Mikola22 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No one is arguing that it is not denial nor that he should not be included herre - certainly not me. The discussion is about whether the reasons he gave should also be included - or simply the blunt accusation of denial plus a ton of text saying how dreadful his denial was - which is what we have at present. Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

In principle, I support the formula of (a) Zuroff has this opinion including some discussion of his reasoning, then (b) this is accused of being genocide denial because X. I don't think we need a ton of text lambasting him, but at the same time it makes me queasy to see versions like the one I criticized earlier which can come off as endorsing Zuroff's own personal viewpoint that his own background vis-a-vis Nazis has some inherent logical link to his views on Bosnia -- a view that is furiously disputed by several other Israelis who are experts on the Holocaust. I would note that his similar views on Holodomor (which he doesn't acknowledge as a genocide and furthermore has accused those who do of some sort of revisionism and even, separately, Holocaust denial -- which to be fair is not unfounded when discussing some aspects of Ukrainian discourse about what happened, but feels unfair to tie to Holodomor which is independent of that... personally), have also received blowback, though perhaps less. --Calthinus (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"doesn't fit definition of genocide", we have his reason. Mikola22 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources

• “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".[1]

• "In a similar vein, Ephraim Zuroff, the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Israel office, told the Belgrade-based newspaper Politika last month that he did not believe that what happened at Srebrenica "fit the description or definition of genocide and I think that the decision to call this genocide was adopted for political reasons".[2] Mikola22 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)