Talk:Darko Trifunović/Archive 1

Need help and protection from some Wikipadia Fasist and Vandals

Whole article is falsification. Just take look footnote http://www.apisgroup.org/tragichero/ and if any of you can find in which connection is dr Darko Trifunovic with it??????

Is there any body to help???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.245.88 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I invite all interesting

Dear all,

I invite all interesting party to participate in order to improve the quality of the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am apologize to all for my bad using of Wikipadia, but I am still learning how to use

Dear all, please forgive me for my mistake on Wiki, I am still learning.Dusan (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Change in the Article after Bosnian State Court decision regarding dr Darko Trifunovic Case

Dear Editors, I am very ready to work with all of you interesting for this article to improve the quality. Old article reflect many bad or not at all supported citation. Most of citation is consider as personal attack particularly after the Executive decision of the State Court of Bosnia. Reference on this decision you can find out at http://www.novireporter.com/look/reporter/nr_article.tpl?IdLanguage=11&IdPublication=2&NrIssue=294&NrSection=5&NrArticle=3703.

By this Decision it is clarified that most of the citation in the article is wrong and against State Court Decision. Need help from all of you to improve the quality of the article and furthermore prevent such situation which lead to personal attack on living individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chris,

Many thanks indeed. It is not one sided, since we do have in the article on dr Darko Trifunovic new moment. This is decision of the Court of Bosnia. According to the Court decision (some info on that you can find out in Bosnian newspaper) ref [1]. Dear Chris and other Wiki editors, Wikipadia can't publish anything which is against Court Decision. I believe strongly in justice, and one or many newspapers article are not stronger and are not above the Law. Hope that we share same opinion. Most of the quotation's in the article about dr Darko Trifunovic is not a fact and it is consider as personal attack which is again against basic of Wikipadia. You can see that according to the Bosnian media dr Trifunovic is victim of Islamic lobby group ref [2].

Also, you can see that dr Trifunovic are working on very important Project for the whole Bosnia establishing counter terrorism multi ethnic team ref [3] which basically bothered a lot Muslim radical circles in Sarajevo. Nothing has to do with Muslim or Islam as great World religion.

So, my point is to expose some of the very well based quotation against propaganda and personal attack. I am also open to work with you to the final version of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chris,

I am very open to work with you and other editors to this article, line by line and with new facts that we can improve quality to this article. Since I am not that skillful with Wikipedia, please help or advice.

Dear George, I agree with you, let's then follow the roles of Wikipadia. Why some editors can make change and other not? Also, it is clear that regarding this article we need more facts. If you are not informed, let me just draw your attention to the recent decision of the Court of Bosnia in favor of dr Darko Trifunovic ref [1]. So it is not a cease any more of "citizenship", it is not a case of "leaving diplomatic service in controversial circumstances" etc....You can find by your self info about Court decision in Bosnian newspapers like this one in ref [2] My strong suggestion is that we need in fact you need to unblock this article for the new facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Governmental 2002 report

Folks,

Plese make reference on mentioned Report, so we can clearly see is dr Darko Trifunovic are author as is stated or something else? Also, we can see then is this report is his or official Goverment Report? We need to clear this.

"Darko Trifunovic is the author of a controversial 2002 report"

I do have problem with many thing mentioned here, so please help me to better understand all.

Reference need to be added also in the part who and when International Court refuse Report in case?

Please help me to undrstand the title: Srebrenica denier is this some kind of accusation? If yes make reference who and when is accused for that or in which legal system or Legal document Srebrenica massacre denile is punishable by law. If sombody opinion do not coincide with sombody else, this is not a crime or reason for accusation. Or maybe I am in wrong?

Many thanks.

Tale —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalesGr (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

in response to the multiply editing of my page

please google the sources about Dr. Darko Trifunovic in order to understand the validity of the information. What you found is sole campaign of Bosnjaci against the western world and fight against terrorism.

Please do not change my page anymore.

thanks.

Oooo, so now we know it's you - Darko Trifunovic - behind these comments? hahahahahaha .... 142.179.67.238 (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: AlexandarNYC is user Sh3 = Darko Trifunovic, he is slandering Mr Pasalic, he even created page to do that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AlexandarNYC&action=history

Look guys, I dont know where you are going with this and I see you probably dont have anything better to do but to patronize me here. I might be Dr. Darko Trifunovic but only in your heads. I wish though but I am still far from doctoral degree, so too bad for me. :) I dont know but maybe you are the one who is using multiple nicknames.I have no need to do that. So LEAVE ME ALONE!

thanks. Sh3 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wiki,

I thing this is to strong. This looks as accusation to somebody. If is accusation can you give me by which law and in which country this is considered as criminal or civil crime? In other hand please remove this title as unappropriate.

Thanks,

Tale —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalesGr (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

LeeCorrie, putting in a subtitle "Srebrenica Genocide Denial" is libelous and OR. You are claiming that his views amount to Genocide denial, you don't provide credible and widely accepted sources stating that these views are tantamount to genocide denial.Osli73 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look

I am not Darko Trifunovic, and please stop changing my content I am going to request ban for you. I am going to change the content one more time, and please read carefully before you decide to do any more changes.

Please read below:

http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2007/12/al-qaeda-media.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh3 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not generally considered to be reliable sources, and it's not necessary to reproduce the contents of a source. Just a few links to newspaper and magazine articles about him, verifying the basic facts, is more helpful than blog entries, and this blog entry doesn't appear to be about Trifunovic anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as needing references. If references aren't provided immediatly, then all unsourced information should be removed per our policies at WP:BLP. --Farix (Talk) 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

ok guys I tried to clean up the article littlebit. I did put the reference on the very bottom, directly to the ICT (Institute for Counter Terorrism) in Israel. there is some basic information about Dr. Trifunovic there. (if I am putting this reference wrongly please correct me.) I also added verifyble reference among all other links and you can have look at it: http://www.ict.org.il/apage/16439.php Sh3 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting Blogs as references, they are just your personal opinions not reliable sources. Yes you are Darko Trifunovic, I was in touch with you through your email and you confirmed that you are the person behind these nicknames. In my last email I told you what I had to say to you and I ceased contact with you. You should really stop playing those games, it's so obvious and doesnt help your credibility. Bosniak (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Look Bosniak, please stop telling nonsense to people. I am not Dr. Trufunovic and it is very stupid way to say such a lie. I was never in touch with you before, dont know who you are. I think you are the one here who is playing games. I am located in Israel and you can see that by my IP address. So - your lies wont work.

And please, stop posting your blogs accusing Dr. Trifunovic for genocide denial. What you are doing is against the law. I will not go into the subject with you, there is no need. Sh3 (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sh3, Darko Trifunovic is a Srebrenica genocide denier and there is nothing you can do about it. In Western countries we have a right to the freedom of speech, and you won't change it. Freedom of speech is not against the law (maybe in your twisted mind, but not in Western countries). I support Bosniak's exercise of freedom of speech, as I support everybody's freedom of expression. LeeCorrie (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear LeeCorrie, Freedom of speach is one thing, but you call dr Darko Trifunovic Srebrenica denier and this is looking as accusation. In Western Democracy as well as in all democratic countries when you accuse somebody for some criminal of civil act, you need to add reference on accusation in positive Law. As you know there is on going Criminal Process against Mr.Naser Oric and his case is not still over. In April there will be another triale against him at ICTY. So if ICTY find him responsible for killing of Serbs in Srebrenica, we can't talk about Holocuust, but instead about civil war with casulties on both side. So wait little bit with havey accusation. We do have time for that always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalesGr (talk • contribs) 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not for the editors of Wikipedia to decide wether or not someone is a genocide denier or not or to accuse people of such things. However, if a reliable source (ie major media) has labeled Trifunovic as such, we could/should include this, including the source. Otherwise we should refrain from libelous charges per Wiki policy.Osli73 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reapply {{Unreferenced}} tag

The {{Unreferenced|date=December 2007}} tag should be reapplied to the article. --Farix (Talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

guys if you look above, I did refeence the article properly yesterday but it was deleted by this propaganda activators, whose aim is to spread the misinformation in order to support terrorism. Please return the article to the full version which includes references. Sh3 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Belgrade Faculty of Security Studies

The first sentence of this article states that Darko Trifunovic is a "lecturer at the Faculty of Security Studies-University of Belgrade", but the Faculty of Security Studies is not included in the list of the 31 faculties of the University of Belgrade. Could someone who knows a bit more about the University of Belgrade look into this? Aecis^Brievenbus 18:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be legit, see: Faculty of Security at the University's website. The article doesn't appear to cover that school/subspeciality but the University website describes it a bit. Doesn't say that Trifunovic is employed or lecturing there (only lists head of the department) but does indicate that the Faculty exists. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I couldn't find information that he is lecturing there. LeeCorrie (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The web site of University of Belgrade is: http://www.bg.ac.yu

On this site you will find out listed Faculty of Security Studies

Also, on the following web site you can find Faculty of Security Studies www.fb.bg.ac.yu

OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandarNYC (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week

Due to repeated IP address and new account edit warring on this article, I have applied one week of semi-protection . Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallo,

In this article there is several thing which is not true:

"1.Darko Trifunovic is the author of a controversial 2002 report by the Documentation Center of Republic of Srpska in Banja Luka on the 1995"

This questienable report is Report of the State Secretariat of Republic of Srpska for the cooperation with International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.

I checked. This gentlemn is not a author. In the Report he is mention as somebody who prepare it. So this is an official Report of Goverment.

Also, in the Report there is no any mentioning of genocide denial. How you explane this? Is it denial of Srebrenica massacre any crimes? If yes, please describe where in which country and by which law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalesGr (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing for the webmaster:

It is stated follwong in the article:"the report, which was rejected as scandalous by the international courts". Can you make any reference on that? I can' find it that International Court rejected or disscused on this matter. On the contrary. Report will be used by Defense in very near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalesGr (talk • contribs) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I found these facts about Dr. Trifunovic.

http://www.nato.int/sfor/media/2003/ms031018.htm

http://www.ict.org.il/apage/16439.php

http://rieas.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=257&Itemid=41

I think that these references are enough to prove he is an expert. On the contrary I found that one of wikipedia admins (and I suspect that he in cooperation with someone else) is leading campaign against Dr. Trifunovic. Just go to his wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bosniak and see the blog he is managing which shows how he is attacking Dr. Trifunovic there. this is the link to the blog: http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/ and here is the link to one of two posts against Dr. Trifunovic: http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2007/12/darko-trifunovic-srebrenica-genocide.html

it is time for wikipedia admins to realize that this is pure propaganda and spread of lies to public. If you people dont realize that this is a threat from terrorism to your peaceful lifes in the whole Europe and world than good luck to you all.

I also can see that many of those who wrote in favor for Dr. Trifunovic were banned and this should tell you the rest of admins that someone here is manipulating content. This should not happen on wikipedia. I would not be surprised if I am banned too tomorrow. Simple implication (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked account abuse

The following accounts have been blocked for various policy abuse related to this page. Sockpuppets of these editors will be blocked immediately on detection on this article.

• Sh3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Legal threats - indefinite block
• 89.216.103.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Legal threats, appears to be used by Mr Trifunovic himself - 6-month IP block
• AlexandarNYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - apparent sock of Sh3 (possibly Mr Trifunovic) - indefinite block
• TalesGr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - apparent sock of Sh3, created right after AlexandarNYC blocked
• Postparadox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Sh3 sockpuppet, blocked on December 31

Stop editwarring

Please stop reverting each other back and forth, and use this talk page to come to a consensus on the wording of this article. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the edit warring continues, I shall protect the article from editing, obviously at the wrong version. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please protect this page from reverting since it is more than evidiental that some extremist/s try to promote hate and Bosniaks propaganda.

online campaign against Dr Trifunovic

Considering the allegations regarding "Srebrenica genocide denial" levelled against Trifunovic in this article I think involved editors should be aware that there appears to be quite an online campaign against Trifunovic by nationalist/Islamist Bosniak groups. All of them are from January 2008, which only strengthens the impression that they are part of an organized campaign. It would be sad if Wikipedia were used in this campaign (wether the allegations are true or not). Any allegations have to be based on notable and verifiable sources. However, if there are such sources, we should not shirk from presenting them, though this must be done in a NPOV manner. Some examples of the online campaign against Trifunovic:

• Darko Trifunovic - Genocide Denier (8 Jan 2008)
• WE THE UNDERSIGNED DECLARE THAT DARKO TRIFUNOVIC SOULD BE PUNISHED FOR HIS DENIAL OF THE GENOCIDE IN SREBRENICA AS CONFIRMED BY ICTY by the Congress of North American Bosniaks (4 Jan. 2008)
• DARKO TRIFUNOVIC - Evidence Forgery Expert for Radovan Karadzic?, on Darko Trifunovic - Srebrenica Genocide Denier & "Terrorism Expert" Blog about Darko Trifunovic, self-proclaimed Serbian "terrorism expert", falsifier of history, and Srebrenica genocide denier (13 Jan. 2008)
• Youtube video no. 1 against Darko Trifunovic (12 Jan. 2008)
• Youtube video no. 2 against Darko Trifunovic (5 Jan. 2008)
• Youtube video no. 3 against Darko Trifunovic (5 Jan. 2008)
• Evropska policija NOGIRALA Trifunovica sa Kongresa by Bosniak nationalist website Patriotska Liga (11 Jan. 2008)

Osli73 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

...wether the allegations are true or not ??? If they are verifyably true then it's entirely appropriate to include it in the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. My wording was a bit hasty. Certainly we should include the claims if they are verifiable. What I wanted so say, was that we should be aware that there exists an aggressive and coordinated online campaign against Trifunovic and that we must watch that any allegations are verified, based on good sources and presented in a NPOV. Keeping up these standards becomes even more important in such situations.Osli73 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I find out this and I delit it because this look like parto of online campaign against Dr Trifunovic. Looks like that all started recently despite that this Govermental report in case is from 2002. So it is clear that somebody is trying to achive some other goals. This report is consider historic, since that Goverment was foce to drow attention to the issue of Srebrenica and publish later of several others report which finaly lead to full awerneses of the problem.

So this part I delited becaus of above mentioned reason: "His works are considered to be fascist by the victims of the Srebrenica Genocide and human rights institutions".

Please stop reverting

Please stop reverting each other back and forth. Please use this talk page to come to a consensus. If the editwarring continues, I will protect the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, Richard Johnston etc...all this fake names is misused by Daniel Zeljkanovic Srebrenicabloggspot.com editor extrime Muslim propagandist

The Bosniak's Message is written by Daniel Zeljkanovic - Srebrenicabloggspot.com editor.

The Lawyer Association of Upper Canada: Reference-Case No.Flle Number2 008-6249-7 Dr Richard Johnstone - misused by Daniel Zeljkanovic founder of Srebrenica Genocide Blog (New York).

Behind fake name of Canadian lawyer Dr Richard Johnstone is Daniel Zeljkovic (he is Bosnian and Canadian citizen), founder of Srebrenica Genocide Blog (New York). He is one of Wikipadia editor also. See at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bosniak and he post this web site: http://darko-trifunovic.blogspot.com/ where he used the fake name of Dr Richard Johnstone exposing the lies about dr Darko Trifunovic. Now as you can see he present himself as just Richard after been discover by appropriate authorities.

You can see on this web site (http://www.newscloud.com/read/Biography_of_Dr_Dark ... that Mr.Daniel Zeljkovic misuse somebody's photo and misrepresented himself as Canadian human rights and lawyer.

Posted at 10:14 am 1/07/08

My name is Dr. Richard Johnstone and I am lawyer by occupation and human rights activist from Toronto, Canada

So it is a case of proven criminal with clear attempt to manipulate with somebody else name, fabricating the e mails, posting the lies. Such individuals as Daniel Zeljkanovic is web editor and founder of Srebrenica Genocide Blog (New York)????

Not correct citation

Correct version is that you need to make full reference not just out of context.

Osli does not have right to have final say

Important: Dr Richard Johnstone is fake name and surname. It is case of somebody misusing the name and surname of somebody else. So all what is writen under this name is falsification and propaganda by some extremists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.201.48 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Osli does not have right to have final say as to what sourced facts will be included in this article. I have posted sourced facts. This is not Osli's personal page to remove facts he doesnt agree with. Dr Richard Johnstone (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. Of course it's no ones personal page. However, neither is it a forum for publishing rumours from questionable sources about living persons.
2. It is good we now have a source for his suspension from the MFA. However, it was because of questions regarding his citizenship, not for document forgery. I've clarified this. According to an article in Srpski glas summarized in OHR BiH Media Round-up (11/7/2002) "Trifunovic was fired because he has been privy to irregularities in the work of the BiH Mission to the UN. On several occasions he pointed out that some Bosniak diplomats, such as Safet Catovic, have links with terrorist organizations." There is also an English reference of an article in the Banja Luka based biweekly magazine Patriot on the topic.
3. Given the severity of the "Srebrenica genocide denier" allegations they have to be based on unquestionable sources. Bosnian nationalist websites are not good enough sources.

CheersOsli73 (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Osli, you are contradicting yourself. How about EVAN KOHLMAN, Serbian propagandist activist who wrote lies about Bosnian Mujahedeen and you opened Wikipedia article about Bosnian Mujahadeen based on lies propagated by pro-Serbian activist who is celebrated on Serbian Chetnik sites? You are using double standard. Don't you have anything else to do except delete facts you don't agree with on Wikipedia? Get a life man. 142.179.67.238 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What is it you are trying to say? Could you please try to give a direct and logical question.Osli73 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what I am talking about. You have listed Evan Kohlman as an "authoritative" source for so called "Bosnian Mujahadeen" when in fact this individual is pro-Serbian activist celebrated on Serbian Chetnik sites. 142.179.67.238 (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi anon,

1. Why is Kohlmann a "pro-Serbian activist"? Pls provide a source.
2. What "Serbian Chetnik sites" are you referring to? Pls provide links.
3. Even if he is "celebrated" on 'Chetnik sites' this has no bearing on his authority on the subject. Being a published author on the subject, having been invited by the Swedish Defence College, etc. is important in establishing him as an authority.

Osli73 (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Given the continued soapboxing and editwarring, I have protected the article for 2 weeks. Please use this talk page to come to a consensus. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You protected it for 2 weeks so you can keep the version you like. This wikipedia is guided by politics, not by facts. You are protecting a Serbian propagandist and you are deleting facts about him, such as the fact that he was fired due to falsification of documents, as stated above. 142.179.67.238 (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack a living person. Write a blog, or build your own website. And please read meta:The Wrong Version#Boilerplate complaints. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. The earlier versions of the article contained information related to Srebrenica Genocide denial. Now removed. Can you give us an explanation because there are other admins as well, and I am going to bring this case to the right address if this continues? Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the content that was removed by 87.237.201.48 (talk · contribs)? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aecis is supporter of Darko Trifunovic, he is removing facts and helping Darko Trifunovic maintain a nice article about his past(ommitting facts about Trifunovic's identity thief past, for which he was fired from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia-Herzegovina; as well as omitting the facts about Trifunovic's Srebrenica genocide denial). Aecis is guided by politics, not an objectivity. 142.179.67.238 (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Bosniak propagandist Jasna Causevic is editor of recently publish text and it can not be consider as appropriate. Recently, Society for Threatened Peoples International - the second-largest human rights organization in Europe - criticized Darko Trifunovic for Srebrenica genocide denial. Source included. Let's stick to facts about this man.Bosniak (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section, not titled "Controversy", providing both sides of the story per Wiki policy.Osli73 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia not for off-site fights

It's getting to the point that we need a program to follow who all's playing here, however...

Wikipedia is specifically not a battleground or soapbox. Continuing to try to fight this off-wiki real-world dispute here on this page will result in blocks of accounts. Discussion of content here is one thing - the ongoing edit warring and personal attacks and incivility here are unacceptable.

Policies which must be followed on these pages in the future include (links in shorthand):

• WP:CIVIL
• WP:NPA
• WP:SOAP
• WP:BATTLE

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear George, I agree with you, let's then follow the roles of Wikipadia. Why some editors can make change and other not? Also, it is clear that regarding this article we need more facts. If you are not informed, let me just draw your attention to the recent decision of the Court of Bosnia in favor of dr Darko Trifunovic ref [4]. So it is not a cease any more of "citizenship", it is not a case of "leaving diplomatic service in controversial circumstances" etc....You can find by your self info about Court decision in Bosnian newspapers like this one in ref [5] My strong suggestion is that we need in fact you need to unblock this article for the new facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 00:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users

Related to the dispute here, I have blocked the IP editor User:89.216.162.57, and User:The Dragon of Bosnia.

Osli73: I am placing you on notice here and your talk page that I am concerned that your edits are minimizing the controversy here. That said, I am not reverting anything without further review in detail (and I urge others not to do so). Further uninvolved administrator review is also being sought on WP:ANI.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Need for stringent WP:NPOV enforecement given WP:BLP

I believe that the controversy part of the article must be very carefully reviewed to ensure WP:NPOV to avoid breaking WP:BLP. I have reverted the section to the version in [6]. Here is why:

• The subtitle "Srebrenica genocide denial" is a weasel word, specifically used to tarnish Trifunovic.
• the text states that Trifunovic is the "author" of the report when the report actually states that it was "prepared" by Darko Trifunovic, it is therefore not clear what role he played in chosing its content.
• the text misrepresents the report in saying that it states that "only about 100 Bosnian soldiers were killed" while in fact what the report is saying is that about "2,000" Bosnian Muslim men were killed, mainly in combat, and that about 100 Muslim Soldiers were summarily executed (se p 33 of the http[://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/srebrenica.pdf report]).
• nowhere does the report bring up the issue of whether what happened was genocide or not. Please remember that according to the ICTY, genocide is not a matter of numbers killed.
• the current text does not provide any rebuttal of the accusation.

Please consider WP:BLP, especially the part stating "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" in light of my arguments above. Regards,Osli73 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

Following the BLP concerns that have been raised, I've completely rewritten the article from a number of new sources. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On first inspection the rewrite looks good. Still reviewing it though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an easy thing to do given the strong POVs on the subject, but this version looks very good, and a vast improvement over previous versions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree ChrisO's version is much better - it's well researched, balanced and an improvement over previous versions (including mine). I have just one comment:

• Srebrenica massacre report controversy: "The report, authored by Trifunović..." I would like it changed to "...prepared by..." since that is what the report actually states (nowhere does it state that he is the "author").

CheersOsli73 (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to make it clearer in the article that Trifunovic's views have mainly (or, rather, "only" as far as I can see) been criticized by Bosniaks (including the Society for Threatened Peoples, which is in fact a letter by its Sarajevo office). To begin with, the following sentence - "His views on the subject have, again, been highly controversial" - should be changed to "His views have been criticised by many Bosniak organizations".Osli73 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions

In the article about dr Darko Trifunovic it is mentioned:.....Trifunović was dropped from the list of invitees after Sadović sent a letter of complaint, in which he declared that he would not attend the conference if...."

Dear ChrisO,

I invite you to visit an official web page of The European Police Congress at http://polis.osce.org/library/f/3066/1873/OSCE-GER-EVT-3066-EN-Programme.pdf and you can see by your self that his name is there even today. So quotation in the article is very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.244.133 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has recently added a lot of new material, but unfortunately it's so poorly worded, blatantly partisan and badly sourced that I've really had no choice but to revert it - it was largely unsalvageable. Particular problems were that many of the sources simply didn't support the statements for which they were being cited (e.g. a link to the Bosnian supreme court website was being used to support a claim about a legal case, but the linked page doesn't say anything about the case) and much of the new material was simply irrelevant (e.g. an entire paragraph about the other attendees of a conference that Trifunovic apparently attended). Additions need to be concise, neutrally worded and accurately sourced. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Subject does not Warrant an Article

This so called biography should be deleted in its entirety - it is nothing more than an attempt to hinder Dr. Trifunovic in his work. He certainly does not warrant a greatly longer biography than for example: Milan Panic or any number well-known Yugoslav statesmen. What next Wikipedia - attacks on anyone not politically correct by your standards?

Resistk (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Dr. Jonathan Levy, PhD

Article semi-protected indefinitely

As the edit warring on this is ongoing, the article has been semi-protected with no end date. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor/s,

The page is protected, but this article were post. How? Look like that there is some editor/s who can add some text prior to other. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 09:13, 7 December 2008 Bosniak (Talk | contribs) (41,796 bytes) (→EU Police Mission on Darko Trifunovic: new section) (undo)

This article were post in situation where any other contributor/s can't add....because site were protected. Look that some of the editor/s have more privilege and rights and some non. Please unblock the article for further editing. There is new information regarding this article opposing entirely content of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

EU Police Mission on Darko Trifunovic

Sorry, but this post is unsigned and also coming from blogger that we can't trust. On the same blogger there is no name of individual/s in charge and responsible indivuduals for the blogger that we can trust of verify content of the blogger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.206.128.242 (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An e-mail, supposedly written by Darko Trifunovic, a professor at the Belgrade University, was posted on blog Srebrenica Genocide, in which his stance about the genocide and the victims is more than clear. As the text cites, two men approached Trifunovic on the internet introducing themselves as Stevan Savic. After gaining his trust, they allegedly asked him why he was denying the genocide in Srebrenica. Trifunovic replied: ‘Dear Savo, are you sure you are Serb? What do you care about Muslims? If only Mladic had killed them all.’ Source: EU Police Mission

It is unclear how and who add above reference since article on Darko Trifunovic is locked????? Is this far use of Wikipadia or some have more rights. Also, reference is not appropriately quoted in the article. Just read the reference and then article. It is clear case of misusing the Wikipadia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusan Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Entire Entry

There is no reason for this entry, it is a political attack using dubious sources and certainly not academic sources. This so called bio flagrantly violates Wikipedia's biography guidelines. The length of the bio supports my position as it is two or three times longer than many well known Serb or Yugoslav politicans, past presidents, kings, prime ministers yet who is Darko Trifunovic to warrant such a lengthy and critical biography? The sources for the allegations against Darko Trifunovic are from politically oreinted sources.

Dr. Jonathan Levy Phd, JD

Senior Adjunct Instructor Norwich University

Member: International Criminal Bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resistk (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice of deletion and replacement with stub if needed

Darko Trifunovic is a NPF - I challenge anyway to show otherwise. This so called article is an attack and sources to non verifiable material on the websites of political organizations. Since the subject does not make policy, is not mentioned on general news websites, and is otherwise not newsworthy or infamous, I am giving one weeks ontice oif my intention to delete.

64.203.193.183 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Jonathan Levy, PhD Adjunct Faculty Norwich University

Try it, and I guarantee you'll find yourself blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you truly think the article should be deleted, we have processes for that. I point you to WP:AfD. (Note that you may or may not get the result you want.) Aleta ^Sing 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is based on either footnotes that do not mention the subject or are from unreliable sources. Based on this article the allegations and counter allegations are not verifiable nor worthy of an article. Wikipedia is not set in concrete and there have been many abuses and this is one. I am removing certain sections of this article becuase they cannot be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resistk (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This article was proposed for deletion due to violation of NPF guidelines, who removed the deletion request and why? There are rules and apparently someone does not want to follow them? Resistk (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Dr. Jonathan Levy, PhD

What exactly do you mean by "NPF"? That term is not used normally in Wikipedia parlance, western media or legal parlance that I know of.

You have not established grounds for deletion of the article. Please stop trying until you can explain and justify the reasoning.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Does not anyone read Wikipedia guidelines and rules? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Wkipedia's own guidelines sumns up the problem here very well:

People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = NPF) Policy shortcut: WP:NPF Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resistk (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So where are the primary sources? Where are the reliable sources? Third rate Balkan news services and Bosniak political websites are not sources. if you do a Google on Darko Trifunovic you get mainly libelous attack blogs. This article Wikipedia article likely constitutes libel under the laws of Bosnia and SerbiaResistk (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This article's subject has been the subject of international news coverage and qualifies as a public figure. He was an international diplomat who resigned / was fired in a public manner, under suspicious circumstances, which is not exactly all that common. His writings and public statements also have risen to the level of imfamous.

That there are lots of unreliable sources doesn't mean he's not also covered by reliable ones and isn't publicly notable.

This has been run up the Wikipedia flagpole all the way to the top a couple of times before. The conclusion has been that the subject of the article is notable, that the article has not included any clearly false material, and that the attempts to whitewash it or remove it violate Wikipedia policy.

If the Serb campaign to whitewash the article is coming back, as a Wikipedia administrator, I will have to look very closely at activities around here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that Trifunović is a public figure - just in the last few weeks, he has frequently been quoted in the Bosnian Serb media for his allegations against members of the Bosnian government (accusing them of being involved with Al Qaeda), claims that have attracted strong criticism from the Bosniak side. I'll add something to the article to update it on this score. One thing we do need to do, however, is to make sure that this article is properly linked from others, since it's virtually an orphan at the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Look through prior versions, there has been ongoing whitewashing activity which has not entirely been countered by patrolling... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also recently been repeated vandalism of my user talk page, which I strongly suspect is related to this. I'm planning to submit a checkuser request later today to get to the bottom of what I suspect is a sockpuppet ring. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Being quoted in local Bosnian media (notoriously unreliable) does not warrant a biography article on a NPF and you know it. Wikipedia's function is not to republish minor local political disputes - I am going to take this to Wikipedia arbitration if necessary Mr. Chris O. and GeorgeWilliamherbert. I am not a Serb but am outraged by the anti Serbian campaign and bias evident here against Serbs and pro Croat and Muslim agenda in general. Request your checksum user request - you will find naught. Again I point you to Wikipedia warnings on potential libel against NPFs if you want to play at being an attorney that's fine with me but Trifunovic is a NPF. But before you dish out unveriable and potentially dangerous allegations of criminality as biography, you better check your sources - Wikipedia is not supposed to be an internet tabloid. So I assume we diagree and a request for Wikipedia arbitration will be made - what could be more reasonable than that? Ready to come forth and defend your positions or do you want to compromise? Resistk (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

moving comments at the top of the page

This article is Part of Wikipedia Personal attack on Dr Darko Trifunovic. Everybody can see falsifications and bunch of lies such as:

In the article about dr Darko Trifunovic it is mentioned:.....Trifunović was dropped from the list of invitees after Sadović sent a letter of complaint, in which he declared that he would not attend the conference if...."

I invite all of you to visit an official web page of The European Police Congress at http://polis.osce.org/library/f/3066/1873/OSCE-GER-EVT-3066-EN-Programme.pdf and you can see by your self that his name is there even today. So quotation in the article is very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.244.133 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipadia and some editors are engage in the PERSONAL ATTACK AGAINST LIVING INDIVIDUAL it is clear that this article is against it's own role of Wikipadia. Here is another example that entire article is falsification and even against Law. Recently dr Darko Trifunovic won the case against Bosnia before the Court of Bosnia regarding his diplomatic status, citizenship, representation of Bosnia etc....all which is miss quoted in the article. So it is proved on the Court that all what is quoted here in this article is lies and Bosnia is obligate as state to compensate dr Darko Trifunovic with 400 000 DM (200 000 EUR). ref [7]. It is more than obvious that entire article is falsification made to serve somebody propaganda against living individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.21.30 (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is really sad that Wikipedia deals in personal vendettas against non public figures - a Bosnian citizenship dispute and an invitation to an obscure event merit a biography larger than former Presidents and Prime Minsiters of Yugoslavia? 100% personal attack going on here in my expert opinion.Resistk (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Non Public Figures

Does anyone else find it odd that Wikpedia administrators seem unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines on Non Public Figures or NPFs? Resistk (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's examine this claim, shall we? Trifunović has a remarkably high public profile for a supposedly non-public figure. According to the Bosnian Serb state-owned newspaper Glas Srpske (27 Feb 2009) he has formed an apparently self-appointed three-man "team for fighting terrorism and organised crime in south-eastern Europe". He has alleged that Bosnia has been infiltrated by 300 Iranian agents seeking to destabilise the Republika Srpska. On 24 Feb 2009 the state-owned Bosnian Serb broadcaster RTRS reported that Trifunović was claiming that radical Wahhabis were arming themselves in Bosnia to restart the war there. The Sarajevo-based newspaper Dnevni Avaz ran a very critical opinion piece on 11 Feb 2009, stating that Trifunović was falsely accusing top Bosnian government officials of having links to Al Qaeda, focusing specifically on the case of the recently arrested Bosnian assistant security minister, Vjekoslav Vuković. The article reports that Trifunović claims that Iranian spies are linked to the Croatian and Bosnian governments and that he has accused the Croatian Interior Minister Tomislav Karamarko of working for the Iranians - to which the minister has responded by suing for libel. On 26 Jan 2009, RTRS reported that Trifunović and his two colleagues held a press conference in Zagreb accusing the Croatian and Bosnian governments of involvement with Islamic terrorist groups. On 24 Jan 2009, RTRS reported that Trifunović was claiming that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists had stayed in Bosnia, and that the Bosnian government was covering this up. On 11 December 2007, the Serbian news agency SRNA reported that Trifunović was claiming that Croatian President Stjepan Mesić was planning to attack the Republika Srpska with the aid of radical Islamists, meeting with Iranian agents and intending to topple the RS government through political, diplomatic and terrorist means.

So, in short, Trifunović is significant enough to repeatedly be quoted, interviewed and denounced by the media of two countries (and both Bosnian entities). And how many "non-public figures" hold press conferences which are reported on internationally? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Find one major newspaper, major IGO or NGO or journal that mentions Darko Trifunović in the article please? Media can be anything but non English Balkan scandal sheets are not reputable sources for an English language biography nor are two bit NGO websites. I was just quoted in the Wall Street Journal not too long ago but that does not make me a big-shot public figure apparently like Darko Trifunović who has an article longer than princes, prime ministers, and presidents of Serbia. Dr Jonathan Levy Resistk (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Faulty References in Article

^ a b c "Bosnian Muslims object to Serb terrorism expert addressing European conference". Report from TV Hayat, Sarajevo, 1800 GMT, 5 January 2008. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Bosnian Serb legal expert says Hague tribunal using medieval methods". SRNA news agency, 3 August 1998. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ a b "Bosnian Diplomat's Citizenship Revoked". HINA, Croatia, 12 March 2002. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Bosnian Foreign Ministry partially revokes suspension of official". SRNA news agency, 10 June 2002. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Bosnian UN mission diplomat accuses Foreign Ministry of human rights violations". SRNA news agency, 13 June 2002. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Bosnian diplomat says he was fired for revealing colleague's Al-Qaeda ties". SRNA news agency, 7 August 2002. Via BBC Monitoring.

No active links to verify these so-called references which are sourced to notorously unreliable Balkan new sources. Not a single instance of a noteworthy or newsworthy incident. Is it biography material or just tabloid journalism? Seems Dr. Trifunovic is not popular in some regions of Bosnia, so what? Is that biography material. He certainly is not an alleged war criminal but held a minor diplomatic post with the BiH government.

^ "Ratko Mladic : Tragic Hero", Apis Group, 2006

This is a link to a book advertisement about another individual, Ratko Mladic, who is newsworthy but no mention of Trifunovic and definitely not a source.

^ "Imaginary Massacres?" TIME magazine, 11 September 2002 ^ "General guilty of Bosnia genocide". BBC News Online, 2 August 2001. ^ "Serbs admit Srebrenica death toll". BBC News Online, 14 October 2004

No mention of NPF Trifunovic here at all.

^ "Bosnian Al-Qaeda members plan attacks on NATO - terrorism expert". SRNA news agency, 17 October 2003. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Attacks in Kosovo are work of Al Qaeda". Glas javnosti, Belgrade, 19 March 2004. Via BBC Monitoring. ^ "Time Has Come For Us To Show Our Teeth". Glas javnosti, Belgrade, 11 December 2007. Via BBC Monitoring. Europe Finds Interesting Trifunovic's Story about Islamic Terrorism". Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo. 16 January 2008. Via BBC Monitoring.

Again local Balkan politics, local tabloids, not verifiable, not good sources. Nothing to indicate that it should be in a biography. Is any NPF who conedemns Islamic terrorism subject to Wkipedia treatment? Major news sources in that part of the world are Blic, B92, and Politika and even then not up to Western standards. Does this merit an English language biography - why Trifunolic and not a thousand other Serbs mentioned in these "newspapers."

"Dr Darko Trifunovic – Serb Nationalist, Supporter of Greater Serbia and Genocide Denier". Society for Threatened Peoples, 19 February 2008.

Not a news source but an editorial by a minor German NGO. Contains libelous material. Use of this source betrays the malicious intent.

"Serbia: Terrorism expert receives death threat". Adnkronos International, 21 January 2008 

Finally, a verifiable news source that is legitimate. However, again what makes this so important that it needs to be in a biography? People receive death threats all the time.

The conclusion is that the authorship of this article is politically motivated to attack Dr. Trifunovic who is a NPF and subject him to further death threats. Within in the article is not a single source that establishes that Dr. Trifunovic is a war criminal, genocide denier (whatever that means), or a public figure. However, the article does cast unsavory connotations. The article should be removed simply because it does not meet Wikipedia's rigorous standards for non public figures.

Nor is there any coherent organization to this biography, it contains nothing about the subject's qualifications but instead is devoted to smearing him. before you have a reason for a bio you need to establish why someone merits one besides being unpopular with Bosnian fringe groups and their supporters in Germany.

Resistk (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to work together on the article about me

Since I was first to post the article, and that article suffer so many changes I invite in good spirit all interesting parties to work together in order to improve the quality of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So let's work together since definitely I have to say something about myself

       "This article's subject has been the subject of international news coverage and qualifies as a public figure. He was an international diplomat who resigned / was fired in a public manner, under suspicious circumstances, which is not exactly all that common". 

I was not international diplomat (term is use for UN or EU or any other intergovernmental organization's). I was the First Secretary of the Bosnian Mission to the UN. By the decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs I was suspended and I challenge this decision on the Court of Bosnia. The Court of Bosnia role the decision in my favor (Number P – 43/05, from 27.11.2006.god, and Number Gž-117/06, from 17.06.2008.) ordering State of Bosnia and Ministry of Foreign Affairs to compensate me with 400 000 (KM) equivalent to 200 000 EUR ref [8]. If you like I am ready to fax you original Court decision. So it is not a case of suspension under suspicious circumstances it is a case of clear violation of the Law and my Human Rights proven on the Court. After this decision I requested President of the Council of the Ministers of Bosnia (Equivalent to the Prime Minister) Mr.Nikola Spiric that I shell to be post on Ambassador position under my choice since I suffer for several years injustice (You can find about that even on Bosnian Muslim web portal ref [9] or on extreme Muslim web portal ref [10].

"His writings and public statements also have risen to the level of imfamous.

       That there are lots of unreliable sources doesn't mean he's not also covered by reliable ones and isn't publicly notable".

Hey, I am professor, and my duty beside to teach is to write and make public statements. Is writing scientific work and speak as professor some Criminal offense's? Freedom of the speech is basic Human Rights, it is not privilege this is a just Right.

"This has been run up the Wikipedia flagpole all the way to the top a couple of times before. The conclusion has been that the subject of the article is notable, that the article has not included any clearly false material, and that the attempts to whitewash it or remove it violate Wikipedia policy".

Entire Article is Falsification full of nonsense, propaganda etc...I can prove it for any segment that you quoute in the article. Look for example:

1...."Darko Trifunovic is the author of a controversial 2002 report" Do you have any reliable reference that I am author of this Report?????

2..."Trifunović was dropped from the list of invitees after Sadović sent a letter of complaint, in which he declared that he would not attend the conference if...." I invite all of you to visit an official web page of The European Police Congress at http://polis.osce.org/library/f/3066/1873/OSCE-GER-EVT-3066-EN-Programme.pdf and you can see by your self that his name is there even today. So quotation in the article is just lie.

3...."After leaving the Bosnian foreign ministry, Trifunović subsequently moved on to the Faculty of Security Studies of the University of Belgrade, where he continues to work in the field of Islamic terrorism". This is entire lies. I never specialized such thin as Islamic Terrorism.

etc....So we can work sentence by sentence and conclusion is very clear. Entire Aritcle is falsification directed as personal attack. Arbitration is the best way to sole the dispute.

       "If the Serb campaign to whitewash the article is coming back, as a Wikipedia administrator, I will have to look very closely at activities around here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)"

Hy I do not represent Serb people not Serb government etc...

Wikipedia against basic Human Rights widespread the lies

I do not understand Wikipadia editors or policy, simply because article about me is set of lies and falsifications easy to prove. I offered my help to work line by line with any free editors (if any on Wikipedia) to improve article, and there is no voice from nobody. Hope that Wikipedia is not "yellow page" in hands of Internet Vandals and Internet paid hackers paid by someone to black picture individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are so concerned about your lack of credibility, why don't you start improving it? It is a fact that you denied genocide. It is also a fact that your fantasies about "islamic terrorism" in Bosnia completely ignore Serb terrorism, for eg. Serb terrorist Stanislav Galic and Dragoljub Milosevic were convicted on terror charges by the U.N.-based court. Bosniak (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bosniak, it's not difficult to see that you may have opposing views on this whole mess. Please don't bring your conflicts here. Trifunovic posted this and received absolutely zero responses for several weeks from the dispassionate editors watching this page. Now you're coming in ready for a fight. Do you think that's a productive approach? This thread resulted in no action, so why be worried about it? Franamax (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship Controversey

Can any one explain to me why a paragraph on the citizenship of Darko Trifunović is a fit subject for an English language biography? Some sort of major international controversey here? Or someone just trying to make some innuendo about Darko? Perhaps that paragraph should be deleted as not worthy of Wikipedianess? Resistk (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Major Controversey

This is a major controversey?

"A major controversy broke out in early January 2008 when it was announced that Trifunović had been invited to be a key speaker at the European Police Congress, to be held in Berlin at the end of the month. The news attracted fierce criticism from members of the Bosnjaci.net portal, the Congress of Bosniaks in North America and the Sarajevo-based Centre for Advanced Studies.[1] The invitation was protested by Tarik Sadović, the Bosnia-Herzegovina security minister and deputy chair of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trifunović was dropped from the list of invitees after Sadović sent a letter of complaint, in which he declared that he would not attend the conference if Trifunović attended, accused Trifunović of "belong[ing] to a gathering of propagandists" and denounced him as "a man who presented a great deal of falsified facts, prejudices, and ideological stereotypes about Muslims and Islam."[14] The Society for Threatened Peoples followed up in February 2008 with an open letter to European, US, Serbian and Bosnian ministers, governments and police services, in which they criticised Trifunović as "a self-proclaimed 'expert on Islamist terrorism'" and urged an end to "all contact and co-operation with Dr Trifunović with immediate effect."[15] Trifunović cancelled his planned trip to Germany, asserting that he had received death threats from Muslim extremist"

If this is a major controversey why is there no Wikipedia article on Tarik Sadović? Could it be because no one cares about a two bit Balkan politician, why then do we have this article on Darko Trifunović who surely is not as important as the great and mighty Tarik Sadović? And what is Bosnjaci.net and the Congress of Bosniaks? Surely, these are not major world actors or reliable sources? Do we really need to know about this tawdry melodrama at the European Police Congress?

I suggest this "major controversey" be downgraded to a one line or removed. Or pehaps someone can produce a front page from any major news daily (Le Monde, London Times, Politika) that records this surely momentous event in European history?

Dr levy Resistk (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard discussion

Please note that I have opened a discussion of the latest edits on this article on the administrators' noticeboard at WP:AN/I#Darko Trifunović blanking / vandalism. Please direct any comments there. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris O why don't you openly discuss the facts of the biography? Why is Trifunovic's citizenship and invite to an obscure police conferenc labled Major Controversies? A major controversey is something newsworthy but then again you won't respond directly to me, why is that? Dr. levy Resistk (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion should probably be on ANI - however, the news did cover the conference invitation controversy, ergo it's newsworthy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just becuase an Italian news service reports something - a death threat against a non public figure - does not mean it rates mention as a "Major Controversey." Also since the Italian news service seems to be the only "reputable" and verifiable source in English for the entire article it lends creedence to my claim that the article is placing Darko's life at risk by repeating a bunch of calumnies and inviting jihadists to attack him. I don't under your "ergo" reasoning, have you some academic or other qualification for such an offhand remark which I take to mean if a relatively obscure news service carries a story it must be true and important. Andronokos is not exactly up there with Reuters, UPI, or AP as a reliable source you know. Resistk (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it your assertion that the source is false or misleading?

My academic qualifications are not at issue here. Red herrings are not appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did the noticeboard discussion go to? Why are any changes being blocked by the sum total of two individuals - I think a vote is called for or some other methods of determining the legitimacy of this article rather than knowledge of how to utilize Wikipedia? Resistk (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It went into the ANI archive. Discussions do that after a couple of days of no new comments.

We don't vote on things. Vote implies democracy. Wikipedia is not a democracy (see WP:NOT).

We do try and find consensus. You've had the issues you wanted to raise raised. So has Dr Trifunovic. Chris and I have raised the issues we wanted to. You have not responded to those with substantiative answers. Being evasive in response to specific questions is not participating in a constructive way to find consensus.

Again: Is it your assertion or Dr Trifunovic's assertion that the article or references contain false or misleading information?

Also - you are not being blocked by the sum total of two individuals. This was aired in front of the ANI forum - which has over 1,000 active administrators reading it, and hundreds of non-administrator experienced users. Their choice not to get involved is an answer for you, of sorts.

Many more than just two people have, over time, responded to blanking and whitewashing on the article. Look at the article history.

And the people responding now are some of Wikipedia's more experienced - with multiple years of administrator experience, years of active participation before that. I'm one of the 100 or so people who on and off answers the OTRS support tickets for the foundation, which is I believe how I became aware of all this in the first place. This has been raised to the Arbitration Committee members' attentions before as well.

I cannot speak for the Arbitration Committee, Foundation, the thousand plus other administrators or hundreds of other active users who have seen this and chosen to leave management of the problem to Chris and I. However, they have left it in our hands for now. So you get what you get. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine Article does not mention Trifunovic

The Time magazine article that is cited does not mention Darko Trifunovic by name. But somehow the existence of this article is used to justify the rest of the entry. Guilt by association? Demonization of Serbs? Sure a specialized search of proprietary databases will indeed turn up a few translated Serbian articles that mention the subject but these are not available except by subscription. The article should be wiped as it puts a non public figure at risk.Resistk (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article and the single sentence that it is sourcing. Was Mr. Trifunovic in fact the author of the Srebrenica report (as other sources assert)? Because if so, the Time article directly concerns the report, and by extension the author of the report. I'm sorry, please try harder. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Important

The footnote http://www.apisgroup.org/tragichero/ is not valid. There is no name of dr Darko Trifunovic. So please correct it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.245.88 (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, there's no direct mention of him. I've replaced that reference with one from Transitions Online. Thanks for pointing that out. However, please do not replace the text of the article as you did previously, or you will be blocked. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction

If there is no mentioning the names of dr Darko Tirunovic, how you related him with all???? Look like that you have very personal interest in whole Article. Why? Sorry, but I read whole article and look that it is focused mainly to present dr Darko Trifunovic in negative content. Is it whole about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.245.88 (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have neutral and reliable sources casting Mr. Trifunovic in a positive light, please do present them here for consideration. We can only report on what the world has to say, we don't take personal interest or draw conclusions. We just try to include all objective knowledge. Franamax (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To Franamex

Dear Franamax, Please read discussion and you will see that most of quotation has nothing with me personally, as well as most of the text present lies. I invite many times all interesting parties for this article to work line by line but there is no positive answer instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 09:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Major obstacle to this article regarding sources

1. In the footnote No.1^ a b c "Bosnian Muslims object to Serb terrorism expert addressing European conference". Report from TV Hayat, Sarajevo, 1800 GMT, 5 January 2008. Via BBC Monitoring. It is obvius that it is a case of Radical Muslim TV from Sarajevo and that in the Editorial board are only Muslim http://www.hayat.ba/2009-01-28-13-01-36/uprava. So how this reference can be considered as neutral and objective??? Please not that major anger from Muslim radical extremist from Bosnia occured after my TV show on TV Hayat where I was in studio with one of the major Bosnian Muslim Extremist accused by Croatian for War Crimes Mr. Nezim Halilovic ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJipyg1V2_c).TV Hayat favored this War Criminals and Islamist very much. More on Nezim Halilovic (http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?p=1372).

2. "Bosnian Serb legal expert says Hague tribunal using medieval methods". SRNA news agency, 3 August 1998. Via BBC Monitoring.

In the text:.... "In the late 1990s, Trifunović worked as a member of the Republika Srpska legal expert commission, where he spoke out strongly against the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia's indictment of senior Bosnian Serb military and civil officials". The major obstacle is that it is not mention also why I criticized ICTY??? Exactly for using medieval methods such as "secret indictment". So all quotation is directed wrongly in very bad direction. Also, as academicians with specialization in International Criminal Law and as one of the establisher of the International Criminal Court (http://www.iccnow.org/documents/ELSAreportASP2003Handout.PDF)certanly I do have right to express my opinion on the matter.

3. Footnote N.15. "Dr Darko Trifunovic – Serb Nationalist, Supporter of Greater Serbia and Genocide Denier". Society for Threatened Peoples, 19 February 2008. The author of the text is Muslim again from Sarajevo, Ms.Jasna Causevic. She actively work to denier Holocaust from War War II and Genocide over the Christians in Bosnia. Her work is characterized as non objective because in all her reports there is no victims from Bosnia except Bosnian Muslim.

4.In others footnotes there is not link between me and content of footnone such as:

Footnote No.7 ^ "Imaginary Massacres?", Anes Alic and Dragan Stanimirovic, Transitions Online, 2002

Footnote No.8^ "Imaginary Massacres?" TIME magazine, 11 September 2002

Footnote No.9 and 10 # ^ "General guilty of Bosnia genocide". BBC News Online, 2 August 2001.

1. ^ "Serbs admit Srebrenica death toll". BBC News Online, 14 October 2004

So it is clear that someone want to black paint me with no evidences. I ask kindly editors of this article to review this article and change entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Need help to delete this article entirely

After presenting that most of the quotation in this article present lies directed as personal attack against me, need arbitration and help to delete this article and to rewrite new. Again, I invite all interesting parties to participate in the new version of the article before I delete this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stubbed

I've stubbed this on BLP grounds. The sources seem mainly to be unverifiable "via BBC monitoring" and that does not pass our strict BLP requirements. We can discuss this, but we do it with the material removed unless there is a consensus that it meets the policies.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, having checked, I suppose they could be verifiable if one subscribes to the BBC monitoring website. But, we need cast iron independent sources to construct negative claims on a BLP. What we've got are transcripts of (probably biased) news reports held on a subscription website - and it is these transcripts (or rather an interpretation of them) that lies behind this article. I just don't think that's good enough for a detailed BLP in the face of the subject's objections. Do we have better, neutral, sources? If we don't, this may simply be a BLP that cannot be written to encyclopaedic standards.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott, I'm afraid your stubbing is based on some fundamental misunderstandings, and I intend to revert it (after due discussion of course). Your edit summary stated that "Sourcing looks extremely weak and unverifiable". BBC Monitoring is not an "unverifiable" source at all. It's available to a general audience via services such as Lexis-Nexis and Factiva, which are available at many libraries - I have access to both at the Bodleian Library and British Library respectively. The sources are translated - not interpreted - copies of news broadcasts and published articles from established media sources. Let's go through these:

• TV Hayat - Bosniak television channel. 1 reference.
• SRNA - Bosnian Serb government news agency. 4 references.
• HINA - Croatian government news agency. 2 references.
• Glas javnosti - Serbian newspaper. 1 reference.
• Oslobodenje - Bosniak newspaper. 1 reference.

So, in short, only one of the sources via BBC Monitoring is a "transcript" (the TV Hayat broadcast); all of the rest are either agency reports, similar to the sort of thing which Reuters or Associated Press would put out, or published newspaper articles.

I don't know why you suggest that the reports are "biased" unless you consider that the media of three separate countries (and two entities) are all biased. In fact, there are actually more Serbian sources than Bosniak or Croatian. Everything is verifiable and reliably sourced.

The fact that the articles are sourced via a translation service is not a problem and is in fact a deliberate editorial decision - note that WP:V states that "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." BBC Monitoring is an extremely reliable source, so this criterion is clearly met. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with ChrisO on sourcing. I'm not familiar with BBC Monitoring, but the listed sources are all mainstream Bosnian news sources. I haven't seen any allegations that the sources are being misrepresented. Considering the region, I sincerely doubt we will be able to find anything approaching an unbiased, non-ethnically-dominated news source. But we do the best we can with what we have, and considering we have sources from both ethnicities, I don't see a problem.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that Darko Trifunović, under his various usernames and meatpuppets, has contributed nothing constructive to the conversation, other than to call for the article to reflect his resume. I understand his distress, but he really hasn't addressed the substance of the article, which is that he was dismissed for seeing mujahideen under every rock. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need some discussion here - reverting is not appropriate on a BLP issue. The material stays out until we've got agreement it is compliant. As I said above, I realised that the sources are technically available on line after I stubbed it. But I am still not happy with the sources. This article is woven from a variety of news reports, and that's always problematic, and particularly on a BLP, and most especially when the claims are negative and the (probable) subject it protesting. We need to do better than this. Have we no genuinely biographical sources? Features on the individual? If we don't we need to ask about notability.

I'm afraid I can't personally verify any of the pay-site sources that were in the article. So, I've no idea if they are being fairly interpreted by the text. Yes, the BBC is a reliable translator. But 1) News broadcasts are not good sources anyway - even the creators don't publish them and don't expect them to be used as references. 2) Balkan newspaper reports are not neutral sources (nothing, sadly, in the Balkans is). 3) A pastiche of negative news sources to create a negative article isn't what we want - and if that's the best we have we need to proceed with care (if it is possible to write an article at all).--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that this has been raised up to OTRS review and team discussion before - conclusion was that the sources were solid enough, and that the subject's attempts to stub / remove the article were whitewashing.

That does not preclude a new review or change in that status of course. However, it does establish a prior baseline determination that the article's sources and content were acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an off-wiki consensus establishes any baseline. Let's deal with the sourcing problems. The fact that the subject wants his CV reprinted here is beside the point. I don't think we've got valid sources to defend this very negative article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. You've said you don't have access to the sources. How do you know they're not valid? What evidence are you basing that on? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Valid for what? Building a biography from a pastiche of news reports, that are only available on a paysite is not valid. If we want to publish material on living people we need to do better than that. The emphasis is not on me to produce "evidence" for the invalidity of the sources. What on earth would that be? But on those who want to keep this negative material to demonstrate that it is neutral, reliable, and duly waited. I don't think we can say any of that with certainty.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Paysite"? I didn't pay a penny to use it. It's widely available at academic libraries, as I said. And you've not answered my question. You say that the sources themselves aren't "valid". "Valid" is not a term used in Wikipedia policy. In what way are they not reliable, verifiable sources as explained by WP:V? What reason do I have, in short, for not dismissing your argument as non-factual? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was not a biography. It was a synthesis of negative press stories - reliability unknown. Please tell me where your confidence that the article as was is neutralr, and was widely criticised for supporting violence" would be verifiable and sourcable. We need to do better? We need some sources that are not just negative news reports.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Let's step back a bit and look at what the news coverage of Trifunovic actually says. Factiva finds about 80 news articles - broadcasts, agency reports and newspaper articles - which are about or mention Trifunovic. Many are actually directly about Trifunovic. Coverage has focused on four principal areas: his authorship of the Bosnian Serb government's report/denial of the Srebrenica massacre, which received global (not just regional) coverage; his removal from office and stripping of Bosnian citizenship, which caused controversy principally in the two parts of Bosnia; his involvement in the European Police Congress, which was also controversial in Bosnia; and his activities as part of a three-man self-proclaimed "counter-terrorist team for south-eastern Europe", which has reportedly provoked libel litigation from a Croatian government minister, and has been reported in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. None of the coverage is about his academic work - it focuses entirely on his (apparently very controversial) activities as an official and political commentator. If there is bias here towards controversial aspects, it's simply because that's a faithful reflection of the overall scope and tenor of his media coverage. I have absolutely no objection to adding more information about his academic work but there simply doesn't seem to be much coverage of that in reliable sources. (The CV he has repeatedly posted here has been largely unsourced.)

Mandela is a false comparison - there's a massive amount of coverage about his life, covering far more than his conviction, his imprisonment and his views on violence. Trifunovic, in contrast, has been covered almost entirely for his controversial political views and activities. As for "negative news reports", might I remind you that WP:NPOV enjoins us to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"? You haven't explained what aspects of the article are "negative", nor have you given any grounds for regarding a TV channel, two state news agencies and two independent daily newspapers as unreliable sources. WP:RS#News organizations specifically welcomes "material from mainstream news organizations", which they certainly are. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't suggested (or meant to) that all the material in the article is entirely problematic. I stubbed not to remove it all, but temporarily until we could sort it out. I did it in response to feeling that the sources might not be reliable or properly weighted. I still have concerns. The factual stuff could perhaps be put back: he authored a report, and was involved in various other things. But let's avoid painting everything as a controversy. How controversial were the later things? We not an aggregator for news coverage (which tends to report everything as controversial and dramatic)- we are trying to write a neutral biography (as far as sources allow). A news report can be the beginning of long term controversy, but it can equally be a poorly researched headline that everyone's forgotten the next day. That's particularly true of broadcast media that's "hot off the wire" - if the only source we have for a controversy is a news report and no further commentary, then we should not include a "controversy story" - if the affair is notable it will have better, and more considered, sources available. Sourcing isn't just about verifying information, it is about weighing its significance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The fair comparison here is holocaust deniers, such as Irving, who are notable primarily because of the controversy. That the controversy is more in the Bosnian press than elsewhere doesn't change the underlying notability.

Individually, any of the news sources used would be marginal as sources for the controversy. However, WP:RS is not inflexible. In this case, Dr. Trifunovic has admitted many of the specific allegations (the authored report, his al-Qaeda / Bosnian Muslim allegations), and there are both governmental and press reports for others (UN / diplomatic stuff). Time Magazine ran a bit on the Srebenica report, though it did not name him as author.

I believe that there's no fundamental question as to the underlying facts. Dr. Trifunovic has not denied any of the factual allegations - and has repeatedly been asked if there are any factual errors in the article. Look at his talk page and the talk page here - he's never denied any of the facts.

Once the facts are in evidence, the press reports are sufficient evidence of the controversies springing from those facts.

It would be useful to conduct and uninvolved editor review for sufficient neutrality. But I think you fell for Dr. Trifunovic's attempt to get someone else to whitewash this for him, again. Neutrality is fine. But we don't hide the facts or controversy of holocaust deniers, criminals, extremist organizations. Presenting the facts and controversies in a NPOV manner is what we're here for. If the article's presentation of the facts and controversies on Dr. Trifunovic wasn't neutral enough that's a valid point of concern, and I have been trying to work with this (alternately fighting off Dr. Trifunovic's blankings and the Bosnians attempting to make him look worse than Hitler) long enough that I might not be entirely neutral myself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I "fell for" anything, and I have no axes to grind on the Balkans. I'm uninvolved here. I simply saw a BLP subject with concerns, and without reading his stuff in detail, I read the article and viewed it as appearing less than neutral and having sources I cannot verify. Reading the talk page I had concerns that attempts to prevent a whitewash had resulted in the ignoring of problems. I still think the article needs better sourcing or the removal of some of the negative weight. The comparison with Irvine is not good. Since an article on Irvine would rest on more than news reports. There's plenty more rounded material to go on, there's responses to him by scholars and activists alike.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to trimming extraneous material. What do you suggest should go? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why some of you are still dealing with lies. I never confess and this is simply not true that I was author of the Srebrenica Report. This Report was Governmental Report. My name was mentioned by mistake at one of the web site and after warring of my lawyer, my name was remove. Also, you never take under the consideration in the article that my citizenship can't be something controversial. Do you want me to send copy of my Bosnian passport? If you want me, please give me your e mail and to prove it I will send it to you. Also, how you can say or write that I leave diplomatic post under suspicious or controversial circumstances when Court of Bosnia recently brine the decision in my favor stating that Bosnian need to compensate me with 400 000??? ref [11]. So I wait 6 year justice and now some of you are taking side who lost on the Court. I never believed that Wikipedia will be missus for the personal attack against any one. Article about me is much bigger more that article about Serbian King. Look that I am very important to some of your editors. Many thanks for that. Also, regarding sources. When you quoted the sources you take some part from them strictly against me, and ChrisO and others want to prove what? I really do not understand whole situation. Any of mu suggestion some of the editors take as negative contribution. Can you let me know which one that I can correct my approach in the future. Since it was me who posted first this article, I think that it is my right to contribute actively in creation of it. Or I am in mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I not really understand some of the editors of this article stating that I did not denied any of allegation mentioned in the article. I call whole article falsification and permanently requesting deletion as well as fact that I invited all interested editors to work together line by line in order to improve the quality of the article. Instead of that my calls were ignored, any fact that I posted against exposed lies were deleted. Darko 23:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

Please look notorious lies. In the article it was stated that my name was deleted from the 10th European Police Congress. Please look by your self at :http://www.euro-police.com/ My names is the first in the line of the speakers under the title: # “EUPM, Security threats and challenges in Missions abroad”, Darko Trifunovic, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies. And how to not be upset with the article????Darko 23:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) The same list it is easy to find at http://polis.osce.org/library/f/3066/1873/OSCE-GER-EVT-3066-EN-Programme.pdf so it is pure lies that my names were removed from the list.Darko 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is it reliably reported that Trifunovic's name was removed from the Serbian report that denied the Srebrenica massacre? His authorship of the report, verifiable in several WP:RSs, is largely what accounts for his notability, so far as he is notable at all. (He is certainly not notable for being a very minor academic.) I cannot find a source for his name's removal from the report and/or the reason for its removal. This is not to say none exists. If one can be found, it should be included. Just a thought. Writegeist (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for thought. The Report in case is Governmental report and I do not know situation in other countries but in Republic of Srpska an individual can't be author of Governmental Report. So it is simply nonsense. If you have copy of mentioned Report you can find it easily. I am offering to post front page if you like in order to prove that this is Governmental report which is not authored bu any individual. Or I can send on e mail to all interesting parties.Darko 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

Let's hold on a second.

There are two questions:

1. Who wrote the report (did the research, wrote up the findings, typed it etc).
2. Who, if anyone, is given author credit on the report.

Dr. Trifunovic - Is it your assertion that you did not write the report, as in do the research, write up findings, type it?

It's been very widely reported, and you have yourself previously confirmed on the Wiki here, that you "wrote" the report, in those senses.

Author credit on the report is very different from not having been involved with, or having been the primary author from a "person who produced the content" sense.

Please clarify whether you are now disputing that you were the author in the content sense. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer to your questions;

1.Many Government agencies were asked to submit their information's regarding Srebrenica massacre including Army, Police and State Security. So Report if you ask me never denied that massacre occurred. Only dispute is the numbers of victims and how they died. So there is no such a thing as author since it is a case of sublimation of the many different reports. Again if you ask me that was historic Report because it was clearly written on the front page that this is Report No.1. You need to understand political situation and all other circumstances at this moment. It was very difficult and painful for the Government to start from somewhere in order to confess massacres. So in Report No.2 Government finally confessed which was great moment.

2.If many governmental services contribute with their reports there is no such "author" who can claim this title.

If you have any other questions please do not hesitate to ask.Darko 00:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

Dear Georgewillamherbert,

I am ready to scan Report for you. I do have hard copy not in electronic form. I am not the author of the Report. This was missus by some propagandist against me because of my Counter Terrorism work. Please send you your e mail and I will send you firs several pages of the mentioned Report if you like.Darko 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

That is not answering the question. I asked if you had written the report, not just if you were credited as the author.

Did you factually not research, write up findings, type up that report?

Did you factually not have anything to do with preparing that report?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What to say. If you like me to send you printed copy of the Report, please send me on e mail your address and I will make copy of the Report as well as copies of my Bosnian passport and recent Court of Bosnia decision where it is clear that my citizenship is not "controversial", that Bosnia as state need to compensate me financial for the damage as well as fro illegal fairing from the job, that I was victim of violence and more important that I need to be re post on my duty. Hope that Court decision have much more weight more then news paper articles? If you do not want me to send it via regular mail, send me your e mail address and will do on that way. Ok? Darko 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

He asked you some simple and staightforward questions. You are not answering them. LadyofShalott 01:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contribution. He asked me several questions and I offer him to send him entire copy of Report that it is clear that I am no the author of the mentioned Report. Is that Correct or not?Darko 01:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

You are not answering the question. Regardless of whether the report lists you as author, we need to know if you wrote the report.

Evading a clear and simple question does not enhance your credibility on this or other topics.

Again: Did you research, write, type up, or otherwise contribute to the creation of the report in question?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Google Books [12], WorldCat [13] and the Library of Congress [14] all list Trifunovic as the author of the report. I believe the world's largest library would count as an authoritative source for authorship information. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I sent the Front page of the mentioned Govermental report to Franamax

Dear all, I sent to Franamax Front page and I am ready to send several more pages to all in order to prove that this is a case of Governmental Report not any individual.Darko 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

I can confirm that I requested a copy of the report. DT sent me a scan of only the front page, which was unsatisfactory. I personally need (much) more information to make an evaluation, specifically the general front and back texts, in order to establish claims of "authorship". One of my concerns with the unstubbed text was "author" of the Case Srebrenica report, which has been discussed far above. In the case of a government report, I feel it is important to establish the difference between author (sole credit), editor (partial credit) and compiler (functionary position). Thus, is is essential to see the original text in the absence of reliable commentary on how the report was actually produced.

My research on the internet has produced no source containing the actual text of the report nor any reliable sources showing the list of authors/compilers/editors/contributors. When Mr. DT does produce the extended information, it will inform my judgement as to the wording (I'm thinking that "contributed to" is NPOV here). As to how that can be made into reliable sourcing - well, one bridge at a time. Franamax (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the full report can be found here http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/srebrenica.pdf (thanks to User:Opbeith). // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. That shows pretty conclusively who is responsible for preparing the report. So now I'm unclear on why that wouldn't be in the article, since it is a large part of the notability of the article subject. If the dispute is about "was the author of a report", then just change it to "prepared a report" - which, combined with the library information, is eminently supportable. Franamax (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest reason why I was attack by Islamic Radicals from Bosnia

You can find here real reason why I was bruttaly attck by Internet hacker, Internet Al Qaida etc....and why one of the Govermental Report from 2002 is missused in the year of 2008. ref [15].

Bosnian Muslims Object To Serb Terrorism Expert Addressing European Conference Source: Bosnian TV Hayat, In Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, 05 Jan 08 - Translated By OSC Excerpt from report by Bosnian privately-owned independent TV Hayat, on 5 January

Text of TV transcript, collapsed for talk page convenience

[Reporter] [beginning of report missing due to error in editing] Darko Trifunovic, a Belgrade-based lawyer and a professor at the Belgrade Faculty of Security Studies, has published a new paper entitled "Al Qai'dah global network and its influence on Western Balkan nations". The storm hardly blew over before a new one rose: it has been announced that Trifunovic will participate at the European Police Congress, to be held in Berlin in late January, which will be attended by all major figures of the European police and security scene. Bosniaks [Bosnian Muslims], above all the Bosnjaci.net portal, the Congress of Bosniaks in North America and the [Sarajevo-based NGO] Centre for Advanced Studies, consider this shameful and unacceptable. Their argument is that Darko Trifunovic is denying the Srebrenica genocide.

Who is actually Darko Trifunovic, an expert in international terrorism and security studies? The list of his works on terrorism is rather long. The titles include: "Islamic Fundamentalists, Global Network and Modus Operandi: Model Bosnia", "The Roots of Terrorism in Bosnia-Hercegovina and its Classic Forms" and "Terrorism and Organized Crime in Southeast Europe: the Case of Bosnia-Hercegovina". In 2001, Trifunovic was First Secretary at the B-H [Bosnia-Hercegovina] Mission to the UN, a post from which he was recalled. He has served as an adviser to the RS [ Bosnian Serb Republic ] interior and foreign [as heard] ministers. He is a member and an analyst of numerous international associations dealing with strategic studies and terrorism. He is known for his allegations that seven participants in the 9/11 attacks were linked to B-H. He has also alleged that the Bosnian white Al Qai'dah is linked to the Madrid attacks. He has reportedly lost his B-H citizenship because he had produced false documents on acquiring it.

Why do Bosniaks call him a forger of history, a genocide denier and an ostensible terrorism expert? Because he is the author of the disgraceful 2002 Srebrenica report issued by the Documentation Centre of the [Bosnian] Serb Republic government. Local [presumably Bosniak] intellectuals joined the whole story yesterday by writing to the European Police Congress and demanding that Trifunovic should be punished for denying the Srebrenica genocide. Trifunovic's interlocutor in tonight's "Face to Face" section [regular part of Hayat TV Saturday news bulletin] on the topics of Srebrenica and Bosnian Al Qai'dah is Nezim Halilovic Muderris, who, according to Trifunovic, is one of those responsible for the so-called Islamic radicalization and paramilitary organization of Wahabbi groups as well as for war crimes against Serbs in Konjic region. Muderris is former commander of the 4th Muslim Brigade of the Bosnia-Hercegovina Army and currently director of Vakuf [religious endowment] Directorate and hatib [prayer leader] of Sarajevo 's [Saudi-funded, considered a Wahabbi meeting-point] King Fahd mosque.

[Passage omitted: Muderris accuses Trifunovic of denying the Srebrenica genocide in the Serb Republic government report; Trifunovic rejects accusations, explains the report is not his own but a government report as well as that this was only a first report and that in subsequent reports the Serb Republic government admitted the crime; in a pre-filmed statement, professor of Sarajevo Faculty of Islamic Studies/director of Centre for Advanced Studies Ahmet Alibasic discusses the Srebrenica report drafted by Trifunovic, also says that Trifunovic consciously manipulates the justified fear of terrorism that many today have in order to cover-up the genocide; Alibasic says that Trifunovic's attendance of European Police Congress is dangerous because he will have a chance to address 1,600 participants and discuss the European strategy of fight against terrorism]

[Nezim Halilovic Muderris] Since 2002, you write papers and publications [interrupted] [Darko Trifunovic] Of course, I have discovered Al Qai'dah [presumably in Bosnia ].

[Halilovic] In which you, of course, talk about Al Qai'dah. Please tell me which member of the Army of Bosnia-Hercegovina has been convicted for a terrorist act in the past period. You have been manipulating the public the whole time. [Passage omitted: Halilovic mentions examples of Trifunovic's statements about alleged terrorist threat in Bosnia ] [Trifunovic, showing a map] This is a NATO map on which you too are indicated, you can see your face there. This is not Darko Trifunovic's map, but a NATO and European Union map.

[Halilovic] Of course, you might be one of the authors of the map.

[Trifunovic] I am not an author, I am not NATO. Do you, Mr Muderris, feel responsible for Mirsad Bektasevic [Swedish national of Bosnian origin convicted for planning a terrorist attack on a European target] coming to Sarajevo and being in prison today because you propagate that those young people should be dying after the model of [word indistinct] and blowing themselves up?

[Halilovic] I absolutely do not feel responsible.

[Trifunovic] You do not?

[Halilovic] Of course I do not. [Passage omitted: Halilovic explains that the fact that the initial sentences for Bektasevic and two co-defendants were halved shows that they were not guilty of terrorism; Trifunovic suggests an international petition for Bektasevic's release because he is young and was indoctrinated and should be studying instead of serving time in prison] Let us turn to Al Qai'dah again. If Al Qai'dah cells were present in Bosnia-Hercegovina - you, of course, often speak of the danger of a white Al Qai'dah here - do you think that the international troops and the security bodies in Bosnia-Hercegovina should allow that?

[Trifunovic] Please, the international troops [changes thought] They are not able to control those cells in Europe, we have seen what happened in Madrid and London . They were not able to control America , why would they control Bosnia ? Remember when [former Deputy High Representative/former chief of UN police mission in Bosnia ] Mr [Jacques-Paul] Klein said: "I know that there are Al Qai'dah cells. But it is better for them to stay in Bosnia and wreak havoc there then go around the world."

[Halilovic] The threat of terrorism in Bosnia-Hercegovina, or of alleged Islamic terrorism, is not bigger than in any other European country. [Passage omitted: Trifunovic agrees with Halilovic that the stoning of a Muslim man during the 2001 ceremony to lay the cornerstone for reconstruction of the main Banja Luka mosque is an act of terrorism] [Trifunovic] What about the hordes of mujahidin who passed through Bosnia - recently we saw that two with the latest B-H passports were killed in Iraq ? Is this good for the people living in Bosnia-Hercegovina?

[Halilovic] Please, we are not talking about hordes of Arabs at all.

[Trifunovic] How many then? Abu Hamza [Iman al-Husin, spokesperson for former mujahidin fighters in Bosnia ] says he will bring 5,000 people to Sarajevo today.

[Halilovic] 5,000 citizens, he is not talking only about Arabs.

[Trifunovic] No, he said 5,000 mujahidin.

[Halilovic] Several hundred Arabs were not decisive at all for the defence of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

[Trifunovic] No way was it several hundred. I have 12,000 in my files, the OHR [the Office of the High Representative] has them.

[Passage omitted: Halilovic counters with allegations of foreign Orthodox Christian mercenaries fighting on the side of Bosnian Serbs during the past war; he explains Trifunovic's allegations of a war crimes indictement against Halilovic unfounded, says he has never been contacted by ICTY prosecutors, no members of his brigade have ever been tried or questioned in war crimes cases; Halilovic says that Trifunovic should not attend the upcoming European police congress because of his moral and professional values and his "chauvinistic" and "fascist" ideas; Trifunovic laughs off the accusations and pledges to be very active in the future]

Darko 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

Transcript collapsed for general readability of the talk page by Franamax (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Stub is appropriate

The stub is appropriate. The subject simply is the victim of a smear campaign, the allegations are serious and Wikipedia is not the place to air Balkan politcal grievances. The problem is that many students and others believe what the read in Wikipedia as the truth and this places the subject's life in danger as some sort of infamous genocide denier. To get to the point of something neutral you would need the subject named in an objective media source - while the BBC is a good source, BBC transcripts of foreign language broadcasts are not. Balkan newspaper and media outlets, even the big ones like Blic, Globus, and Politika are prone to political machinations.Resistk (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you remind us please which specific allegations are untrue? Thanks in advance. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Resistk, please cite where WP prohibits 'BBC transcripts' and 'Balkan newspaper and media outlets' as WP:RSs. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Resistk appears to have a major but undisclosed conflict of interest: I'm informed (and I've been able to verify off-wiki) that he is a lawyer working for/with Trifunovic. See [16] for details. I suggest that he should read and follow WP:COI#Close relationships. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I understood the stub to be only temporary. There appears to be quite a bit of factual material - we may need to be careful about how we attribute it, but we don't just say 'You can't use Balkan media outlets', that would be ridiculous. The word 'neutral' may be misunderstood, our role is to represent the significant viewpoints on a subject -- Resistk needs to read WP:NPOV. What we should be discussing here is what can be replaced quickly so the article is more than a sentence.

As for the authorship of the report, this looks like a possible procedural terminology issue - it certainly appears as though he is a or even the major contributor, even if reports such as this one officially have no author. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c, indent to same level) I think that an article extending to more than a stub is appropriate. DT has several times asked for a line-by-line appraisal - so I'd rather do that than blank the whole thing. WP:BLP informs us that we can't include putative falsehoods. That's not the same thing as differences of opinion as to who killed more people where. In particular, I'm not persuaded by arguments above that this article is longer than the other article on so-and-such so it must be biased. We do need to include reliable information, whilst recognizing that there are almost zero impartial sources in this area.

(after e/c) Report authorship - I would prefer "compiled" or "prepared". And yes, I hope it's temporary stubbing. Franamax (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is the report itself that is of some minor notoriety, if the subject is not the actual author then this all belongs over at Srebenica Massacre [17] which pointedly makes no metnion of DT. Resistk (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so. From Srebrenica massacre:

Republika Srpska 2002 report

In September 2002 the Republika Srpska Office of Relations with the ICTY issued the "Report about Case Srebrenica". The document, authored by Darko Trifonovic, was endorsed by many leading Bosnian Serb politicians. It concluded that 1,800 Bosnian Muslim soldiers died during fighting and a further 100 more died as a result of exhaustion. "The number of Muslim soldiers killed by Bosnian Serbs out of personal revenge or lack of knowledge of international law is probably about 100...It is important to uncover the names of the perpetrators in order to accurately and unequivocally establish whether or not these were isolated instances." The International Crisis Group and the United Nations condemned the manipulation of their statements in this report.

(My emphasis.) Writegeist (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, the allegation links to nothing, just the name of the report. Which is my point, this is an allegation in the context of a larger issue, leave it over there, why slander a non public figure with another entire tangental entry when he obviously was not the "author" of the report. Sure plenty of Serbs take a contrary view on Srebrenica, including a number of leading politicans, why single out DT as a major genocide denier when there is no evidence he is a policy maker? The controversey belongs over at Srebrenica Massacre where both sides of the issue are presented. Why put DT on trial here - this is not the place?216.16.212.4 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The report lists:

"Prepared by:

Mr. Darko Trifunovic, MSL"

Also, Dr. Levy, as it's been alleged that you have a business or legal client relationship with Dr. Trifunovic, can you let us know what the specific nature is of that and any other conflicts of interest you may have in this matter?

Please recall WP:COI. Undisclosed conflicts of interest are taken seriously on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but but I have told you Darko and I are both affiliated with the Jasenovac Research Institute and I am obviously supporting him in the effort to get his name cleared, I believe I already made this clear elsewhere, you have also questioned me as to my credentials while claiming yours are irrelevant. What is your stake in this never ending saga - seems to be the world can survive without DT being smeared and villified as a Genocidist when in fact that allegation seems to arise from Wikipedia and certain obscurfe NGOs and no competent authority.Resistk (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is DT a public figure?

Here is one take on that. [18]

On the other hand if you are going to go run off at the mouth about a limited public figure, if indeed DT is even that, can you prove the allegation is true? Unless he actually authored the Republik Srpska government report or ordered it produced, I think DT's explanations are reasonable. The report was authored by Republik Srpska, which is part of the government of BiH (Bosnia Herzegovna).

Can you produce a clean public statement made by DT sourced to something primary like the following:

"A journalist asked for reaction to a statement by Mr. Milan Bulajic of the ‘Foundation on Research of Genocide’ in Belgrade, that, having studied documentation produced by the UN, and the ‘Serbian and Muslim armies’, he concluded that no genocide was perpetrated in Srebrenica by the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS). Landale responded that any statement Mr. Bulajic allegedly made about there being no genocide after the fall of the enclave of Srebrenica flew in the face of the findings at the Tribunal, both by a Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber.

In addition, Landale noted that in the largest trial held at the Tribunal on the issue of Srebrenica, the Krstic trial, General Krstic himself, during his defence, did not challenge the fact that thousands of unarmed Bosnian men and boys had been murdered. Mr. Bulajic’s statement had therefore no relation whatsoever to the truth.[19]"

If not, DT is entitled to opinion (whatever that may be) and should not be exposed to public censure and ridicule.Resistk (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Trifunovic puts himself forwards as an international expert in terrorism, has published several reports, was an international diplomat, and was the author (compiler, whatever you wish to phrase it) of a report which is well known internationally.

By the time that your name ends up in hundreds of press reports, claims that someone "is not a public figure" are hard to justify.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement here. His name is plastered across this report and numerous others hosted at the RS Center for War Crimes Research [20]. He can't simultaneously promote himself as an international expert and at the same time claim non-notability. Moreover, he has done nothing on this forum to disassociate himself from the Srebrenica Report or the views expressed within. I'm not sure why we're still having this conversation, since you're not bringing up any new points. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me repost something I posted a while ago: Trifunović has a remarkably high public profile for a supposedly non-public figure. According to the Bosnian Serb state-owned newspaper Glas Srpske (27 Feb 2009) he has formed an apparently self-appointed three-man "team for fighting terrorism and organised crime in south-eastern Europe". He has alleged that Bosnia has been infiltrated by 300 Iranian agents seeking to destabilise the Republika Srpska. On 24 Feb 2009 the state-owned Bosnian Serb broadcaster RTRS reported that Trifunović was claiming that radical Wahhabis were arming themselves in Bosnia to restart the war there. The Sarajevo-based newspaper Dnevni Avaz ran a very critical opinion piece on 11 Feb 2009, stating that Trifunović was falsely accusing top Bosnian government officials of having links to Al Qaeda, focusing specifically on the case of the recently arrested Bosnian assistant security minister, Vjekoslav Vuković. The article reports that Trifunović claims that Iranian spies are linked to the Croatian and Bosnian governments and that he has accused the Croatian Interior Minister Tomislav Karamarko of working for the Iranians - to which the minister has responded by suing for libel. On 26 Jan 2009, RTRS reported that Trifunović and his two colleagues held a press conference in Zagreb accusing the Croatian and Bosnian governments of involvement with Islamic terrorist groups. On 24 Jan 2009, RTRS reported that Trifunović was claiming that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists had stayed in Bosnia, and that the Bosnian government was covering this up. On 11 December 2007, the Serbian news agency SRNA reported that Trifunović was claiming that Croatian President Stjepan Mesić was planning to attack the Republika Srpska with the aid of radical Islamists, meeting with Iranian agents and intending to topple the RS government through political, diplomatic and terrorist means. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Again ChrisO let me warn you about the Balkan press, anyone can get placement in it, even me and I'm a nobody. [21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.212.4 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedias' reliable source policy is that the mainstream press, anywhere its found, has a presumption of reliability (it meets the independent, fact checked, requirements we're looking for fairly consistently by nature).

If you believe that a particular cited press source is not reliable or accurate one can challenge the presumption. But you have to show us good cause, not just say "Don't trust them, they're not reliable in location X". Specifics are required.

By the way, Dr. Levy, please remember to log in when you edit. It's confusing to follow attribution when you use IP addresses intermittently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The way ahead

The way I see it, there are 4 main sections the article pre-stubbing:

1. UN mission and citizenship controversy
2. Srebrenica report
3. Views on Islamic Terrorism
4. EU Police Conference

There doesn't seem to be a lot of dispute on paragraph #2. We have the actual report, as well as a story from Transitions Online (which was reprinted by Time). I'm sure with some digging we can locate additional sources. I don't see any reason why this paragraph can't be restored immediately, with the change that he "prepared" the report, rather than "authored" it. Regardless, his name is still strongly associated with the report. This episode alone would seem to establish his notability. Can we get consensus on this paragraph and then work on the rest of the article? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take for what is worth:

1. An individual's citizenship is not a controversy except in very rare cases - it is a private matter.

4. The EU Police Congress is an obscure event with cross allegations as to who said what to who.

That leaves whether DT is an important expert on terrorism. If so, then you have to do a fair and balanced article which would succinctly summarize DT's views on terrorism with a caveat about his involvement with the Srbrenica report. However, if he is not an important terrorism expert than his involvement with a government report is also irrelevant as he is not noteworthy.Resistk (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

His degree of expertise seems to be controversial, to say the least. However, it's clear from the press coverage that he is a high-profile political commentator who has frequently been quoted by the media in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. The controversy over his citizenship and his views on terrorism have been extensively covered in the regional press, so notability there is clear-cut. I do agree that the EU police congress issue is more obscure; we can probably omit this. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(ed conflicted): :Chris: the Srebrenica para.: absolutely. I would prefer "authored", as I suppose "prepared" might possibly be taken by themost literal-minded to mean he just typed it or collated the pages or some such, but "prepared" will do. Resistk: reliably cited authorship of a government-commissioned and issued report denying the single most notable massacre of civilians in modern European history is itself sufficient to establish notability. Writegeist (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But did he author the report? The Slobodn Milosevic site is not an official site - how about actual proof like a ISBN entry or government memo? He is not identified in the Western media as an author or originator of the report. Additionally, if he is not a high profile expert on terrorism, I think the single mention/unproven allegation at the Srebrenica Massacre entry is sufficient. Name one influential book or paper DT has authored cited outside Republik Srpska? If not I believe there is a total lack of objectivity at work here. DT has pointed out that this campaign coincides with vicious attack blogs by the pseudonym Johnstone and others traced to Bosniak Congress of North America that makes no bones about its anti Serb agenda. At worst he is a compiler, a government employee of the BiH government, certainly not a war criminal. Also while Srebrenica massacre may be a well known event, DT played no role at all in it, and the hyperbole "single most notable massacre in modern European history" is way off base, I think Srbrenica can be compared to Croat ethnic cleansing in Krajina and Croat atrocities against Muslims in Mostar, in fact it is similar to murder of Greeks in Cyprus and falls way short of deaths of civilians in Chechnya. So why so eager to hang the Srebrenica Massacre on someone who wasn't there and is not a world renowned expert on terrorism. Do I sense a personal agenda by ChrisO and others. I have already stated that I support DT clearing himself of false innuendo.Resistk (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Resistk, you are not bringing any new arguments to the table. We have a report with his name on it, which attracted international media attention. Moreover, he has gone to great lengths to promote himself as an international terrorism expert. He can't simultaneously do this and still claim to be a non-public figure. Moreover, we're not claiming that he is responsible for the massacre, only that he is one of those who denies its existence. Srebrenica is widely regarded as the worst massacre in European history since WWII, and we're also not interested in comparing massacres on this forum.

We have given you more than an ample opportunity to contribute to this debate, but if you continue to argue the same points, stonewall, and evade questions, you may well find yourself blocked for tendentious editing. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree with all he's saying, he raises some valid questions. Block threats are highly inappropriate here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then please, Doc, let us know what you think about the questions. Let's just talk about what we can put back. There are clearly some sources we can use to build the article. By the way, has this been mentioned? [22]. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that pretty much anyone can register themselves on a blog as Darko Trifunovic, so I don't credit that too much.

However, I do think we can start putting back factual information. The US LofC lists Trifunovic as the "author" of the report - although that's only a field in a database. The report itself clearly shows "Prepared by:" with one name, that of Trifunovic. Since LOC has the document on file, it is verifiable. The s-m.com website is a convenience link, the actual document resides at LOC. I really don't think there's any doubt here. Franamax (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then. Depite the denials above of his authorship, if the report says "prepared by", followed by his name only, I think that is definitive. He wrote the report. End of discussion. LadyofShalott 19:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we have a reasonable consensus that the Srebrenica report should be included. I've restored a modified version of the previous text on that topic. Next question: how do we approach the citizenship controversy, which was covered fairly extensively in the Bosnian press, and his views on Islamic terrorism, which have received regular coverage in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a primary source, but as the report's online, we probably should link to it as a reference. We have secondary sources for the significance, the report itself is an important factual source for its contents... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I would be satisfied with a link under an External Links section. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, meanwhile I was boldly adding two refs. One is to the LoC accession record, which is the definitive source for verifiability, the other is the convenience link to the actual text. I may not have got the formats right, review is welcome. Franamax (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On the citizenship issue, I believe there are unrefuted allegations above that the revocation of citizenship was found by a court to be unjustified. Now which exact "Bosnian" court decided this, I'm not too sure. I'm not particularly fussed on this one, lots of Canadian citizens have suddenly been told they're not citizens because of weird provisions from years ago which they were not aware of. Lets leave that one 'til last.

The views on terrorism thing, does seem to be a point of notability. My same search through the LoC records turns up Trifunovic as a co-author of a (book? published literature?) on the topic [23]. (If that link doesn't work, search for "Terrorism: Global Network of Islamic Fundamentalists‎"). There does seem to be some notability here.

I'd also raise the police conference again, although we would need sources beyond the objections raised by partisan groups to show that Trifunovic was in fact denied attendance/speakership at the conference. Franamax (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And looking a little more, I see this (Google Books, Islamic Fundamentalist’s Global Network By Darko Trifunović, no snippets) which is referenced by this (Google Books, Islamic Terror in the Balkans, p. 74). I have no idea on how to properly access these works, but certainly they seem to exist although we've previously had only sources to POV commentary on the author. Franamax (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find that document here. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, once again those with better links come through! The LoC publication date of 1900 had me a little confused. :) Seing the publication date of 2002 twigged me a little bit, here are some discussions in a (pretty dang) reliable source of Al-Qaeda involvement in Bosnia, from 2002 and 2005. If those are subscription-only links, email me for a copy. I don't suggest any particular relevance, but they may help to illuminate the topic of "global terrorism in the Balkans". Franamax (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the citizenship issue is moot. Police Conference is a non event. I work in the field and hAVE never even heard of the European Police Conference. But if we are going ahead with an entry, the Srebrenica material should be balanced by citing DT's work against al-Qaida in the Balkans. Then leave it alone - two paragraphs total seems about right. Longer and DT starts to assume giant proportions like say Dr. Chalmers Johnson[24] when in fact he is little known outside Serbia and BiH.Resistk (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction

Instead of Trifunovic Report it is a case of Goverment Report.Darko 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

Invitation for the improvement of the article

I invite all interesting parties to work for the improvement of the article.Darko 13:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

Posting your resume does not constitute improving the article, and it will be rolled back by myself or other users every time you do it. Please stop. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 13:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Osly,

"....where he has specialized in the study of Islamic terrorism". This quotation is not true. I never specialized on that topic. My Specialization is in International Criminal Law and International Criminal Courts as well as my PhD thesis is "New Form of Terrorism in Bosnia". So please correct it.Darko 21:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs) Also, why only this part of article is posted??? Looks like again as personal attack and very, very bad attempt to black picture me. Is that whole about on Wikipedia? If you look deeply nature of postings on the Internet from the side of Radical Islamist's, what you and others are doing here feat perfectly on the attempt from White Al Qaeda and associate radical extreme group. If you did notice that, just go and look by yourself. Darko 22:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we've been through this before, but...

Wikipedia is not here for use as a soapbox for your ideas. Continuing to try and advocate them, or use them as a position statement in Wikipedia content disputes, is an abuse of Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose and neutral point of view policy.

None of the administrators reviewing the situation here are (as far as I know) Islamic or in any way sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Please stop using this as a red herring. There is not a vast violent radical islamic conspiracy here trying to make you look bad.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But how you then explain that for you and others in very important only Governmental Report out of my whole life??? Also, at Wikipedia article about me, most what present interest of you and some others is "controversy". I really wander shell I continue with whole of it because all looks as Personal Attack which never will ended from your side. So if that is "credible" Encyclopedia standards I have nothing to do here. Do you have any reasonable explanation why is now only text in the article which is post now? Again, is that what you want here? So, in future if I want to black paint someone, only what I need to do is to find several "neutral" editors and they will black paint anybody for me. Is that a case?Darko 08:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

Darko, first of all, we don't paint our articles in any colours, and if you were to try to do that to someone else, we would resist that too. Our article today is not what it was a month ago, we are trying to make progress to a reliably sourced statement of facts.

You may not be pleased with the eventual results, but we do strive for objective truth without distortion from any "sides" - and there are various different people watching who have no stake in which side "wins".

If there are "positive" facts about your own life you feel should be presented, please supply reliable sources and we can incorporate them. You posted a curriculum vitae recently, which was reverted - now can you direct us to university sites, newspapers, magazines, any published sources to support your life experience? If we can trace it to a reliable source, we can include it. Beyond that, we can only use what we can be sure exists. Regards. Franamax (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look into Internet you will find out that there is on line (Internet) attack on me from the side of Islamic fundamentalist and Holocaust denier. Just see how much is attack my work on Genocide over Roma people or how much I am attack just because of fact that I am one of the Director of JRI. You can see that nobody at Wikipedia do not care about Genocide committed over other nation such as Roma people. Please see this http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/entry/genocide-over-kosovo-metohija-romas/ In the article about me this study is not even mentioned. Or that I am working on Holocaust issue and one of the biggest Genocide in Europe committed in Jasenovac (Donja Gradina) as Jasenovac Research Institute Director http://www.jasenovac.org/news_read.php?nID=38. In the article about me all of this is not even mentioned, because look like Jews, Serbian and Roma are "second class" people. Is that a case on Wikipedia?Darko 08:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

In the my resume there is a lot of reference on my life work and experiance. Will put more but need to teach at Universisty at this time:)))))Darko 16:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

ANI follow-up

Further to this complaint on WP:ANI, the article (regardless of the rights and wrongs of its subject) does seem to be having difficulties with WP:COATRACK. Currently we have a single sentence of biographical information, followed by lots of stuff about a controversial report. Is the article about the report? If so, it probably needs renaming. If on the other hand it's about Darko Trifunovic, we need to get some sourced biographical details in there (not, however, a resume!) and get away from the attack piece impression it currently gives. EyeSerene^talk 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is coming back from being blanked - there is active debate about what points to include, and how. Please be patient. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not about to go mad with the delete button ;) Having looked at the history and various revisions, I think you could probably give Sisyphus some tips... EyeSerene^talk 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can any tell or show me where active debate about the article is held as Georgewillamherbert mentioned?Darko 22:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko Trifunovic (talk • contribs)

I agree with EyeSerene, it is a coatrack article - if the only point of the article is to "expose" the subject as the preparer of a government report and his other accomplishments are not considered worthy of inclusion - then the whole thing belongs over atSrbrenica Massacre. it is the report and the not the preparer that is mentioned in a small way elsewhere. On the other hand, if that is not case, then balanced material about the author should be included not some Bosniak slander about his citizenship. How about just a referal to primary material on the subject without all the editorializing?[25]Resistk (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are not reliable sources on WP. Your link is to a site where anyone can say whatever they want about themselves (just as Trifunovic keeps doing here), and yes, Trifunovic uses it to promote yet another of his résumés. The problem with his résumés has already been explained to you numerous times by people whose patience, for all that it is evidently superhuman, has probably worn dangerously thin by now. If you care to provide material supported by reliable sources, it will be considered. So far as the article's present focus is concerned, that will broaden as new material is added. Writegeist (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying the article is a coatrack, just that at this stage of its development, that's the impression it gives. There are some highly experienced editors working here, and the article will broaden as it develops. I'm more concerned about the history of tendentious editing from certain accounts both on the article and this talk-page, which is doing nothing but hindering the article's improvement. Resistk has an impressive record of WP:IDHT in the above posts, and Darko Trifunovic just seems to want to argue everything. As a result I've blocked both accounts (Resistk for one week; DT for two) to give the article editors some breathing space. EyeSerene^talk 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One more provment that this is not any kind of academic discussion instead

It is clear that after all some of editors are not here because of Wikipadia. It is evidentially that whole artilce in past including this writings present violation of Wikipadia it's own roles. Stop with viloance, stop with all of this Fascist behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.215.72.130 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is actually not an "academic" discussion at all, rather it aims to provide a description of how people see the world. We do of course use academic sources when trying to provide that description. However, in both academia and Wikipedia, not much is ever "proved" to be exactly right - there are always dissenting voices, so we do our best to reflect the competing voices. There are no winners here, except eventually our readership. Claims of violence and fascism don't help us achieve that end. Do you have specific problems with the article that you wish to discuss? Franamax (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)