Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Question about added words in quote

In the section "Starvation in Srebrenica 1992–1993," a Red Beret is quoted as saying

"The local people became quite indignant, so sometimes we would keep someone alive to hand over to them [to kill] just to keep them happy."

Why are the words "to kill" added in brackets? I could find no evidence in the original article that back up this clarification. Evanf32 (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It is implied that the 'kept' prisoners are solely to satisfy the locals' blood lust " Because it was these same raiding parties out of Srebrenica that occasionally killed Serb civilians, Nenad and his comrades had a simple policy: “No prisoners. … … In fact, there was the occasional exception to this rule. With the Srpska soldiers’ no-prisoners policy, local Serbs who wanted revenge for the Bosnian soldiers’ raiding parties were being denied the opportunity. “The local people became quite indignant,” Nenad explained, “so sometimes we would keep someone alive to hand over to them just to keep them happy.”

I agree though that the quote isn't clearly summarised.Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Are the locals in question Bosniaks or Serbs? Evanf32 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

local Serbs who wanted revenge for the Bosnian soldiers’ raiding parties were being denied the opportunity. “Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Denial Section

Has the whole denial section become a literal denial forefront? Are we just to list every single individual who says something in that favor? Or should it be a board where more prominent an individual is the more the denial becomes literal? I'm not seeing such a section in Rwandan genocide. Bilseric (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bilseric, I'm not sure that I understand your point. Denial of Srebrenica has varied over time and extent. In the early days, before mass graves, and other proofs, were found for example there were more people questioning both the nature or scale of the massacre. Others have not or do not dispute mass killings, but for various reasons, sometimes 'technical', sometimes probably political, dispute the term 'genocide'. Comparisons with other events, such as Rwanda, aren't necessarily helpful if the events are different in character, or in how/when they have been 'denied' or 'downplayed'.Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've partially reinstated the April 2024 Yahel Vilan comments, correcting errors and removing off-topic elements, such as comparisons to Gaza, which aren't in the source or relevant. Pincrete (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I wasn't trying to compare the evens with Rwanda, but articles. Do we really need to list everyone's statement who said something in denial of the genocide. I think it would be ok to generally mention denial of relevant parties. But to list every single individual who says something is just too much. Bilseric (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you have been long involved in the article, so I won't revert. Bilseric (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I value your view, and acknowledge the issues with the initial revision I made.

In the interview the subject makes direct parallels between Srebrenica and Gaza, a fact I thought relevant to the basis of the denial.

Unfortunately Wikipedia will not allow me to add the citation in which the subject makes the direct comparison to Gaza, as it comes from a source Wikipedia does not consider reliable by default. Whilst I would normally avoid such sources because of this unreliability, as they are quoting their exclusive interview with the subject directly I thought it sufficiently reliable.

Until I can discover a way of appropriately citing the interview that doesn’t come afoul of Wiki’s citing barriers I’ll leave your revision. Thundabru (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

But, why do you feel that quote is needed in the article? It's made by an individual who isn't much relevant in my opinion. Should we quote every individual? Wouldn't that make this section too long? Bilseric (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree about the Gaza quote, since it is borderline off-topic. I don't understand your objection to the 'individuals', especially when these people hold official positions and therefore to a degree are speaking from a semi-official stance. What should we say in your opinion that represents the range and degree of denial? Pincrete (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think he shared official opinion of Israel. I believe Israel's official stand is not in support of denial which this edit might imply. If I'm correct, then I would expect Israel (if they haven't done so yet) to officially denounce this opinion as individual and that should then accompany the initial edit in the article. This is what I meant by individual, that is, it not being an official stand of Israel. I haven't done much research to be honest, but I can't imagine that's a position of state of Israel. And If so, what is the relevance of this individual statement at all? Bilseric (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably not an official Israeli state position, but it is a belief expressed by someone in an official role - "speaking from a semi-official stance". Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That is without doubt true. This individual had said that, I'm just not sure which interpretation that has for readers. My opinion is that this statement should be accompanied by the rebuttal from Israel's ministry of exterior. I'll try to find sources as I believe those should exist. This is because I've seen this statement being used by those who do actually deny the genocide in support of their stand. If that is one of the interpretation , a rebuttal would help to understand that denial is not widespread opinion in Israel nor an official stand. Bilseric (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

More important, this individual had said much more, that it is an official stand of Israel by saying "Israel has never accepted that the crime in Srebrenica be called genocide" [1] Bilseric (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I tied, but cannot find statement from ministry of exterior. Usually, when some ambassador says something that is not in line with official stand , the ministry issues a statement which often describes the ambassador's statement as "individual". I've seen it many times. It may be a good idea to give it some time until more sources are available. Bilseric (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I do still feel the whole section is becoming too long. Bilseric (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide

I suggest that we rename this article to "Srebrenica Genocide" now that the UN has issued its resolution on the matter today, designating July 11 as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica. Njamu (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 69.123.67.182 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I Agree with that. To retain a current title name would be in a way denial of genocide act in Srebrenica.

Article titles are based on WP:COMMONNAME, that is the name the reader is most likely to use. What courts say or what the UN says is recorded within the article, but has no bearing on the title chosen. The last time this issue came up, which if I remember correctly was about 5 or so years ago, it was deemed that 'massacre' was still more common than 'genocide' among the public. I think there are various reasons for that, including that various names had established themselves long before any 'genocide' rulings were made, so those names tended to stick. But the reasons for common use are academic from our PoV, Holodomor and Holocaust are the common names of two historic events, not 'Ukranian genocide of the 1920s' or 'Jewish genocide during WWII'.

I've never understand the logic that 'massacre' is somehow denying or minimising anything, 'massacre' is mass murder, 'genocide' is mass murder with a particular intent, in this instance the intent to eliminate an ethnic group within a specific region, and making their re-establishment in that region unviable (this was the essence of the court ruling on Srebrenica), to call it 'denial' is effectively saying "mass murder is OK as long as you don't do it with intent to destroy the 'race' in that area".

I'm not going to voice an opinion at this stage about renaming, it's possible that the pendulum has now swung towards 'genocide' being the more normal name, but I'm not sure, but I thought it useful to explain the logic of this - and other - article names. There is a procedure for renaming an article, which I suggest anyone/everyone employ if they wish to rename. In order for such a renaming to happen, it's important that the new name have widespread support, as the present one has previously had. Unilateral renames will simply be reverted and are a gigantic waste of time and editorial goodwill. Pincrete (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Njamu Agree X8001iaakklllll (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello. The UN only confirmed what was already obvious. The article's title does not change the status of this event. As Pincrete pointed out, massacre and genocide are not mutually exclusive here. Both terms accurately describe the event. Wikipedia's article titles are based on the majority of English-language sources. I see no evidence that this event is currently more commonly called "Srebrenica genocide." If that changes in the future, the article's title will be updated too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree Per the UN resolution adopted yesterday. --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

UN resolutions have no bearing on article titles and would be ignored in the event of a formal renaming discussion. Also, contrary to what a 'renamer' argued, the UN did not say it wasn't a massacre, which is the form of the killing, much as genocide is its legal designation of its intent. The two are not mutually exclusive any more than 'poisoning' and 'homicide' are. Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The common name policy means article names should indeed reflect what the reader is most likely to use rather than necessarily suggesting that the UN terminology is binding for this site, but the fact the UN calls it a genocide is just the latest in a long series of established entities referring to the Srebrenica genocide as the Srebrenica genocide. The UN call it the Srebrenica genocide, memorials in the city call it the Srebrenica genocide, the general public refers to it as the Srebrenica genocide. I am not a bureaucrat of this site, so perhaps I misunderstand the criteria, but it seems bizarre to see people citing the common name policy to defend the continued name that most users are now less likely to use (and have been less likely to for some time). AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure why it's not already named that as most of the world already calls it a genocide. Now with the UN resolution keeping the name of the article seems odd to say the least. Seems like political interference in Wikipedia. Xzpx (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The evidence, as recently as about 5 years ago, was that the WP:COMMONNAME was 'massacre'. I'm not going to take any opinion on this at this time, but would need to see more than anecdotal impressions that this has changed substantially.

My own impression was that other names had established themselves before 'genocide' began to be used, but perhaps that has now changed. As I've said previously, I fail to see how recording the massacre of 8000++ unarmed men and boys is denying anything, except not specifying the racial motive. Seems like political interference in Wikipedia, remarks like that are unhelpful and not based on fact AFAIK. I have no reason to believe that anyone involved with this article long-ish term has even a hint of 'denialist' motives, but we are an encyclopedia, not an advocacy or memorialist site - regardless of how 'worthy' such may be.

'Official' names don't in themselves mean very much. Someone should mount an 'renaming' discussion if they want to affect a change as only a new formal discussion can overturn the old one. Pincrete (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, it seems bizarre to cite a common name policy to defend the continued naming of an article by something other than its current common name. Here, you are feigning neutrality with the guise of bureaucratically-minded diligence, but all your posts are throwing up roadblocks. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just follow normal procedure which is to start a renaming discussion. There you will have ample oppurtunity to offer evidence that the "current common name" has changed, not simply demand that your own anecdotal assessment be obeyed, or offer specious arguments about the UN etc. . I'm offering sound advice about what must necessarily happen with such a high-profile name change, and your response is to impugn my motives. If you want the current name to stay forever, just continue to behave in like fashion! I don't after all object to the present name and am satisfied that it was (but may no longer be), the proper policy-based article name. It isn't me that wants a name change you know! Don't shoot the messenger! Pincrete (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, we found out you disagree with 'genocide' term. Let's hear others. Njamu (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't expressed any opinion except that in the past it wasn't the COMMONNAME, but may well have become more common. That's demonstrably factually correct. I'm even old enough to remember when it was just referred to as "the fall of Srebrenica" or "the aftermath of the fall of Srebrenica", when it was only clear that terrible events had happened, but not clear what the nature and scale of those events was.

The advocates of a name change aren't going to properly affect such a substantial change without starting a formal renaming procedure and proving COMMONNAME has changed - a handful of (previously uninvolved) editors agreeing with each other's irrelevant arguments on talk doesn't 'cut the mustard'. But hey, just shoot the messenger! Pincrete (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep claiming neutrality, but have taken time out of your day several times to respond to posts citing policies as a reason why the name cannot easily be changed. You took affront at me "impugn[ing]" some possible motives, but continue to do exactly that, and are now dismissing any arguments except yours as "irrelevant". I stand by what I said earlier – you are feigning neutrality, but rather support the current name, and cite existing policies as a reason it would be difficult to exchange. If you really had no horse in this race, instead of repeatedly citing why it cannot be explained, you might begin to cite resources or even actively assist in getting the ball rolling on investigating how to get the name changed. From your own testimony, you are obviously more familiar with Wikipedia policies than the rest of us – after all, according to you, we are but a bunch of previously uninvolved editors agreeing with each others irrelevant arguments, and we'll never "cut the mustard." So are you going to help or are you going to keep throwing up obstacles? If it's the latter, then as Njamu said, your comments are available for anyone to read, they do not need to repeated ad nauseum. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I created move page request below: Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested move 2 June 2024 Njamu (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Arguments such as 'how the UN refers to the incident' are wholly irrelevant to how WP articles are named. If you don't want to know how to affect the change you want to see, at least don't 'shoot the messenger'!

It is simply a fact that articles with long-established names, with controversial associations attached to them, aren't changed on the basis of a few "previously uninvolved editors agreeing with each other" on talk because they all anecdotally think the COMMONNAME has changed and they all morally think it ought to change, for reasons not based on WP policy and practice.

Personally I don't care that much what the title is as long as the article records as accurately as possible what happened and as long as the name is the one most readers are likely to recognise. I'm not certain what that is any longer. Others clearly feel they are certain. Pincrete (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree because the Srebrenica massacre was only one part of the larger Bosnian Genocide that took place over a four year span from 1991-1995. 166.196.79.20 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2024

Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica genocide – I suggest that we rename this article to "Srebrenica genocide" now that the UN has issued its resolution on the matter today, designating July 11 as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica Please also check the discussion above. Njamu (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The article name should be WP:COMMONNAME, that is the name most familiar to the reader, in the past this has been decided to be 'Srebrenica massacre', with 'Srebrenica genocide' as an aka. Anecdotally, I believe that may now have shifted, but I would like to see evidence of common usage before deciding for/against this change. The UN designation is interesting info to be recorded in the article, but readers' common usage, not UN resolutions decide article titles. In the discussion above, and so far here, no attempt has been made to show evidence of the COMMONNAME having changed.Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the evidence indicates COMMONNAME equalised in 2022, see table below Tom B (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Errr actually COMMONNAME didn't equalise then, academic use during that one year equalised. Presumably all the academic and non-academic articles written by RS in preceding years didn't delete themselves. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used", not was in preceding years, hence switching to Washington Commanders, rather than waiting for reference numbers to equalise. Scholar uses, "articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites," not just academic. 2022 and 2023 is two years not one year. In both years the gap is so small that they are stastically equal, Tom B (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd suggest the change from Sears Tower to Willis Tower occurring the same year as the tower's name changed is another similar example, and one which reflects that Wikipedia policies are regularly interpreted in a way that allows the site to be consistent for end users while still being dynamic enough to maintain relevance to a wider audience. There is no defined 'duration' for which a set of criteria must be satisfied to justify a move request. At any point in time, an article's title should satisfy policy and guidelines, and editors can always speak to how any title on this site satisfies them. When they can't, I don't see anything suggesting that in such a circumstance a move request should succeed if a more suitable title is proposed. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are either of you seriously comparing the changing of the name of a sports team or a commercial building to one of the most murderous events in post-WWII history? In the former case (as with the name of a company or institution or a brand of chocolate), the name is 'owned' by a person or organisation. The only person who decided X rather than Twitter was Elon Musk, the rest of the world's only choice was for how long they added "formerly known as …" as a clarifier. The name of an historical event however is decided by usage rather than edict and is copyrighted to no one.

  TomB, I know of no situation in WP in which only sources from the two most recent years are credited. I broadly agree that in those two years, the lead of one word over the other is so small as to be insignificant, but those are the only two years in which that is true. The pattern before then clearly and fairly substantially favours 'massacre'. I have no problem with saying greater weight needs to be given to more recent usage, nor with saying that usage before the ICTY 'genocide' ruling should be pretty much discounted as 'genocide' was not an option available to neutral scholars or news sources (though ocassionally employed by advocacy groups). I do have a problem however in simply dismissing sources, basically because they are 2 or more years old and don't confirm the thesis advocated. IMO it is reasonable to ask to see a statistically significant shift in name use, in various media and sustained over a reasonable period of time before overturning a long term consensus as to what the COMMONNAME is. As I said before, all those slightly older academic and news articles didn't jump off the shelves and shred themselves at the stroke of midnight, they continue to be read and to inform what the reader's perception of COMMONNAME is. Pincrete (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Are either of you seriously comparing the changing of the name of a sports team or a commercial building to one of the most murderous events in post-WWII history?" For my part, I am looking at how Wikipedia enforces its policies and guidelines in other articles for the sake of identifying consistent patterns by which consensus can be reached. The topic itself is not directly relevant – the move request regarding the move from Sears Tower to Willis Tower is, despite the way you've framed your question, one of the most contentious move requests on this site, so it's actually quite informative to look through the rationale for the move request succeeding there as an example of how this site's policies work in extremis.

  Of course, you cannot solely look at the title as a thing purely without looking at the context of the article. As discussed in this move request and in examples of past move requests cited in this discussion, the word 'massacre' may be inherently POV in this context, which arguably invalidates the current title and so a conversation can be had either about reaching a consensus on a move to Srebrenica genocide as proposed, or else proposing alternate titles and hoping to reach a consensus on that. Of course, some editors might attempt to disingenuously reframe questions or other bad faith methods by which to stall out the process and attempt to ignore an obligation to work in good faith to reach a consensus, but those editors will eventually discredit themselves by repeatedly taking such an approach. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Are...you seriously comparing the changing of the name of a sports team....building to one of the most murderous events...?" Yes, WP policies apply to all name changes, all articles. I'm saying 2 years is a reasonable period of time, you disagree. WP "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used", for me the last 2 years are closer to is than 10 years ago, which you say is 'slightly older', Tom B (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Pincrete. My impression is that the common name of the event hasn't changed, and "genocide" is an even more extreme term than "massacre". I also suspect that the definition of "genocide" among the general public may be different than the one used in some circles, such as in the context of the above-referenced UN resolution. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Pincrete and WP:RGW. More sources needed. 162 etc. (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Every 11th of July in a year Day of Genocide in Srebrenica will be observed. What more evidence you need? Njamu (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposed move would create various terminological challenges, since EW already has another closely related article, that is titled: Bosnian genocide. Present terminological structure is quite logical, since it treats a specific subject (Srebrenica massacre) within wider scopes of several closely related issues (Bosnian genocide). Sorabino (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  No challenges, Srebrenica genocide is part of Bosnian genocide. Njamu (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I do not follow a rationale for opposing for the sake of a "terminological structure" relative to other names. If anything, it could strike readers as bizarre that the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial links to something other than an article called Srebrenica genocide. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  If anything, it is the memorial article which is mis-named. Although, the long-ish formal name for the memorial uses 'genocide', the short name, used on all of the centre's publications and on its own website is simply "Srebrenica Memorial" and "Srebrenica Memorial Center". Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be entirely correct, but if you are, you'd have to submit a proposal to rename the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial and have that proposal succeed. But in lieu of that being done, the argument that the current article we're talking about should retain its current naming to maintain consistency with other articles doesn't exactly work. (You cannot have your cake and eat it too.) AVNOJ1989 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made any 'consistency' argument either way, nor do I think such consistency is necessary, so I wouldn't pursue a rename. I was merely pointing out that the memorial itself uses a 'short form' in all its communications which doesn't employ 'genocide'. Presumably no one thinks the memorial is guilty of any kind of 'denial'? Pincrete (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you were the one making the argument, and I didn't say the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial was involved in any sort of 'denial'. You are moving goalposts. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if my comments read as a bit 'tetchy'. The motives of those who don't endorse the name change have previously, implicitly and explicitly been questioned (not by you of course), so this can make one a bit defensive. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. You've consistently claimed to be neutral and that "Personally I don't care that much what the title is as long as the article records as accurately as possible what happened and as long as the name is the one most readers are likely to recognise. I'm not certain what that is any longer. Others clearly feel they are certain." but all of your comments on this talk page have consistently questioned one potential title and not the other. My previous comment to you was in the context of the initial oppose by Sorabino, my questioning of their rationale for oppose, and your subsequent attempt to justify their pose with what seemed irrelevant. I would not accuse you of having any motive outside of an obvious preference for the status quo, despite your claims otherwise. Though they may not be entitled to articulate it here, others are entitled to infer why that might be the case. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest those citing COMMONNAME as reason to oppose to show their workings. Having read through the policy and looked through some relatively recent examples where an article name was changed per that policy, I anticipate writing a comment in support of a name change for this article, and citing COMMONNAME. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME.

Regarding how we got here, as noted above, the UN recently announced July 11 as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica. Pincrete fairly observes that Wikipedia isn't necessarily subject to the dictats of what the UN decides something is now called, but the thing is, that's an incorrect way of framing the situation. Rather the article has had an incorrect name for a while now, and this is simply the strongest in a series of announcements that calls this into question. One should ask themselves whether it's the case that the UN really went out of its way to pick a less common name for an event – as discussed earlier in the talk section, "genocide" and "massacre" are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms, and the UN is not in the habit of inventing names for things. Neither is the government of British Columbia, which cites the Srebrenica genocide as the event being commemorated in their 2020 declaration of July 11 as Srebrenica Remembrance Day [2]. An April 2024 article posted by a well-known Toronto news site regarding an April 2024 rally protesting UN rulings of the Srebrenica genocide does not mention the term 'massacre' anywhere [3]. If I'm leaning too heavily towards Canada, a 2023 United States Department of State press statement likewise refers to the Srebrenica genocide, with 'massacre' nowhere in the title or the entire writeup [4] – US Congress didn't refer to it as a 'massacre' either [5]. There are numerous examples about readily found with some simple searches.. and the resolution that brought this discussion up was co-sponsored by Sweden, and supported by United States of America, Italy, France, Germany, Albania, Chile, Finland, Ireland, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Rwanda, Slovenia, Turkey and North Macedonia. Picking from one of these country's news agencies at random, Malaysia's The Sun refers to the Srebrenica genocide, not massacre [6] and I should think other examples chosen from these countries will yield similar results. As a non-regular Wikipedia article I am sure this way of framing it would be dismissed as anecdotal – but those of you who feel that "Srebrenica massacre" is the most common name for this event in 2024 are in a bubble. I am interested in balkan history and check the news and while I do see the event termed "Srebrenica massacre" now and again, it is usually in the context of those attempting to deny or downplay the event. More on that in a moment, but the point I want to make is this; the proposal for renaming is not only because of the UN resolution. No one is suggesting that Wikipedia must obey the UN. Rather, had someone proposed a renaming after any of these 'lesser' examples, it probably would've risked being dismissed as part of the "greater debate" and looking for any opportunity for a rename. One appreciates concerns around burning 'goodwill' regarding contentious topics like these. I see many Wikipedia articles which I think have incorrect names, sometimes for years at a time – but the thing is, when can you bring this up? Especially for contentious topics such as this one, you need to wait for something to come along to demonstrate that the proposal isn't just a random stab in the dark. That is what has occurred here. The response to "the UN and numerous governments around the world exclusively refer to this event by a name other than Wikipedia uses" should not be "well, we don't listen to the UN" but rather "this is an opportunity to re-evaluate the name we're currently using, which isn't something which comes along very often". I read the Common Name policy and think this article is a perfect candidate for its five criteria and so would really encourage those citing it to actually read through and consider the fact that the policy they're quoting actually makes the argument for renaming the article – so, as I commented above, people need to show their workings to explain how they're reading the policy. Are governments and news agencies around the world deliberately using a less common name for an event? Why would they elect to do that when communicating with their public, readership, etc.? The simple answer is they don't – they have less rigid policies which more readily lets them adapt to the most common name for a topic. Wikipedia culture is such that you've had to wait for an event to occur to motivate an investigation into renaming the article. I would suggest taking this opportunity for what it is, and have an actual evaluation and investigation into whether this article should be renamed in accordance with policy.

I'd like to also discuss those citing WP:RGW as reason to reject the rename. They might be right, but citing RGW opens a can of worms that would necessarily also mean rejecting the article's current name as well. Citing RGW as reason to suppport is trickier – but again; here too, I suggest those citing it as a reason to oppose the name change are mistaken. I can only understand the policy relative to some other articles which stick out in my mind w/r/t what I consider to be bizarre names. Bleiburg repatriations is one – even we cannot agree on what the article should be named, we can agree that the name of the article is probably contentious and hotly debated in some areas. That article was previously called Bleiburg massacre, and when someone proposed renaming it Bleiburg tragedy, editors both rejected the proposed rename while also recognizing that 'Bleiburg massacre' was suboptimal (to put it in neutral terms). An editor proposed 'Bleiburg repatriations' as a neutral term, and it was accepted. The article has had that name for over a decade, and even though it is still not the most common name for the event, I have noticed the term 'Bleiburg repatriations' is now catching on in the lexicon of those who discuss the topic. I wholly expect it to actually become the most common name in the English language over the next 5-10 years. I point to it as an example of how Wikipedia can influence how things are discussed, and so obviously there is some motivation in what articles is called. Wikipedia is influential, there's no question there, and a random proposal from an editor – not citing any one strong source for the proposal in particular – has succeeded in creating a less charged nomen for an event and influenced language around it.

The other article I should like to point to is not adjacent to this topic area and is a fairly simple one. While reading the article on the Liancourt rocks dispute, it occurred to me that presumably neither Japan or Korea are wont to call it 'Liancourt rocks', each having their own name for the term. For Japan, Takeshima, and for Korea, Dokdo. Well, in that case, what is Wikipedia to do for naming the respective article(s) on the territory? In either case, the choice would be contentious. My impression is Wikipedia has taken cues from the international community – for example, in an effort to achieve neutrality, the US State Department now refers to the territory as 'Liancourt rocks', as do a number of other international bodies. Wikipedia aims for neutrality, and so the international neutral term 'Liancourt rocks' is the most appealing option ..and so it is called Liancourt rocks.

Relating this back to the current topic. No, 'massacre' and 'genocide' are not mutually exclusive terms, but going back to Common Name for a moment, Precision is one of the five criteria for the policy. A number of "Murder of [name]" articles on this site are named that rather than "Death of [name]" for good reason and serve as an example of this policy. Everyone knows 'genocide' is a more descriptive term than 'massacre', and my own experience has been as alluded above – those wishing to deny the genocide prefer the term massacre. It creates an impression of "seriousness" – not denying what happened, but downplaying the event's gravity and the intent of those behind who executed it. I'd like to make this clear: this is not to suggest that everyone proposing 'massacre' is a denialist, but they may be well-intended. I am filling you in on what I believe is important context.

Another important bit of context – comparing the name of this article across the other languages of this site, no one should be surprised to note that the Croatian, Albanian, Bosnian, and Serbo-Croatian sites all have a title that has their respective languages word for 'genocide' in it, but the Serbian language site refers to it as a 'Масакр' [masakr]. (Regarding how other languages title their respective articles and potentially using them as a neutral source: they're clearly all just following the cue set by the English language article's name.) Think of it like this: for some, renaming the article 'Srebrenica genocide' isn't an attempt to 'do the morally correct thing' and violate RGW, but rather it's an attempt to amend a violation of RGW by undoing the current state of violation (as the current name 'rights the great wrong' of accusing Serbia of a genocide, by downplaying the event). And obviously, the inverse argument can also be made. In other words, both 'Srebrenica genocide' and 'Srebrenica massacre' could be read as non-neutral terms, much like 'Bleiburg tragedy' and 'Bleiburg massacre', or 'Dokdo' and 'Takeshima' were both non-neutral terms. As both those examples were resolved differently, you effectively have two options;

• As with the Bleiburg article, Wikipedia editors can choose to create a new, neutral name for the article. I personally do not believe this is an ideal approach for how this site should name articles, particularly when considering there is an alternative solution for resolving RGW as per the second example;
• As with Liancourt rocks, Wikipedia editors can take a cue from the international community and choose the name it has gone with. But here's the thing: the international community has gone with Srebrenica genocide.

Personally, I am not averse to going down the route of RGW, because I believe it should still resolve to renaming the article Srebrenica genocide anyways, but having lurked Wikipedia for many years, I do not know if I trust editors to fully appreciate that fact. I'd much rather see editors stick to recognizing that the most common name for this event should be the name used by Wikipedia. Again, if you are a Wikipedia editor – no, you do not take your marching orders from the UN, but when your name is at odds with what the UN is using, you should actively investigate why that is. Simply citing a policy to support the status quo of an article strikes me as lazy and misunderstanding the situation; the 'burden of proof', as it were, is on Wikipedia editors to find justification for the disparity. There is a lot to consider with the name of this article, and there will only be so many opportunities to revisit the title and seriously consider what it is called and why. In the progress of this proposal so far, I'm not seeing any serious consideration of anything. Even if the rename fails, I would suggest Wikipedia editors at least try to have a serious conversation. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

In short, sometimes, even experienced editors on Wikipedia can behave childishly. Desertasad (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support as more precise; it captures the systematic nature and intent behind the killings, whilst massacre doesn't. Both terms are statistically equal for COMMONNAME, see table below.

• COMMONNAME. GScholar is the best proxy available: [7]. Commonname equality between the two was established in 2022, see table below, so there are now two common names. Whilst 253 and 240 below are higher, that is not statistically significant, as they are samples of the population of english reliable references. [e.g. for 240 the Chi-Square statistic (0.02) is much smaller than the critical value (3.8).] Recent reliable sources carry more weight than 10 years ago, i.e. we didn't wait for enough books to be published to change Washington Commanders.

COMMONNAME: Google Scholar Results

Year	Srebrenica Massacre	Srebrenica Genocide
2019	281	210
2020	292	236
2021	257	227
2022	249	253
2023	240	237

• Precision. Of the two common names, genocide is more precise. Many reliable sources, e.g. ICTY, ICJ and 84 countries (including Germany, Rwanda, Sweden, Ukraine, US) have investigated precision: Genocide is more precise because it captures the systematic nature and intent. "The Appeals Chamber...calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide"[8] Currently the article is titled massacre, because that was the only commonname. There are now two commonnames, and one is more precise, so we should move to that please?
• Consistency. WP isn't consistent, see: List of genocides. Events listed with more than 5,000 deaths are generally referred to as genocides and below that as massacres, but there are exceptions, Tom B (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of the 5000+ deaths criteria for either genocides or massacres. Ocassionally there are no or very few deaths in a 'genocide'. Generally the criteria for genocide relates to "intent to destroy" the national group. AFAIK there are no formal criteria for a massacre. Typically the genocide is the broader campaign in which many individual events occur. Pincrete (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you, 5,000 isn't criteria, it's the rough pattern in that Wikipedia list. I've simplified my conclusion to focus on precision as WP and history sources are inconsistent. The genocide definition is "...intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group...". Both courts, the ICTY and ICJ, agreed Srebrenica was a genocide after looking at the definition of 'part' and 'part of part', e.g. "The Appeals Chamber...calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide" [9]. They refer to the Kravica Farm massacre as one individual event in the genocide, Tom B (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• AI response to "is the srebrenica a massacre or a genocide in it's own right, what should the wikipedia article be called?" Tom B (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Everyone, i solicited a closure as the relisting occured just over 7 days ago and discussion, on the criteria, appeared to stabilise on Saturday 15 June, Tom B (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

AI response: GPT4o

Applying Policies to the Srebrenica Event Conciseness: Both "Srebrenica Genocide" and "Srebrenica Massacre" are concise. Recognizability: "Srebrenica Massacre" is widely recognized, but "Srebrenica Genocide" is increasingly used, especially in legal and academic contexts. Naturalness: Both terms are natural, but the choice depends on the context in which readers most commonly refer to the event. Precision: "Srebrenica Genocide" is more precise in terms of the legal definition, whereas "Srebrenica Massacre" emphasizes the nature of the killings. Consistency: Checking related articles (e.g., other genocides and massacres) can help determine the best fit. Current Wikipedia Guidelines and Consensus Wikipedia’s “Common name” guideline states that titles should be based on what most English-language reliable sources use. Suggested Titles in Line with Wikipedia Policy Srebrenica Genocide: This is precise and reflects the legal recognition of the event. It aligns with articles on other genocides, like the "Rwandan Genocide." Srebrenica Massacre: This is recognizable and commonly used, but may not fully capture the legal gravity of the event. Srebrenica Genocide and Massacre: This is comprehensive but may be less concise. Current Practice and Community Consensus The article is titled "Srebrenica massacre," which suggests this is still the most commonly recognized name. However, articles are periodically reviewed and updated to reflect the most accurate and accepted terminology. Conclusion In light of Wikipedia's policies, it might be beneficial to consider moving towards a more precise title such as "Srebrenica Genocide," especially given the legal classifications and the evolving recognition of the term. However, this should be done through proposing a move on the talk page and reaching a consensus.

• Comment. Regarding the consensus, it was quite unfortunate that no consensus could be reached within UN on the proposed Srebrenica resolution, even after it was amended, thus resulting in lack of support by the majority of the UN members. Unlike some previous GA resolutions on similar issues, that were adopted by consensus and high majority of votes, the proposed Srebrenica resolution was at the end supported by 84 out of 193 state-members (43%) thus failing to reach the majority, even among members who took part in the voting process (87 were against or abstained [19/68] while others were not present). It was proclaimed as adopted on the procedural grounds, since it was proposed under the "Culture of peace" section, that doesn't require consensus or the majority of votes. Thus, a divisive outcome was created, in spite of the fact that a clear consensus exists on the scope and nature of horrid war crimes and crimes against humanity that were committed during the Srebrenica massacres. One of the main questions that turned to be divisive was the genocide qualification of those crimes. Since the question of consensus was raised here, regarding the proposed move, the lack of consensus within UN on the Srebrenica resolution should not be overlooked by users who are basing or affirming their support for the move on the aforementioned resolution. Sorabino (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This comment is a good example of something I discussed in my support post – for some, it is the current article name which 'rights the great wrong' of daring to acknowledging the Srebrenica genocide as a genocide. Sorabino, you might not like the UN methodology and feel their procedures did not resolve to what you might think should be the best possible outcome, but this move request isn't an opportunity for you to legislate these things. (Aside: where did your comment spring from? "Regarding the consensus?" opened up the opportunity for you to begin questioning UN procedures here in what sense?) AVNOJ1989 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's an ingenious, but false equivalence. Originally, the events at Srebrenica had no name, I clearly remember news reports referring to the "fall of Srebrenica" and the "aftermath of the fall of Srebrenica" and other descriptions. As the nature and scale of the killings and other actions became clearer and less disputable in the months and years that followed, 'Srebrenica massacre' became the commonly employed name. Massacre as a term is relatively neutral and occupies a place somewhere between 'mass killings' and 'mass murder', but has no legal definition attached to it, as 'murder' and 'genocide' both have.

I record that neither as a virtue nor an impediment, merely as a fact. Nobody ever employed 'Srebrenica massacre' in order to 'rights any wrongs', it simply records the near-universally accepted fact that mass killings occurred in Srebrenica. Whatever the legal status was, was for the lawyers and judges to rule on, which they ultimately did, though somewhat controversially. The term 'massacre' became widely accepted long before any court rulings and may have stuck as a result. 'Srebrenica genocide' was less often employed, before court rulings, usually as a term of advocacy. It may of course be that 'massacre' is now sometimes employed by those who wish to 'downplay' the scale and horror of the event, but IMO we can't let our content or titles be influenced by fringe, (mainly non-English speaking) viewpoints that are never going to listen to evidence anyway and who would find ways to justify the killings, however they were described by us or the international community.

I do think that Sorabino was entitled to point out that the UN resolution only 'slipped through' with a minority vote. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Massacre as a term is relatively neutral" It is not neutral. The term massacre literally means "butchery", and the figurative meaning is "indiscriminate slaughter of a large number of people". Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it (properly) conveys indiscriminate mass slaughter, but it doesn't carry the 'legal baggage' that either 'murder' or 'genocide' carry, hence relatively neutral as to motive or extent of premeditation. I also strongly believe that massacre lets no one 'off the hook' as is sometimes implied. Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point of difference. Since genocide does discriminate in its execution of mass slaughter, it's another demonstration how it's a more concise term for this article than massacre -- With conciseness being one of the criteria to consider for an article title. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The equivalence is not false, but regardless. The only potential relevance of pointing out a vote "slipped through" would be to imply that there will could be some future vote that will revoke the recognition and that that vote would make a conscious point of using a different name. And then, in tandem, all the other jurisdictions around the world which have referred to it as the Srebrenica genocide will do the same. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that relevance is spurious. Sorabino questioning a UN procedure does not speak to the Wikipedia common name policy or any of the criteria for an article name. It goes down a rabbit hole with questionable motive to take this move request down at all. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You can't make an argument that the UN resolution somehow indicates what most of the world thinks, and then ignore that most of the world couldn't actually be bothered to turn up to vote at the UN. I agree that the UN resolution has no direct bearing on WP naming, but I wasn't the one arguing that it should have. Pincrete (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't my argument. I appreciate one of my earlier comments in this discussion was not concise but it used the UN as an example of one of many sources demonstrating it is the most common name in use at this time. If this move request fails because the brunt of criticism continues to be on the UN in and of itself, vs recognizing the UN declaration is a reason to give one pause and evaluate the title of this article, then that to me would indicate that a new move request would need to be made immediately afterward because too many editors as misunderstand the situation because of how it was framed by the editor who initially requested the move. That is procedural fluff – I assume most people, including yourself, appreciate that the move request needs to be considered according to the relevant Wikipedia policies. Once again, we're not doing this, and further down Sorabino's rabbit hole we go. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about what reliable sources think, not what the world thinks. UN is fairly reliable source. Njamu (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to get involved here regarding a topic that is pointless. The genocide in Srebrenica should have been written here a long time ago. Here, the international court ruled that there was genocide there, and also the UN, what else is needed? There are examples on Wikipedia where they immediately called it genocide without an international court and the UN, like this one here [[10]], in which POV Serbian users which half of them are blocked for POV pushing on Wikipedia (you can check) changed the name to genocide over the Serbs, and there is no court or UN. I don't know what is in dispute here, what else needs someone's signature that there was genocide?78.3.189.92 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the truth is that, something that is not called by its real name, there will be even more deniers that there was genocide there. I don't really care anymore about that topic as far as I'm concerned. I'm logging out and you can also delete my post if you want. Bye78.3.189.92 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely sympathize with this person's frustration and even though I'm more familiar with how this sites from lurking on it for most of my life and being a contributor of sorts some years ago, I am also a relative non-entity who felt compelled to contribute to this discussion because of how absurd it is. However, in all my time lurking, I've never seen emotionally charged arguments be a consistent winner on this site. To anyone other spectator who might feel compelled to jump in, I would resist the urge to give in to emotional reactions. The situation is pretty simple;

• in the "worst case" for Srebrenica genocide, WP:COMMONNAME is probably about equal for both. For example, as massacre has 335 hits in Google Scholar since 2020, and genocide has 339 hits in Google Scholar since 2023, and those numbers don't wildly veer off from each other if you set the cut-off back an additional year or three,
• in cases where WP:COMMONNAME doesn't clearly indicate a 'correct' title between two more choices, Tom above made a very effective breakdown of the additional criteria and guidelines that Wikipedia policy uses to indicate a title. Again there is no clear winner for some of those criteria, but when it comes to precision, genocide is a more precise term than massacre, and this article is about a genocide.

We have not seen effective arguments in favor of opposing the move request on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Policies are sited but when I question why those policies are sited, no elaboration is provided, and good comments on this discussion are diverted to veiled arguments about the legitimacy of the UN. I would encourage anyone else in this user's position to recognize that, as comically absurd as some of the conversation can seem here to non-regular contributors to Wikipedia, the oppose argument is not providing any coherent rationale for their opposition to the move request. It seems that the next best thing they can do is create an impression of a lack of ability to form consensus. Emotional replies will feed into that impression so they are not just not helpful, I worry that they could actually harm the outcome of this request. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Selective approach to the Srebrenica resolution is not helpful for this or any other relevant discussion. When this move was proposed, that resolution was pointed out as the primary cause or motivation for the proposed change, thus making it a relevant subject for this particular discussion. Questions related to the nature of that resolution are therefore quite important, and should not be overlooked, nor suppressed in these talks. The fact that the proposed resolution was not supported by the majority of UN members, nor by the majority of those who took part in the vote, does not change the fact that it was adopted, but all of those circumstances are relevant. Several other issues are not yet mentioned in this discussion, starting from the fact that it was quite unfortunately rushed through the UN procedures, being officially proposed on May 2nd, submitted in amended form on May 20th, and voted already on May 23rd. Those circumstances contributed greatly to the divisive outcome of the voting process, leading not only to the lack of consensus, but also failing to achieve the majority support from the UN members. At the end, the resolution gained its legality on procedural grounds, thus making the entire process questionable. Sorabino (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This response does not speak to determining the most suitable name for the article according to Wikipedia policy, repetitive from your previous comments, and I assert is deliberately off-topic.. I request you to stop. (c.f. WP:ICANTHEARYOU) AVNOJ1989 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not fair. You did not object when the resolution was singled out as the main reason for the proposed move, but when some other relevant aspects of that same resolution are pointed out here, you are labeling those efforts as being "deliberately off-topic". In any case, terminology used in the resolution did not diminish or abolish the fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" in UN vocabulary, as can be seen even in UN announcements on the adoption of that very resolution (here). Sorabino (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

A consensus to move can be formed with rationale that differs from the original rationale requesting the move. Your continued attack on the legitimacy of the UN does not undermine the whole argument. I appreciate my earlier comment of Support was not concise, but it speaks to more than the UN as an example of a government / jurisdictional body – I also looked for two examples showing the scope of international consensus, from a press release from a small Canadian province to a press release from US Congress. Are we going to have you cast doubt about the pre-defined procedures of how these governments choose to name or speak about things? Even if you succeeded in all those cases and whatever additional cases are pulled up, it wouldn't change the fact that we'd be discussing examples of governments using the term Srebrenica genocide over Srebrenica massacre, and while WP need not to align its titles with the titling of any one or many governments, if all these governments are using that term, then the case becomes that that is its COMMONNAME.

As I said earlier, questioning a UN procedure does not speak to the Wikipedia common name policy or any of the criteria for an article name. So why are we having the conversation? I feel nothing you've just said is new from what you've said before, and nothing I'm saying is new from what I've said before. Your comment here is instructive – you seem to think continuing to attack the legitimacy of the UN's resolution will reveal the initial request rationale as 'invalid' and there is no further discussion to have. I myself said earlier If this move request fails because the brunt of criticism continues to be on the UN in and of itself, vs recognizing the UN declaration is a reason to give one pause and evaluate the title of this article, then that to me would indicate that a new move request would need to be made immediately afterward because too many editors as misunderstand the situation because of how it was framed by the editor who initially requested the move. That is procedural fluff... and from reviewing other move requests, that isn't how it works. If we can reach a consensus on moving the article even on criteria different from the initial proposed rationale for the move, we should work to do so. Your posts don't work to achieve that. You are simply reasserting the same points about the UN, over and over, and failing to impress their relevance on the greater picture that has been illustrated here. We're moving on to discussing the article name according to Wikipedia guidelines, criteria, and policy. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We have not seen effective arguments in favor of opposing the move request on the basis of Wikipedia policy. That isn't how it works. The proposers of a change need to make an effective case for any change, the default is no change since we assume the stable position has/had consensus and does not need detailed defending. In that sense WP is inherently conservative (small c), but I would say necessarily so, since otherwise we would eternally be relitigating the same areas of controversy. Pincrete (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

A good case has been made by Tom as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that he has made a clear case and provided useful evidence. I don't necessarily come to the same conclusion as him, but as I suspected, recent usage is a very close run thing and older usage favours 'massacre'. Were he to have gone back further, I expect that trend to have been amplified further. Pincrete (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so you don't agree but aren't able to talk specifics when prompted, and have also ignored WP:TITLE and the fact Srebrenica genocide is more precise than Srebrenica massacre at least three times on this page. Your intangible opposition is noted but does nothing to help reach consensus. My assertion is that this is intentionally being done on your part because, as you mentioned on my talk page, you are biased to the status quo. I'd suggest yours and Sorabino's inability to work towards a consensus is deliberate action that should be discounted. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've been waiting for evidence instead of 'moral' and 'official' arguments and, as you say, I see no problem with the status quo name. Tom's figures indicate a very slight - almost marginal - current preference for 'massacre' among academic sources, who might well be more 'official' in their usage. The long term trend among this group is toward 'genocide', as one would expect, but was clearly 'massacre' in the past. It is a wholly circular argument to say that 'genocide' is more precise. If you decide that that word is the more accurate description, obviously it becomes more precise. Does someone prefer a word that conveys the brutal nature of the killings, or a word that conveys the legal assessment of the intent motivating those killings? Both words have their advantages and advocates.

Again, much as UN resolutions are not binding, but can be broadly indicative, so usage in other languages. French WP refers to 'massacre', with the 'genocide' alternative as we do. Dutch WP still talks about the "Fall of Srebrenica" with 'massacre' as an alternative. Countries appear fairly evenly divided - as academic sources are - as to name, without any discernible pattern outside of the Balkans themselves. So the picture of Eng WP being out of step with the rest of the world, simply isn't the case. Thus, I don't see the evidence to support changing to a more contentious title and Tom's figures endorse my long held position, that 'massacre' was, the long term COMMONNAME, but the word's 'lead' may now be marginal. Whether others feel the shift is sufficient is up to them to assess for themselves.

I believe a consensus already exists and has existed for a long time, it isn't me that wants to change it. Therefore the burden doesn't lie with me. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of your response here speaks to your 'beliefs' and personal opinions about what the common name is, with anecdotes to support them. You make no strong case that 'massacre' or 'genocide' is the common name. Your criticism of 'genocide' as more precise being a circular argument is confusing. Are you asserting this article is not about a genocide, or that that is somehow up for question? There are a number of sources in the article that speak to that. How many of those sources do you assert are not reputable by the standards of Wikipedia? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you asserting this article is not about a genocide? is a loaded question which you have no reason to ask, but I will reply, despite the question's simplistic character. I am saying that this article is about a mass murder event that was - roughly ten years after the event itself - deemed to be genocide by an international court and is often referred to as the 'Srebrenica genocide'.

The world didn't wait around for ICTY and the event had acquired several other names prior to the ICTY ruling. Also, the ICTY ruling was novel and contentious for various reasons. Apart from anything else, linguistically, single events are not ordinarily described as separate genocides. We don't have an Auschwitz genocide an Amsterdam genocide and a Babi Yar genocide nor hundreds of others in WWII. Ditto practically every other notable genocide. Genocide is the term usually reserved for the whole campaign against the target group within which there may be many individual events. There were other reasons why people, including many who approved of the resultant punishments, were somewhat taken back by some of the ICTY rulings. They didn't have many, or possibly any, precedents. This is only relevant to the extent that it is up to ICTY (and the UN etc.) to persuade the world to use 'its' term, not ours to in any way disprove anything either about the events or the use of the term.

Sentences like 'about a genocide' or 'not about a genocide' don't mean much. Are you asking me if I think these killings occurred and were premeditated and racially motivated? Of course they did and were. Are you asking me whether ICTY made the rulings they did? Ditto. Are you asking me whether sources, including academic ones, are in universal agreement as to 'best name' for this 'genocidal massacre'. Self evidently not if we believe Tom's figures to be broadly true. There is nothing like universal agreement about best/clearest/accepted name, even among academic sources. Whatever their motives, and we can only assume that the vast majority are wholly un-sympathetic to any 'apologist' agenda, sources use both terms almost equally now and favoured 'massacre' until very recently. A minority even refer to other descriptive/more historic terms like "the Fall of Srebrenica".

The onus isn't on me to disprove the proposed change, the present name has very long term agreement and doesn't need justifying. Change needs to prove its case, not the status quo defend its own. Even so, until relatively recently, 'massacre' was clearly the COMMONNAME even among academics, as shown by Tom's figures. Do we affect a change based on a relatively recent and marginal shift in academia becomes one question and do we adopt a more contentious name becomes another. Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"the present name has very long term agreement and doesn't need justifying." That isn't true. Things should always be readily explained to anyone, even a wider audience. For example, when non-active editors of this site ask "well, why is Wikipedia still use the term 'Srebrenica genocide' when the UN and the US government uses the term, the term 'genocide' is more precise than massacre, and it is in the running for the common name?" editors should be able to point a policy and explain how the decision to maintain the current title speaks to those policies, and the policies are being interpreted in a way that keeps this site relevant and useful to users. "Well there was an agreement once and we don't have to justify ourselves" is self-evidently ridiculous. I believe it becomes fair to question whether your contributions are being done in good faith. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe it becomes fair to question whether your contributions are being done in good faith There is a place called WP:ANI which you are free to take any proof you have about bad faith behaviour (hint, you don't have any). Snide comments on article talk pages are an unhelpful waste of time. I ignored fairly explicit conjectures which you previously made on your talk page about me being some sort of 'deep-fake' Serb-apologist as being too silly to respond to, but enough is enough.

I have been active yesterday and today doing some minor, but much needed, copy-editing of this article. I look upon the rename as broadly a waste of time which crops up periodically when Srebrenica is in the news. The proposers are usually not much concerned with the content or coherence of the article - only fixated on implementing this change of name. The name change proposals are often founded on spurious arguments (such as yours above about the US govt) and often characterised by bad faith insinuations directed at those who don't immediately embrace the official/advocacy narrative - as has happened here. If my tone has been somewhat 'jaded', apologies, but a preference for caution when sources are finely balanced is not bad-faith anything.

I haven't actually voted, because I sought to wait until the evidence was presented, though I make no apologies for saying that I have made my objections to spurious arguments fairly clear. I am able to respect the motives of those who wish to see this change, even if I, at least partially, disagree with them as to the purpose of this WP article, which is not advocacy nor memorialisation, which 'official' pronouncements often explicitly are.

The UN is of course the institution which set-up the 'safe-areas', its military representative in Bosnia stood on a tank and personally promised the assembled terrified citizenry that the UN would never abandon them. That doesn't have any bearing on article name, but it does inform a certain scepticism on my part about the moral authority of UN pronouncements in this area.

The argument which you characterise as "Well there was an agreement once and we don't have to justify ourselves" was directed at you as a shorthand for the way renaming discussions work. The onus is on the changer to prove their case. That is simply a fact of WP policy and practice, and is fundamentally sound IMO, even if I know it can be frustrating to be "on the wrong side" in such discussions. The argument wasn't, and wouldn't be made to a reader, who would be directed toward our naming policies and (hopefully) politely told how irrelevant both the UN, and the US govts are to anything other than their own political positions. Equally irrelevant would be govts that don't have 'official' names for such events, such as the UK.

I don't intend to respond further here, such off-topic editor interaction simply 'snarls up' discussion. Such a 'snarl-up' incidentally is much more likely to damage the chances of your proposal than the 'status quo'. A 'status quo' which I have no problem with, despite it being much less the COMMONNAME than it once was. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"A 'status quo' which I have no problem with, despite it being much less the COMMONNAME than it once was." In other words, you're not interested in working towards developing a consensus. All your comments have been working towards a filibustering technique because you are biased to the status quo, something you've now formally asserted yourself in these comments. Now that I would no longer have to ask other editors to read between the lines to infer that from your comments, I don't need to reply to any more of your comments, either. User:Pincrete's contributions to this conversation should be considered in this light as someone who is not working to build a consensus, but as a biased editor pushing their own PoV. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pincrete, neither now has a marginal lead. 240 is higher, but it's not statistically significant. We don't know the population of reliable references, rather the GScholar samples. "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used...editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." The terms are identical on 4 criteria, the only difference is precision. This was a genocidal massacre.[11]. That is not a commonname, but might be the most precise. What's more precise: Srebrenica massacre or Srebrenica genocide? Multiple reliable sources, e.g. ICTY, have investigated this very issue of precision. Genocide is more precise for Srebrenica because it captures the systematic nature and specific intent behind the killings.[ICTY ref linked above] Was it a massacre, which is bad, or a genocide which is very bad? Currently the article is titled massacre, because that was the most common name. But it is imprecise as it says something bad happened, when something very bad happened. There are now joint common names and one more precisely describes the subject of the article, Tom B (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate fact that 'genocide' carries huge emotional baggage and is generally deemed 'badder' than for example 'massacre' or 'ethnic cleansing' (or politicide, androcide, demicide etc) or other terms which might equally apply to an individual event. But that is the logic of campaigning and advocacy groups. I don't think it practical, or desirable to factor in the 'badness' element, except to generally avoid more emotive terms, even if the sources we use often do. Pincrete (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is more precise and I've explained why. Why do you think massacre is more precise? Tom B (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think 'massacre' more precise, only that it has had widespread acceptance as COMMONNAME for much longer. Readers don't necessarily immediately mirror 2023 academic usage, which I agree appears to be practically 'neck and neck' now.

'Genocide' is only more precise if you think that legal rulings as to the intent of the event are the defining factor. They both convey aspects of what happened and neither 'pulls its punches'. Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. War crime is much different crime from genocide where there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This is why those who deny the genocide are using the term massacre instead. The name "genocide" for this "event" is certainly more precise as it suggests the intent to destroy the national group. They do not both convey what happened. Genocide conveys the intent to destroy the group, massacre doesn't. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 18:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

— Trimpops2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I created this SPA because I started editing as an IP and to avoid confusing me with other IPs, I created this SPA, and signed my comments. Perfectly fine and according to rules. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, a handful of Serb politicians accept the term 'massacre' but dispute 'genocide', they don't offer reasons for their distinction I think, but very possibly they are trying to appease world opinion, while not offending their core, Serb, audience.

Most people who wish to deny that mass-murder occurred, or wish to downplay responsibility, or numbers, or civilian status, or who wish to justify the actions, come up with ingenious claims to do so and reject that mass-murder occurred at all, or claim it was a response rather than an action, or was otherwise justified. IMO they will continue to hold those views whatever term we use, they are already casting themselves outside, and rejecting, world opinion. You aren't going to reason someone out of a position that blind faith and tribal loyalty, rather than reason or evidence, led them to in the first place.

Our principal purpose is to serve our core readership with neutral information. 'Shutting down' or 'disproving' contrary WP:FRINGE views is neither workable, nor is our purpose IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is masively denied in Serbia. They do indeed provide the reasoning. Accorting to them, there was no intent to destroy the group, thus there was no genocide. This makes the term controversial, as it is massively used to deny the genocide. The readers are not being served neutral information by ommiting this controversy. If you wish to use the term massacre, the controversy must be explained in the article. In my opinion, I don't see why the controversial of 2 terms is being used as the article name. This is not neutral. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 19:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you, we've reached a clear disagreement. I agree with the International Court of Justice, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Japan, Libya, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and other countries, that intent is a defining factor, so genocide is more precise, and massacre pulls its punches. You, China, Russia, Serbia, other countries have been clear that the terms are equally precise and intent isn't a defining factor, Tom B (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Pincrete, I'll ask directly, and I would appriciate if you didn't ignore my question and you would answer with yes or no. Do you agree that genocide had happened in Srebrenica? Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 23:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The question is loaded, simplistic and somewhat akin to demanding some kind of two-dimensional loyalty oath, "Two legs bad, four legs good", but here goes. Androcide would actually be a more precise description of what happened. Males of, or close to military age were the target. I say that in order to be accurate, not in any way to justify what happened. Killing unarmed men, including old men and boys isn't OK ever, whatever name you give to it, but this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide', which is to target the whole population, as opposed to the 'legal' definition, which is more concerned with 'intent to destroy'. No one would want to use 'androcide' of course, partly because it is less understood and less condemnatory, and being more condemnatory appears to be the main objective of this name change.

The ICTY ruling has been embraced by some to break with normal convention, which is to label the broader campaign 'genocide' within which specific events occur (so we have the Holocaust, not the Auschwitz/ Babi Yar/Dachau etc etc genocides). But I have no problem in asserting that 'ethnic cleansing' (which is a euphemism for localised ethnic murder in order to terrorise the rest) was a notable feature of all the FYR wars, mostly by Serb and Croat groups. Nor do I have a problem with the term 'Bosnian genocide', within which the Serb perpetrated events of Srebrenica was -by far- the most extreme event. It was also, almost certainly the biggest atrocity, the greatest war crime, the largest mass-murder in Europe, between-WWII and very recently. Whether it met the legal definition of genocide has been decided by a court and I have no reason to either dispute the court's findings, nor any obligation to endorse them by adopting their terminology. Some legal scholars though did dispute the legal rulings, on perfectly legitimate, (ie not apologist) grounds. Ultimately people will use the names that they will, for innocent as well as sinister reasons. We cannot, and should not, seek to silence legitimate discussion simply because it might be misconstrued by fringe groups.

My personal views on the topic are largely irrelevant of course. I sympathise with the 'not giving comfort to deniers' argument, but apart from there being not the smallest reason to imagine that deniers would suddenly 'see the light' if we adopted a more specifically condemnatory title, silencing 'deniers' is not our core purpose, it's what advocacy groups are for. To go down that road is to give them a credibility that they don't deserve IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Tom B, I take your point that some countries have adopted 'official' positions about the events, (by resolutions recognising the genocide I presume you mean, at home or at the UN). But AFAIK none have voiced the opinions you attribute to them about precision or the importance of intent, nor have those who generally oppose condemnatory resolutions voiced the opinions you attribute to them about equal precision AFAIK.

This is a fairly cheap way of implying that those of us who question the name change, are somehow 'in bed with' China, Russia, Serbia etc. When last I checked, these countries were almost as opposed to the idea that a 'massacre' occurred as they were to a 'genocide'. Pincrete (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Since the position of Serbia was mentioned, it should be noted that official policies on these issues were defined by the "Declaration of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia Condemning the Crime in Srebrenica", adopted on 31 March 2010. Invoking several international conventions, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and also affirming relevant rulings of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, declaration explicitly condemned crimes against Bosniaks in Srebrenica. The term massacre was not even used in that document (official English version can be seen here). Sorabino (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The position of Serbia is that genocide had not happened, but "only war crime had happened", and this is what your source conveys. You either don't understand what you are reading or you are pretending not to understand. What they are stating is that a terrible crime had happened, but that there was no intent to destroy the group, thus no genocide happened. Massacre or war crime or terrible crime is not genocide without mens reaTrimpops2 (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I read through this section and as someone who is a casual reader of WP articles, I am not convinced that a name change is suitable. The common name factor cited based on google results in recent years actually shows a slight favoring of massacre over genocide, though that might change in the future. Having Srebrenica massacre over Srebrenica genocide does not lessen the magnitude of the event as some might fear. WP is actually doing its job here -- it is describing a massacre that was deemed a genocide. This makes the current title more precise and accurate. 184.149.227.18 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support Not only per common naming guideline where the other term become more widely used in recent times. More importantly, because the term "massacre" is widely used to deny the genocide had happened, which itself led to UN resolution to condemn such behavior. Alternatively, if this change doesn't pass, the article needs to clearly state the controversy over therm "massacre". I cannot imagine that the terminology over which so much controvery exists is used and then have a whole section about the controversy itself Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 18:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Plus it's total nonsense to count sources which deny the genocide by using the term massacre into more-common-name pool. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 18:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

On second thought , regardless of the naming. The genocide is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia thus making the term controversial. I'm making another discussion...Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 19:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I simply cannot understand how the argument that the term massacre in contrast to the term genocide is more common. It cannot be more common in contrast to genocide. Every source that is using the term massacre is also mentioning that this specific massacre constitutes genocide (unless it explicitly denies that the genocide had happened, but since it did, I'll not cout that sources). You simply cannot count that source in the "massacre" bucket opposed to "genocide" bucket. A distinction beteween that terms must be clear. The lead sentece cannot stand "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide". It must be clear that this specific massacre constitutes genocide. This is not simply a discussion which term is more common, as massacre relates solely to "actus reus" while genocide relates to "actus reus" and "mens rea". Every source is clearly describing this difference. The lead sentece must be changed if the term massacre is choosen for the article name. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 22:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have waited until there was some evidence being offered to cast a vote, as opposed to what I would call 'official' reasons (UN resolutions and the like) or 'moral' reasons, (eg the title has to condemn unequivocally in order to silence any deniers). The discussion has confirmed my initial reaction- and the status quo position - that COMMONNAME is the only viable basis for a name. TomB's figures, which I have no reason to dispute, but which are practically the only evidence offered by anyone, confirm a suspicion that use of the term 'Srebrenica genocide' has increased very substantially and the two terms are now virtually 'neck and neck' in academic journals. However, his figures show that the medium term and longer term past usage favoured 'Srebrenica massacre' very substantially. Those books written 5 or 10 years ago haven't 'fallen off the shelves' and re-edited themselves, they are still in circulation and use. More importantly, the general impression and use among potential readers doesn't 'delete and reformat' each new year in line with the most recent academic usage. COMMONNAME is as much dictated by habit as by any profound logic. I concede that the COMMONNAME has shifted considerably, and may well at some future point clearly shift to 'genocide', but in my assessment, it isn't there yet and in a finely balanced choice, I favour the less contentious, more established term. Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  You are biased and forcing ‘massacre’ ahead of ‘genocide’. Njamu (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You are indeed biased. With this post [12] are are in fact denying genocide. The term massacre is controversial when used to deny the genocide. The whole common name discussion is deeply flawed and misused to keep the term massacre just to deny the "mens rea" as you did in the linked post Trimpops2 (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this editor that COMMONNAME is currently a "toss up" of sorts. In such a situations, editors should take part in a consensus-building discussion, which editor has failed to do through their comments on this request. The assessment that the current title is less contentious, more established is their own, not formed by consensus, and with which no evidence to support that assessment. A case has been made that the current title is actually more contentious, and they have chosen to ignore that. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ask anyone who is pushing term massacre over genocide whether they acknowledge that genocide has happened, and they, in most cases, will deny the genocide. Most of they are pushing it to deny the genocide. This discussion needs a formal closure becasue we can't have a consensus by counting the votes of those who deny genocide as based in objectivity. If you deny the genocide first remove it from the article and then change the name to "massacre". To have the article acknowledge the genocide and then have a controversial term in the title which is often used to deny the genocide is simply misleading and this was done on purpose Trimpops2 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I involved myself in this move request after a conversation I had with someone who has views similar to yours. I had the time and interest to attempt to prove to them "no, the article title up to this point has always had reasonable doubt about what the title should be, but now there is a material change in circumstances with a reliable source that anyone could understand as indicating a clear change in what the most common name used for the event/events is/are. A move request should succeed because Wikipedians are obliged to reach consensus according that and other policies". This move request will either succeed and prove you wrong (I hope you would be satisfied to be wrong in this case), or else you will be able to use it as an example par excellence of how Wikipedia policy is not applied consistently, and therefore the utility and reliability of the site for serious end users (such as yourself, myself, and my friend) is up for debate. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

My position is that the term genocide is more common, but some users are deliberately miscounting sources. I have no problem with the term massacre as long as it's not used to deny the genocide and this is exactly what some editors here are doing. This is what is widely done in Serbia. The saying would go "it was just a war crime (or massacre), but no genocide". But this article isn't denying the genocide. Only some users here are doing so and they perfectly well know that massacre is less of a crime than genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the misuse, the most controversial terms in relation to Srebrenica (or Bosnian war in general) are not common terms such as genocide or massacre, but the term "genocidal creation" that is often used as a collective label for the Republika Srpska, with serious political implications. That phenomenon is already noted in scholarly literature (Google Scholar search for "genocidal creation"). The term "genocidal creation" is most commonly used by those who are advocating revision of the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995) in order to abolish Republika Srpska as a constituent entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such ideas are viewed as potentially dangerous, since they are projecting collective responsibility on an entire entity. Because of that, recently adopted UN resolution on Srebrenica clearly states "that criminal accountability under international law for the crime of genocide is individualized and cannot be attributed to any ethnic, religious or other group or community as a whole" (here). Those issues should be taken into consideration here, since the term "genocide" is sometimes also misused, particularly by some who are advocating revision of the Dayton Peace Agreement and its constitutional arrangements, that had brought peace to the country and stability during the last thirty years. No change is needed there. Sorabino (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Using this rationale to justify the current title is a violation of WP:RGW. Massacre itself is, according to editors of this site in previous move requests, inherently WP:POV. You are yet again ignoring an appeal to reach a consensus to find the article title that best fits according to this site's guidelines and policies. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not discussion whether genocide happened or not. This is well established and stated in the article. We can't keep the word genocide from the article because someone might misuse it. Your whole stand is flawed. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support in favor of move to ‘Srebrenica Genocide’. Will Wikipedia really be the last bastion of denial along with Vucic’s Serb regime? Also apparent that denial is prevalent among opposing voices here. For instance, the near scandalous non-argument presented above about “genocide” being a too strong term and that the massacre might not correspond to what the public “truly” thinks of as genocide is a burning testament to the corruption among opposing voices. Just imagine, the genocide being recognized by the international community, politically and judicially, but its recognition being hampered on Wikipedia. Bizarre and laughable. If Wikipedia is to have a shred of credibility let us at least have a discussion without covert genocide denial. Crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.208.46 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Crazy indeed. I haven't even read all the walls of text here, but what I'm readin is appalling. UN puts a declaration to condemn the denial of genocide and here we have editors on Wikipedia who deny the genocide counting the source which deny the genocide towards the sum of those wich are using the term massacre instead of genocide. Of course that sources denying the genocide will not use the word genocide. This is not a discussion whether genocide had happened or not, as the article clearly states that is has happened. But you can see that some users really do care about what's most visible , that is ,the article title.

It will be a crazy day if the closing adming will take the sources which deny the genocide in pair with objective sources to determine which term is more common. The term "massacre" is being used in Serbia to deny the "means rea", thus denying the genocide and some users here are openly denying genocie and pushing this controversial meaning of the term "massacre" to the article. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, accusing other editors of genocide denial is a very serious charge indeed and were you not a 'newbie' would risk you being censured or banned. Assuming good faith is not optional, it is the one of the things that stops discussion degenerating into a 'slanging match'. Pincrete (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are denying "mens rea" then you are denying genocide. Genocide needs two things proven, firt is the crime , that is "actus reus" and second is the intent to destroy the group, that is "mens rea". This is widely done in Serbia and some other countires, hence the UN brought the recent resolution to condemn the denial of genocide. You don't even understand how the genocide is denied in Serbia. It's done by accepting "actus reus" and denying "mens rea." Pincrete, but you are denying "mens rea". It is serious, but on your part. Ok, let's give it another chance and I'll ask your directly. Do you deny that this event had the intention to destroy the group, that is "mens rea"? Trimpops2 (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s naive intent to reach organic consensus among editors consistently falls short of decency when concerning topics related to troubled subject matters like the Balkans. What is expected? To reach a “consensus” at all cost even if it means the truth and factuality is being twisted to appease those who act in bad faith? This is unfortunately pervading when it comes to the Balkan subject matter on Wikipedia. It is in fact a perversion to call such an equilibrium a “consensus”, a more fitting description would be a “politicized regulation of historiography”. Good job Wikipedia. The Balkan subject matter perfectly shows why Wikipedia in its currently overly liberal outline cannot be credible and on the contrary quite often serves as a platform for revisionism. 83.249.208.46 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Common name discussion is deeply flawed

The whole discussion which term is more common is deeply flawed.

1. War crime, or massacre or terrible crime is not genocide. Genocide is a specific crime where the intent (mens rea) to destroy the group must be proven.

2 Terms "massacre" or "terrible crime" or similar are widely used to deny that "mens rea" existed, thus there was no "genocide"

3 Users who deny "mesa rea" are using the term massacre in this controversial way and are pushing this term. The intent is obvious there.

4 No objective source is using the term massacre without stating that this specific massacre constitutes genocide.

5 Only sources that deny the genocide are avoiding the word genocide and instead they use different terms like massacre or war crime specifically because they deny the "Mens Rea"

6 There is no 2 buckets for more common name here. There are the following buckets where the sources should be put:

• 6.1 Sources that acknowledge that genocide happened and that use the word genocide
• 6.2 Sources which deny that genocide happened and use the term massacre or some other term
• 6.3 Sources which acknowledge that genocide happened, but are also using the term massacre

Please show me one source which is acknowlegding the genocide and is not using the term genocide. Only the sources which deny the genocide are avoiding that term. Imagine if we used sources that deny the holocaust to say that the term holocaust is not widely used. Genocide in Srebrenica is widely denied and this explains why we can find sources which avoid to use the term genocide. If the article is stating that genocide happened, we cannot have the name of the article derived from sources which deny the genocide and avoid the term.

It is deeply flawed to count occurances of the term "genocide" and "massacre" in a bunch of sources. A source which acknowledges genocid can have multiple occurances that this crime was a massacre which constitutes genocide. This doesn't mean that the term massacre is more common.

The term massacre is factually incorrect if explicitly not followed by the explanation that this specific massacre is "actus reus" of the genocide and that intent to destroy is "mens rea".

It's deeply worying that people who deny "mens rea" , thus denying the genocide are arguing that "massacre" is more common name. They are miscounting sources and their intent is obvious here. To insert the term "massacre" as the title specifically to deny that "mens rea" was proved in front of ICJ.Trimpops2 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Trimpops2 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be built with editors who are denying the genocide and are counting sources that deny the genocide to argue that the term genocide is not more commonly used than "massacre". This is deeply flawed. We cannot count sources which deny the genocide into the pool of sources which are using the term massacre. Not all massacres are genocides and to have an article about the genocide named "massacre" is just flawed. None of the objective sources are doing so. Trimpops2 (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Putting a section heading at the top of your comment, not indenting it, and boldfacing your suggested conclusion is a clear attempt to make your opinion look more important than those of other people in the discussion. This is not a proper way to participate in an RM discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You are plying ignorant and I can see you have been an editor since 2010. Consensus is not the sum of votes, but the sum of waighted arguments. The closing adming shouldn't be more impressed by my arguments even if those are bolded. If that's your problem with my post you have bigger problems with your arguments. Rather explain why you are counting sources which deny the genocide ,thus omitting the term genocide, as valid sources to determine the COMMONNAME. A deeply flawed process. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What's your stand on genoide? Was genocide commited in Srebrenica? The article says it has been. And you come here and write that the word genocide is too extrem? Really? Go and try to change the article. But no , you just now are saying that what you care about is what's visible more. My comments are more visible..like that will imprest the closing admin more that the arguments I posted. Interesting that the article name is most visible part of the article. And interesting that you would like to keep the term genocide out of the title. I think you are denying that genocide ever happened in Srebrenica. How can we two discuss about the name of the evnt if we disagreee on that? Trimpops2 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead, show me a single source which doesn't deny that genocide happened and is not using the term genocide, but massacre instead. It doesn't exist

And since you wrote "I also suspect that the definition of "genocide" among the general public may be different than the one used in some circles". You obviously don't know or are plying ignorant what the term genocide mean. I would say that you are playing ignorant because I just have explained it in my post above and you are not acknowledgeing it. To repeat the genocide means that a war crime has been commited. That is, in this case the war crime is massacre, but it additionally means that this specific massacre was commited with the intent to destroy the group. Not all massacres are genocides. So please , don't play dump with me. You would like to use the term massacre to deny the "mens rea" and since you can't change the article content where it's clearly stated that genocide was established in Srebrencia by the only court that has the jusistiction to do so, ICJ, you would like to keep the word genocide out of the article because that's the most visible part of it. Completely flawed logic. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you not to make primarily emotional arguments or double-post. It is difficult to read and does not advance the discussion. I have firmly insisted that those expressing their objection to this move request should be able to speak to Wikipedia policy and guidelines as rationale for their decision. I believe those in support of the move should also be able to do the same. Your approach also takes us down rabbit holes that do not clearly lead to building towards a consensus, nor do you clearly speak to how the proposed title satisfies policy and guidelines. I believe your general point – the current title is frustrating and for those unfamiliar with how the site decides titles, no clear and satisfying explanation that assuages any concern regarding bias of the current title has been offered – has been made in this move request. Also, if there is a covert denial on the part of some Wikipedians to tactically deny the genocide, it would be be done by experienced Wikipedians who, through years of 'selective pressure' insofar as how this site works, would be some of the most intelligent, patient, and methodical individuals in the topic area. They would be careful to not make their bias overt, and since Wikipedia does not have any process to automatically investigate or address bias just because someone accuses another person of bias anyways, it will not go anywhere. They would have learned how to manoeuvre the corpus of articles they are interested in to a state they are satisfied with, and then figured out how to 'weaponize' site policy to maintain the state of those articles. If anything, your emotional commenting will only make it more difficult to ever investigate such circumstance, because your posting style means you could easily be dismissed as WP:FRINGE by a dispassionate third party. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. That's often my problem unfortulately. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example that is miscounted: The title is "How UN resolution commemorating 1995's Srebrenica massacre is igniting tensions". However , in the later text it's said several times that this was a genocide: "victim of the Srebrenica genocide", "The International Day of Reflection and Remembrance of the 1995 Srebrenica Genocide"" [13]

The title says massacre , but in essence the article is acknowledging genocide. If you just count to word massacre it comes up 3 times. If you count just word "genocide" it comes up "7" times. However, I don't think you counted it like that. You probably counted "Srebrenica massacre", which comes up 2 times, and "Srebrenica genocide" which comes up also 2 times.

Can someone explain to me how your automated process would count the occurances of terms in this source? I surely hope it doesn't count only the title, then we would get 0 for genocide and 1 for massacre.

The automated counter is missing the context and the difference between the terms.

Trimpops2 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Assuming, if this RM request fails, if someone came to the talk page trying to figure out if there is any reason Wikipedia's title for this article as something other than what government of the United States, the United Nations, and the ICJ refer to it by, there would be no clear answer. Some editors resist this questioning, framing it as if supposing that it implies that Wikipedia must necessary abide by the naming conventions of those institutions. Not at all, but when there is a question, the general public / readers as end users will have that question, it really should not be terribly difficult to get that answer. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and a curious audience should not bear the onus of reading through such a long RM and history to have a fairly simple question answered. I believe all contributors to the discussion have made whatever points they are going to make and the conversation has deadlocked due to factors for which I'm sure differing interpretations of can be ( and have been) offered. If there is a mechanism by which to formally request additional editors to weigh in and if not break the deadlock, potentially open new avenues for discussion, I should be glad to know about it. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not using the word genocide in the article title is not the same thing as saying it was not a genocide. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say it was? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps not directly. I may have been misinterpreting the phrase "what government of the United States, the United Nations, and the ICJ refer to it by", depending on what was meant by that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  In the simplest case, a reader might think "huh, that seems like a mistake. I wonder if there's an explanation?" I'll abstain from going any further here in the interest of brevity. I've expounded in more detail in previous comments at least one other way a reader might respond to the current title. If I reiterate them again, other editors would be entitled to reiterate their responses, which I feel is unhelpful for this RM. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming, if this RM request fails, if someone came to the talk page trying to figure out if there is any reason Wikipedia's title for this article as something other than what government of the United States, the United Nations, and the ICJ refer to it by, there would be no clear answer. You don't have to assume any such thing, it's been happening throughout the time I've 'watched' this page - especially when Srebrenica is in the news for some reason. One of the side effects of this move request, is that I'm glad to have confirmed that the answer we have always given, which is to point to COMMONNAME usage has been proven to have been wholly historically correct. Usage now is much more finely balanced and I have no problem conceding that it is now a matter of judgement as to what COMMONNAME usage currently is. If the rename fails, we will know that the consensus is unchanged and if it succeeds we will know that WP accepts the COMMONNAME has changed. What the US, the UN or any other institution thinks will continue to be recorded when apt, but not acceded to. Either you think that policy is correct or you don't, there isn't a mid-way point where we accede to some US (UN, UK, Fr, De, PRC) positions. Pincrete (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  [1] "I'm glad to have confirmed that the answer we have always given, which is to point to COMMONNAME usage has been proven to have been wholly historically correct." So the previous rationale for this article's title has up until now always been passionate defence of a guess? You're not really beating my suspicion of you as a biased editor. [2] "If the rename fails..." Yes, yes, and we've both already discussed our interpretations of what any outcome means. Do you ever really read my comments in full, or scan them to look for prompts to respond to? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  So the previous rationale for this article's title has up until now always been passionate defence of a guess?. Actually the COMMONNAME was already long established and in place when I began watching this article. The evidence presented here re-confirms that past decisions were the right ones. Not that one was previously working on a guess. But did I conduct a thorough re-examination of the evidence each time the name needed defending? No, I didn't, but as you yourself have recorded, a thorough presentation of the evidence hasn't happened really on this naming discussion - even by you and those who now want to affect a change.

  It simply wouldn't have been practical to conduct such a re-examination, each time the present name needed defending. The WP:ONUS is always on those who want to affect a change to provide convincing evidence of the need, not on those defending the present state of the article. That may be frustrating, but it is probably the only practical way to achieve some article stability. I have sometimes, as I did this time, told people who wanted to make a change, what they must do and pointed out arguments that were simply never going to work. Possibly grumpily, but I have done so nonetheless.

  Unusually, this time some listened, and whatever the outcome, I will be glad that the WP community has had the opportunity to re-examine the name issue, and only regret that participation was not more widespread and more 'evidence-based'. Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  "a thorough presentation of the evidence hasn't happened really on this naming discussion" is demonstrably untrue. You have simply chosen to disregard the evidence presented in favor of consistently reframing the conversation in your favor at every turn. As well, and suggesting that "as [I myself] have recorded" no evidence is asserting I said something I did not say, since Tom's documentation and my sourced statements are active contra to your latest mischaracterization of the discussion as it has progressed. At no point did you work to build any consensus. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

BarrelProof I'm not saying that. This source is using the term "massacre" in the title [14], but I'm ok with that, because it explains that this specific massacre constitutes genocide later in the article. I'm also ok with Wikipedia article, it uses "massacre" in the title, but in the article it explains that genocide had happened. Please understand that controversy comes from when people who deny the genocide are stating that mearley a "massacre" happened and that there was no genocide. And I'm saying that your automated couter had picked up this sources and counted them towards the common name. This is flawed. There is no explanation how the sources are counted. I want to be sure that sources which deny the genocide are not counted. I can't imagine that the massacre is more common term than genocide when those sources are not counted. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your response. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, The title says massacre , but in essence the article is acknowledging genocide. This discussion isn't about whether genocide happened, nor whether sources acknowledge that genocide happened, almost all of them do. The discussion is simply about how do sources most commonly refer to the events in Srebrenica. What name do they use for those events. If they acknowledge genocide, but call the event 'the Srebrenica massacre', they are still naming the event 'massacre'. If they call the event 'the Srebrenica genocide', but refer to 'massacre' within the text, they are naming the event 'genocide' Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. That is my whole point here, that this is not a discussion whether genocide happened. If the source is acknowledging the genocide happened, but also uses the term massacre, I have no problem counting that towards the "massacre" pool of the common name. I agree with everything you said. Read my opening post of this section. You are here describing sources which go to buckets 6.1 and 6.3. My argument is that your automatic counter is miscounting sources under 6.2 to the pool of sources 6.3. There are numeroud sources which deny genocide happened, and of course that sources will not use the term genocide, and those sources are not objective, but you are counting them towards the "massacre" pool. This is flawed. The genocide prevailed as common name a long time ago, but you have been miscounting sources. And what are you even trying to acomplish here. Even with this flawed process, the most you can accomplish here is to postpone the renaming for a few years tops, as he trend is prevailing towards "genocide". Trimpops2 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia article that talks about a criteria of 'buckets' in the way you've defined them (even if by some other name)? Otherwise, there are some obvious flaws with the buckets as you've defined them, and I don't know if anyone would consider it as instrumental in being able to determine an outcome as you've decided. Mind you: Wikipedia policy isn't the end-all, be-all – if someone makes a case that application of policy would result in a worse outcome, the policies themselves allow for avoiding thoughtless application of policy as an absolute. Wikipedia is not as 'small c-conservative' as some editors proposed above. However, in previous posts, I've suggested the best approach for a contentious article title such as this one is to exclusively apply policy and guidelines in any decision and actively discuss based solely on those policies and guidelines, unless someone can make a very strong and compelling argument to do anything else. I don't think either side – oppose or support – has done that. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia policy is objectiviy. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not as 'small c-conservative' as some editors proposed above How conservative did they say it was? My point previously was that WP, by placing WP:ONUS on those who want to affect a change, rather than those who are not persuaded of the need for the change is implicitly '(small c) conservative', cautious if you prefer. I also said, something like, this is probably necessary, for practical, not ideological reasons. Pincrete (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Final words pending formal closure

My final words are:

1. The common name discussion had not distinguished between objective sources which use the term massacre, and sources which deny genocide , thus ommiting the term. Since the article acknowledges the genocide , it's not fully objective to use the term massacre in the title

1.1. Even this flawed common name discussion is showing that the term genocide had become more common in the recent times

2 What is the point to keep the term massacre, when the prevailing trend towards the term genocide is obvious. At most this will be postponed for a year or two, and then we'll again have the same discussion

3. The term massacre is controversial when used in context to deny the genocide, as I have explained the the RfC below.

4. All together, it has become obvious that the rename to "genocide" is needed. We don't need another such discussion a year from now. I doubt that the term massacre will become more common in the future years, but if that happens, we can rename the article again, but there's no sense to prolong the renaming for a year or so.Trimpops2 (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2 (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reducing length

It's above the 15,000 readable prose guideline. I've cut it down from 19,000 by removing duplication, condensing. Any other duplication editors can see? I asked chatgpt4o and then edited its suggestions:

• "Summarize the "Conflict in Eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina" section. focus on the most relevant points leading up to the massacre.
• Remove repetitive historical context already mentioned elsewhere.
• Ethnic Cleansing: Provide a brief overview of ethnic tensions without extensive historical details.
• Massacre Events. focus on the main events, such as the takeover of Srebrenica and subsequent killings. Condense descriptions of individual incidents.
• Refugee Concentrations: Summarize the conditions and actions at Potočari without detailed accounts of every incident.
• Reduce the detail in "Trials and convictions," focusing on major trials and outcomes.
• International Responses: Condense the reactions and reports from international bodies into a concise overview.
• Analyses: Summarize key points of analysis without detailed argumentation. Denial and Controversies: Mention significant instances of without extensive detail.
• Aftermath: Condense sections on "Burial and discovery" and "Investigations" to the key findings.
• Summarize the international response, removing detailed reactions
• Shorten sections on memorials and commemorations, focusing on the most significant ones.

this will reduce word count significantly, while maintaining integrity and core information. keep sentences concise and avoid repetitive information." Which are core details and non-core? Please remove/condense those you think are non-core? Tom B (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article would benefit from a thorough pruning and tidying and a fresh set of eyes. I'm afraid chatgpt4o might as well be Martian to me, so I can't comment on its efficacy, but this overview appears to me to be a sound appraisal. The devil of course will always be in the detail. Good luck. Pincrete (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you, ChatGPT is a type of artificial intelligence, Tom B (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That much I understood! Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the term massacre for Srebrenica genocide controversial?

The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide to "lower" the event to the war crime "status" and negate that there was an intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national group, which the term genocide conveys.

1. Is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide? (Note that I changed it with from this [15], I hope that no one will complain that I changed the meaning of the question )
2. Should the article have a separate section explaining that controversy

Trimpops2 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree on point 1, as the term is massively used in some countries to deny the genocide. Agree on point 2 as the readers are not being served neutral information by ommiting the wide usage of the term to paint a completely different narrative to the event. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• (1) Is the term massacre controversial? Yes, when deliberately used instead of 'genocide' in this specific context. One need only look at this article's talk history and the ongoing move request to see there is a controversy regarding the choice of terminology. In 2013, the then-Serbian prime minister acknowledged a "crime" took place at Srebrenica, but felt short of calling it a genocide [16]. For those who wish to deny the genocide, this seems to be the approach they prefer to take. For example, there is a text called The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics [17], which is dedicated to discrediting evidence proving a genocide took place (it is the sort of text which puts the word genocide in quotes). You will find, however, it has no problems using the term "Srebrenica massacre".

(2) Should the article have a separate section explaining that controversy? I think a section not dissimilar to what exists on the Bleiburg repatriations page may be appropriate (not for nothing, that page used to be called "Bleiburg massacre"). However, it's a section which any editor should take great care to avoid veering into original research regarding. I am not sure if there is any primary literature that's comprehensively documented who chooses to refer to it by which name and what those individuals/organizations believe they achieve in doing so. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the term "massacre" is also used by objective sources which do not deny the genocide. However, it is widespreadly used in Serbia to deny the "mens rea". Terms massacre and genocide are not equivalent as not all massacres are commited with "mens rea" , thus not constituting genocide. This is why it's prefferable in Serbia to use the term "massacre". It's not controversial when it's related to actus reus of the genocide, but cannot be used to deny the "mens rea". This is widespreadly used in Serbia by long standing president and the whole goverment for the past 2 decades, which led to the recent UN resolution condemning such acts of denial. It's not controversial for all parts of the world, but is controversial in Serbia where most of the population would argue the term "genocide" is controversial, based on the argument that "massacre" is not "genocide". Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 21:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

One other thing I'd add – the parallels to the Bleiburg repatriation article are abound on top of what I already mentioned. In 2016, an editor asked if the article should be moved back to 'Bleiburg massacre', editors offered an emphatic "NO" because they felt 'massacre' was POV [18]. Likewise, several editors supported that article's 2014 move because they felt 'massacre' was controversial [19]. Obviously, there are contexts where the term is controversial. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Also the whole discussion above and the lead sentence "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide" is ridiculous to me. How to compare which term is more common when those two termy are not equivalent? Massacre is not genocide without "mens rea". Massacre is "actus reus" while genocide is "actus reus" and "mens rea". A massacre can't be "also known as" genocide regardless of how many sources are using which term. It simply isn't correct and I'm sure that objective sources explain this difference in the text, by not negating that "mens rea" had happened. As I said, not all massacres are genocides. The proper lead sentece should be someting line "Srebrenica Massacre which constitutes genocide". To repeat, you can't compare which term is more common of 2 distinct terms. Every objective source which is using the term "massacre" will definately mention that this specific massacre constitutes a genocide since "mens rea" was proved in front of international courts. In that case we can't cout that the source is using the term massacre in contrast to genocide as it is using both. I don't intend to read walls of text above, but you cannot count sources distnctly to "massacre" or "genocide" bucket. This is simply wrong and I would argue , deliberate. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The terms are not equivalent but many reputable sources refer to it as such. Wikipedia is not an area for original research but synthesizes information from primary resources, including the terminology they use, and does not necessarily comment on that terminology unless it finds a source that comments on it. As the first example which comes to mind, even though Caryn Elaine Johnson is her real name, everyone knows her as Whoopi Goldberg, and so that is the title of her Wikipedia article – but both names are mentioned in the lede. I firmly believe that this article should be moved to Srebrenica genocide, but do not think there is a strong case to remove the term 'Srebrenica massacre' from the lede (never mind the rest of the title). It's comparable to those who question the legitimacy of the vote that passed the resolution to recognize the Srebrenica genocide as such – they're missing the point entirely. Even if they convinced us the method was completely illegitimated, it wouldn't change the fact the resolution passed, and the resolution passed using that terminology. I believe you could make a convincing case that the term "Srebrenica massacre" is technically incorrect, but it wouldn't change the fact the term is commonly used and there are a number of sources that use that terminology. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I'm not arguing to remove the term massacre nor that it's incorrect, nor that some sources are using that term. I was arguing that the term is widespreadly used in some countries , most notable Serbia, to negate that the genocide had happened. In my opinion that kind of usage is controverisal as none of the objective sources are negating the genocide had happened, regardles of which terminology they use. And if the article is going to use "massacre" terminology, this controvery should be explained in the article. It should be clear to the editor that the term massacre is used in controversial way by some who use it in such regard to negate the genocide and that the article , although using the term (since objective sources do), is not using it to deny the genocide. I'm arguing to mention the controversy, and that would make the reader aware that the term "massacre" is used objective in this article. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if the word 'massacre' is really being used to deny genocide, then it is certainly controversial. And yes, given that, there should be a section discussing it. Coalcity58 (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment This is a totally pointless and invalid RfC, it doesn't ask a specific question, it doesn't suggest a remedy, it isn't framed neutrally and there was no prior discussion to establish what the stumbling block is. The proposer is a new editor, and may well not be familiar with WP procedures, but someone needs to close this. But to respond to them briefly, I have no idea whether 'deniers' in Serbia or elsewhere use the word to downplay the seriousness of the event, in my limited experience not, they simply find ingenious 'defences' to deflect all guilt on any level. There is no reason to think they would "see the light" if a different word were employed. However if the proposer can find reliable sources that say that the choice of the term 'massacre' is used by denialists in that way, they can bring proposed text to this article or the related Bosnian genocide denial article. It would be unlikely to deserve a section unless there was widespread coverage in good sources. They don't need to waste editor's time by creating this 'talking shop'. Content is decided by prevalence in reliable sources, not what editors think.Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In your upper posts, you are saying "'Genocide' is only more precise if you think that legal rulings as to the intent of the event are the defining factor. They both convey aspects of what happened and neither 'pulls its punches'", "Androcide would actually be a more precise description of what happened.", "but this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide', " , "The ICTY ruling has been embraced by some to break with normal convention,", " the greatest war crime", " Whether it met the legal definition of genocide has been decided by a court and I have no reason to either dispute the court's findings, nor any obligation to endorse them by adopting their terminology".

You in fact are denying "mens rea" of the genocide. Genocide deyiers are accepting actus reus, and denying "mens rea". Their talkpoints are the same as you have just repeated, consise said: "it was a terrible crime (massacre...etc) , but no genocide".

Rfc is proper, I do suggest a remedy. The suggestion is to add a section to the article explaining the controversial meaning of the word. I haven't written the section in my purposal, but left it for the discussion. That's perfectly fine to do, I'm not writing a whole section in my purposal, which needs to be concise and clear.

I didn't post sources but it's well known how the genocide is denyed in Serbia, hence the recent UN resolution was brought to condemn such behavior. I can post some sources.

Reliable source do cover this widepread denial of genocide in Serbia ans some other countries. And since the term "massacre" is used in the article title, it has to be perfectly know that the term is controversial, and that the article doesn't conform to this controversial meaning of the term Trimpops2 (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You and some other editors are failing to recognise the difference between the statements: "This is a massacre , but not genocide" and "this is a massacre which is genocide". Massacre without "mens rea" is not genocide. Not all massacres are genocides. You are comparing two terms with different meaning to be the same. And when you say " the greatest war crime" and fail to follow up that this greatest war crime had the intent to destroy the group , you are just denying the genocide. No objective sources would fail to complemen the " the greatest war crime" claim with the info that this specific war crime is a genocide, unless they specifically deny the genocide in the later text. And those are the sources you are using. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources:

1. "Serbia’s president apologized Thursday for the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, but declined to characterize the killings as an act of genocide." [20]

2. "Srebrenica was a “mistake” and a “huge crime,” ,“But it wasn’t genocide.” Bosnian Serb separatist leader Milorad Dodik told" [21]

3. "Montenegrin lawmakers on Thursday ousted a pro-Serb government minister who denied the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica was genocide." [22]

4. It would be good to find one such statement from current Serbian president , but he's more careful in his wording when giving statements on English. I'll have to search through Serbian sources later.

Trimpops2 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As shown here, those who deny the genocide are using the term "massacre" or some other equivalent term like "huge crime" to recognize actus reus, but they are denying the genocide by denying "mens rea". Trimpops2 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This are just examples, but the denial is widespread. I could post numerous other sources, but I don't want to wate my time for such an obvious thing. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)want to wate my time for such an obvious thing. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, I myself referred to Nikolic earlier when I spoke of a handful of Serb politicians accept the term 'massacre' but dispute 'genocide', they don't offer reasons for their distinction I think,. The sources you offer endorse that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. They don't say why he did that, nor AFAIK has any WP:RS even conjectured why, what his motive was. Certainly not the motives you ascribe to him. Nikolic's rejection is, and has long been in this article already, but there is no way WP is going to endorse the addition you want those who deny the genocide are using the term "massacre" or some other equivalent term like "huge crime" to recognize actus reus. It might seem obvious to you that this is what is happening and the motive for it, but the sources simply you offer don't justify including it, even ascribed as someone's opinion. You are trying to 'prove' what your own assessment is, rather than reflect what sources actually say. This is WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH at least. Ask another editor more aligned with your viewpoint if you don't believe me. Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources you offer endorse that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. Exactly what I was trying to argue here.

TThey don't say why he did that, nor AFAIK has any WP:RS even conjectured why, what his motive was Why should I care about why he said that? Not my interest.

Certainly not the motives you ascribe to him. Where do I ascribe any motives? I'm certainly not doing so.

As I said in my initial post. People who deny the genocide are using the term massacre (or some equivalent term like huge crime, mistake....etc). Also, there are sources that use the term massacre, but are not denying the genocide. This makes the term controversial, when used in the context which denies the genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The article already records, (twice), that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. So what addition are you proposing? You don't need to argue anything, he said it, we record it (twice).

Great, no objective regarding objectivity there. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why should I care about why he said that (his motives)? Not my interest, because you want to ascribe a motive to his actions (to recognise "actus reus" but deny "mens rea"), that is pure speculation on your part and, frankly. needlessly convoluted logic. My own conjecture was that he wanted to appease his 'foreign' audience, in order to encourage investment and improve his county's image, while not offending his local Serbian electorate, but neither of our interpretations is going to go into the article, both are surmisals. Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ascribing motives. You are with your "conjecture". I don't care about motives.

No specilations on my part. My argument is that to accept that a war crime , or "massacre" has happened, but to deny the gencoide is factually wrong, and that makes the term massacre controversial , because it's used to deny the genocide. Why would I need to speculate why someone is accepting massacre, but denying genocide? I don't need to do that. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

But, just for your info, to paraphase those who deny genocide , something what they are explicitly saying would go like this "Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide". This isn't even a discussion about this, but a discussion whether this makes the term controversia.

So to ask you directly. If I put forward the quote "Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide", do you agree that the term massacre is here used in this controversial context? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide". If anyone remotely important has said this fairly explicitly (not your paraphrase), or if an academic or similar has said that this is a phenomenon in Serb societal opinion., and if you have sources that make either claim explicitly, then it can probably go in this article or the related 'denial' article. Otherwise you are just wasting your time (and frankly ours). Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided sources which say that massacre happened, but genocide didn't. You agreed on that.

To admit that massacre happened, but genocide didn't. That conforms to my argument that the term massacre is controversial, because it's being used in the context of denying the genocide.

I don't need to answer why someone gave that statemet. Why would I?

I don't need to explain what that person who gave the statement thinks what lacks for massacre to become gencoide.

I'm just reporting that he does think so and that's a fact.

A reasonable explanation would be that they are denying the intent to destroy. This isn't only a reasonable explanation, but I've seen that explanation many times. I may go and find sources which explicitly say that, but I don't need that.

Please, explain why would I need to explain the reasoning behind someone's statement that massacre happened but not genocide, to claim that the term massacre in that statement is used in the context to deny the genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

My RfC question doesn't ask for any such question. I was very clear. I asked, is the term massacre controversial when used in context which denies genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment. It seems that some claims and suggestions, that are being made in this RfC, are very removed from any serious attempt to initiate a meaningful discussion on terminology. If some users are truly interested in terminological standards and scholarly applications of those terms, there are several well known scientific papers on the subject, written by foreign scholars. Here is a good example of the fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" in relation to other relevant terms ("The Bosnian Genocide and the Srebrenica massacre" by Marko Attila Hoare). That paper is using the term without any hint of denial, examining the entire issue in a wider context that is related to the term Bosnian genocide. The same terminological structure is reflected here, in present titles of articles on EW. In scholarly circles, fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" is not controversial. Sorabino (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

From Hoare; "The judicial recognition of the Srebrenica genocide was the result of a process that was not foreordained. [...] Not all the ICTY prosecutors wanted to prosecute suspects for genocide [as] there were those, such as Geoffrey Nice, who wanted to stick to lesser charges more likely to result in convictions. This reflected a difference of opinion, among prosecutors, as to whether the ICTY’s purpose was to put perpetrators behind bars, or to establish the correct historical record." I read this as showing how the framing of the events at Srebrenica is actively disputed. Some prosecutors wanted to stick to lesser charges that they felt were more 'effective', and some wanted to stick to more accurate charges that were more precise. Thank you for sharing this source. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

AVNOJ1989, Hoare is describing a dilemma common to many prosecutions, whether to "go for gold: and risk failure or whether to choose a lesser charge with more likelihood of success. The choice wasn't of course 'massacre' or 'genocide', since 'massacre' isn't a crime as such, in fact the two are 'chalk and cheese'. Is a cat a 'feline quadruped mammal' or is it a 'common domestic pet', obviously both terms are equally 'accurate'. 'Massacre' describes a mass-murder event, 'genocide' describes a crime - which usually, though not necessarily - involves mass killing, but which is crucially defined by intent to destroy … . Hoare says that the prosecution team thought that 'genocide' would establish the correct historical record, ie was more accurate than whatever the alternative crime they considered charging the accused with. That isn't surprising as it would be a strange prosecution team who didn't believe in the aptness of the charges being brought. How much proof the team had available to them as to intent, planning, etc., I don't know, but the racial motive was anyhow almost self-evident to a layman.

However, what the prosecution team thought was 'accurate' has no bearing whatsoever on this naming dispute. No one AFAIK, has ever argued in this dispute, or to the best of my memory on this talk page (except the occasional 'parachute in' IP) that what happened at Srebrenica was not planned and intended to destroy in part the Bosniak population of that region, (with the broader strategic aim of creating a geographically continuous, viable, ethnically 'pure' 'micro state' which could potentially attach itself to Serbia). Editors might quibble with the details of what I've just written, and I, and outside scholars, occassionally quibble with aspects of the use of the word 'genocide', but fundamentally you are 'kicking at an open door'. The discussion isn't about which term is more 'accurate', nor is 'genocide' more precise than whatever alternatives were available to the prosecutors.

No serious person now doubts the fundamentals of what happened at Srebrenica, but it is no part of our mission to track down and adopt the name we consider is is more 'accurate', nor to endorse it, nor, as it happens, to decide, or imply, as several people have done in this discussion, including yourself, that those who use or prefer a less contentious, better established name, must have sinister motives. Humankind decides COMMONNAME, based on usage, not the prosecution team at the trial, nor the UN, nor the US nor anyone else whose opinions have been invoked in this name discussion. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I was very clear. The term "massacre" or equivalent terms like "terrible crime", etc, are used by those who deny the genocide. Their stand is that although actus reus of the genocide had happened, there was no mens rea, thus there was no genocide. This is the official stand of the country of Serbia.

I have no problem when the term massacre is used, as long as there is no doubt that mens rea is being denied. This article is an example where the term massacre is being used objectively [23]. The article uses "massacre" in the title, but is not denying the genocide. There is no problem with that.

The controversy over the them "massacre" comes from that double usage. One usage is objective when genocide is not denied. The other usage is controverisal, when it is said that "only a massacre happened, but not genocide". I feel I'm repeating myself, but you keep misunderstanding the point.

I have no problem with your sources. Those are using the term, but are explaining that genocide happened.

I have problems when editors who say "this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide'" are arguing that the term massacre should be used.

Genocide is a higher crime than massacre. That's why they want to use the term massacre, not because they are objective.

Ok, let them push the term massacre to the title, by having the opinion that "this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide'", but the article must explain this controversy. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is a higher crime than massacre, no actually massacre isn't a crime at all. It's a generalised term like 'slaughter' used to describe cruel mass-murder, whereas 'genocide' is very specifically defined, but doesn't necessarily involve killing anyone. America, and several other countries, has formally recognised the Uyghur Genocide by the Chinese state, although we don't know of anyone having been killed. America etc argue that the Uyghurs are being persecuted to such an extent, that the intent is to destroy them as a people. 'Genocide' is generally thought of as being 'the worst crime of all' in general public use, but that's a different matter. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? The Srebrenica Massacre was a war crime, and that isn't disputed by anyone. By the Genocide Convention, genocide is a higher crime than the war crime of massacre. This really isn't open for a debate. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"A massacre isn't a crime" is going to be my example par excellence of Wikipedia editors that are lost in the sauce. I believe this is one of the only times (ever?) that anyone has ever put those words together in that order and meant to be taken seriously. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A massacre isn't a crime as such. There is no named crime of "massacre". Depending on the circumstances, the perpetrators might be later charged with murder, racketeering or failing that, simply tax evasion, might be court martialled and afterwards subject to house arrest.They might ultimately be charged with extensive war crimes, but not genocide, which existed as a term but not as a crime at the time, or nothing might happen to them, as is the case with the vast majority of historic massacres.

If you can find an example of anyone ever being charged with 'massacre' (or 'slaughter' or other similar terms) I'd stand corrected, until then yes I did put those words together, yes they are factually correct, and yes I do expect to be taken seriously. Someone might be charges with a named crime because of their role in a massacre, but no one can be charged with a massacre, since it simply isn't a crime as such. Btw, I haven't touched the sauce since Xmas. Apology accepted. Pincrete (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You can go somewhere else to discuss sematics or law terminology. The Srebrenica Massacre is a war crime which constitutes actus reus of the genocide as proven before international courts. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't fundamentally dispute the second sentence, but using words accurately is important in an encyclopedia and isn't mere 'semantics'. The law terminology was introduced by you, no one else has even mentioned "actus reus" or "mens rea", I had to remind myself of approximately what they mean. Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If we talk about accuracy. Term genocide is more accurate, because, if you use the term massacre, and fail to further explain that this specific massacre constitutes genocide, this is factually incorrect. That is why the term genocide is more accurate because it consists of both "actus reus" and "mens rea".

And those who deny the genocide is Srebrenica are often admitting the "actus reus", that is, "massacre", "terrible crime", "huge crime", but are then denying the "mens rea". That makes the term massacre controversial, not because objective sources use it, but because those who deny the "mens rea". Trimpops2 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"A massacre isn't a crime as such." This is Wikipedia, not a high school debate club. In real terms, for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating I'm surprised that you aren't keen to endorse the very real difference between defined crimes (like murder, crimes against humanity, genocide etc etc) and generalised descriptors of killings which express disapproval, but have little specific, little common, and zero defined criminal element (massacre, slaughter, outrage, carnage, bloodbath etc). You can spend the rest of your life in prison if you commit one of the former, you can't if you commit any of the latter unless one of the former is also proven. I'm sorry that you see that difference as trivial, it actually endorses your position more than it endorses mine.

It wasn't me that initially tried to 'weigh' the seriousness of the two 'crimes', perhaps you should take up your argument (and insults) with the editor that did.Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

More sources:

1 "Six months before the scandal, Serbian media reported extensively on the 25th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. However, the narrative focused not on the genocide and its victims but highlighted the date, July 11, as the anniversary of an alleged assassination attempt on Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic. " [24]

1.1 "No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — n

Trimpops2, I myself referred to Nikolic earlier when I spoke of a handful of Serb politicians accept the term 'massacre' but dispute 'genocide', they don't offer reasons for their distinction I think,. The sources you offer endorse that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. They don't say why he did that, nor AFAIK has any WP:RS even conjectured why, what his motive was. Certainly not the motives you ascribe to him. Nikolic's rejection is, and has long been in this article already, but there is no way WP is going to endorse the addition you want those who deny the genocide are using the term "massacre" or some other equivalent term like "huge crime" to recognize actus reus. It might seem obvious to you that this is what is happening and the motive for it, but the sources simply you offer don't justify including it, even ascribed as someone's opinion. You are trying to 'prove' what your own assessment is, rather than reflect what sources actually say. This is WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH at least. Ask another editor more aligned with your viewpoint if you don't believe me. Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources you offer endorse that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. Exactly what I was trying to argue here.

TThey don't say why he did that, nor AFAIK has any WP:RS even conjectured why, what his motive was Why should I care about why he said that? Not my interest.

Certainly not the motives you ascribe to him. Where do I ascribe any motives? I'm certainly not doing so.

As I said in my initial post. People who deny the genocide are using the term massacre (or some equivalent term like huge crime, mistake....etc). Also, there are sources that use the term massacre, but are not denying the genocide. This makes the term controversial, when used in the context which denies the genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The article already records, (twice), that Nikolic accepted 'massacre' but disputed 'genocide'. So what addition are you proposing? You don't need to argue anything, he said it, we record it (twice).

Great, no objective regarding objectivity there. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why should I care about why he said that (his motives)? Not my interest, because you want to ascribe a motive to his actions (to recognise "actus reus" but deny "mens rea"), that is pure speculation on your part and, frankly. needlessly convoluted logic. My own conjecture was that he wanted to appease his 'foreign' audience, in order to encourage investment and improve his county's image, while not offending his local Serbian electorate, but neither of our interpretations is going to go into the article, both are surmisals. Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ascribing motives. You are with your "conjecture". I don't care about motives.

No specilations on my part. My argument is that to accept that a war crime , or "massacre" has happened, but to deny the gencoide is factually wrong, and that makes the term massacre controversial , because it's used to deny the genocide. Why would I need to speculate why someone is accepting massacre, but denying genocide? I don't need to do that. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

But, just for your info, to paraphase those who deny genocide , something what they are explicitly saying would go like this "Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide". This isn't even a discussion about this, but a discussion whether this makes the term controversia.

So to ask you directly. If I put forward the quote "Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide", do you agree that the term massacre is here used in this controversial context? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"Yes, a terrible massacre had happened, but there wasn't intent to destroy, thus there was no genocide". If anyone remotely important has said this fairly explicitly (not your paraphrase), or if an academic or similar has said that this is a phenomenon in Serb societal opinion., and if you have sources that make either claim explicitly, then it can probably go in this article or the related 'denial' article. Otherwise you are just wasting your time (and frankly ours). Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided sources which say that massacre happened, but genocide didn't. You agreed on that.

To admit that massacre happened, but genocide didn't. That conforms to my argument that the term massacre is controversial, because it's being used in the context of denying the genocide.

I don't need to answer why someone gave that statemet. Why would I?

I don't need to explain what that person who gave the statement thinks what lacks for massacre to become gencoide.

I'm just reporting that he does think so and that's a fact.

A reasonable explanation would be that they are denying the intent to destroy. This isn't only a reasonable explanation, but I've seen that explanation many times. I may go and find sources which explicitly say that, but I don't need that.

Please, explain why would I need to explain the reasoning behind someone's statement that massacre happened but not genocide, to claim that the term massacre in that statement is used in the context to deny the genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

My RfC question doesn't ask for any such question. I was very clear. I asked, is the term massacre controversial when used in context which denies genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment. It seems that some claims and suggestions, that are being made in this RfC, are very removed from any serious attempt to initiate a meaningful discussion on terminology. If some users are truly interested in terminological standards and scholarly applications of those terms, there are several well known scientific papers on the subject, written by foreign scholars. Here is a good example of the fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" in relation to other relevant terms ("The Bosnian Genocide and the Srebrenica massacre" by Marko Attila Hoare). That paper is using the term without any hint of denial, examining the entire issue in a wider context that is related to the term Bosnian genocide. The same terminological structure is reflected here, in present titles of articles on EW. In scholarly circles, fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" is not controversial. Sorabino (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

From Hoare; "The judicial recognition of the Srebrenica genocide was the result of a process that was not foreordained. [...] Not all the ICTY prosecutors wanted to prosecute suspects for genocide [as] there were those, such as Geoffrey Nice, who wanted to stick to lesser charges more likely to result in convictions. This reflected a difference of opinion, among prosecutors, as to whether the ICTY’s purpose was to put perpetrators behind bars, or to establish the correct historical record." I read this as showing how the framing of the events at Srebrenica is actively disputed. Some prosecutors wanted to stick to lesser charges that they felt were more 'effective', and some wanted to stick to more accurate charges that were more precise. Thank you for sharing this source. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

AVNOJ1989, Hoare is describing a dilemma common to many prosecutions, whether to "go for gold: and risk failure or whether to choose a lesser charge with more likelihood of success. The choice wasn't of course 'massacre' or 'genocide', since 'massacre' isn't a crime as such, in fact the two are 'chalk and cheese'. Is a cat a 'feline quadruped mammal' or is it a 'common domestic pet', obviously both terms are equally 'accurate'. 'Massacre' describes a mass-murder event, 'genocide' describes a crime - which usually, though not necessarily - involves mass killing, but which is crucially defined by intent to destroy … . Hoare says that the prosecution team thought that 'genocide' would establish the correct historical record, ie was more accurate than whatever the alternative crime they considered charging the accused with. That isn't surprising as it would be a strange prosecution team who didn't believe in the aptness of the charges being brought. How much proof the team had available to them as to intent, planning, etc., I don't know, but the racial motive was anyhow almost self-evident to a layman.

However, what the prosecution team thought was 'accurate' has no bearing whatsoever on this naming dispute. No one AFAIK, has ever argued in this dispute, or to the best of my memory on this talk page (except the occasional 'parachute in' IP) that what happened at Srebrenica was not planned and intended to destroy in part the Bosniak population of that region, (with the broader strategic aim of creating a geographically continuous, viable, ethnically 'pure' 'micro state' which could potentially attach itself to Serbia). Editors might quibble with the details of what I've just written, and I, and outside scholars, occassionally quibble with aspects of the use of the word 'genocide', but fundamentally you are 'kicking at an open door'. The discussion isn't about which term is more 'accurate', nor is 'genocide' more precise than whatever alternatives were available to the prosecutors.

No serious person now doubts the fundamentals of what happened at Srebrenica, but it is no part of our mission to track down and adopt the name we consider is is more 'accurate', nor to endorse it, nor, as it happens, to decide, or imply, as several people have done in this discussion, including yourself, that those who use or prefer a less contentious, better established name, must have sinister motives. Humankind decides COMMONNAME, based on usage, not the prosecution team at the trial, nor the UN, nor the US nor anyone else whose opinions have been invoked in this name discussion. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I was very clear. The term "massacre" or equivalent terms like "terrible crime", etc, are used by those who deny the genocide. Their stand is that although actus reus of the genocide had happened, there was no mens rea, thus there was no genocide. This is the official stand of the country of Serbia.

I have no problem when the term massacre is used, as long as there is no doubt that mens rea is being denied. This article is an example where the term massacre is being used objectively [25]. The article uses "massacre" in the title, but is not denying the genocide. There is no problem with that.

The controversy over the them "massacre" comes from that double usage. One usage is objective when genocide is not denied. The other usage is controverisal, when it is said that "only a massacre happened, but not genocide". I feel I'm repeating myself, but you keep misunderstanding the point.

I have no problem with your sources. Those are using the term, but are explaining that genocide happened.

I have problems when editors who say "this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide'" are arguing that the term massacre should be used.

Genocide is a higher crime than massacre. That's why they want to use the term massacre, not because they are objective.

Ok, let them push the term massacre to the title, by having the opinion that "this instance doesn't meet the usual 'commonsense' meaning of 'genocide'", but the article must explain this controversy. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is a higher crime than massacre, no actually massacre isn't a crime at all. It's a generalised term like 'slaughter' used to describe cruel mass-murder, whereas 'genocide' is very specifically defined, but doesn't necessarily involve killing anyone. America, and several other countries, has formally recognised the Uyghur Genocide by the Chinese state, although we don't know of anyone having been killed. America etc argue that the Uyghurs are being persecuted to such an extent, that the intent is to destroy them as a people. 'Genocide' is generally thought of as being 'the worst crime of all' in general public use, but that's a different matter. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? The Srebrenica Massacre was a war crime, and that isn't disputed by anyone. By the Genocide Convention, genocide is a higher crime than the war crime of massacre. This really isn't open for a debate. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"A massacre isn't a crime" is going to be my example par excellence of Wikipedia editors that are lost in the sauce. I believe this is one of the only times (ever?) that anyone has ever put those words together in that order and meant to be taken seriously. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A massacre isn't a crime as such. There is no named crime of "massacre". Depending on the circumstances, the perpetrators might be later charged with murder, racketeering or failing that, simply tax evasion, might be court martialled and afterwards subject to house arrest.They might ultimately be charged with extensive war crimes, but not genocide, which existed as a term but not as a crime at the time, or nothing might happen to them, as is the case with the vast majority of historic massacres.

If you can find an example of anyone ever being charged with 'massacre' (or 'slaughter' or other similar terms) I'd stand corrected, until then yes I did put those words together, yes they are factually correct, and yes I do expect to be taken seriously. Someone might be charges with a named crime because of their role in a massacre, but no one can be charged with a massacre, since it simply isn't a crime as such. Btw, I haven't touched the sauce since Xmas. Apology accepted. Pincrete (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You can go somewhere else to discuss sematics or law terminology. The Srebrenica Massacre is a war crime which constitutes actus reus of the genocide as proven before international courts. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't fundamentally dispute the second sentence, but using words accurately is important in an encyclopedia and isn't mere 'semantics'. The law terminology was introduced by you, no one else has even mentioned "actus reus" or "mens rea", I had to remind myself of approximately what they mean. Pincrete (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If we talk about accuracy. Term genocide is more accurate, because, if you use the term massacre, and fail to further explain that this specific massacre constitutes genocide, this is factually incorrect. That is why the term genocide is more accurate because it consists of both "actus reus" and "mens rea".

And those who deny the genocide is Srebrenica are often admitting the "actus reus", that is, "massacre", "terrible crime", "huge crime", but are then denying the "mens rea". That makes the term massacre controversial, not because objective sources use it, but because those who deny the "mens rea". Trimpops2 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"A massacre isn't a crime as such." This is Wikipedia, not a high school debate club. In real terms, for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating I'm surprised that you aren't keen to endorse the very real difference between defined crimes (like murder, crimes against humanity, genocide etc etc) and generalised descriptors of killings which express disapproval, but have little specific, little common, and zero defined criminal element (massacre, slaughter, outrage, carnage, bloodbath etc). You can spend the rest of your life in prison if you commit one of the former, you can't if you commit any of the latter unless one of the former is also proven. I'm sorry that you see that difference as trivial, it actually endorses your position more than it endorses mine.

It wasn't me that initially tried to 'weigh' the seriousness of the two 'crimes', perhaps you should take up your argument (and insults) with the editor that did.Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

More sources:

1 "Six months before the scandal, Serbian media reported extensively on the 25th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. However, the narrative focused not on the genocide and its victims but highlighted the date, July 11, as the anniversary of an alleged assassination attempt on Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic. " [26]

1.1 "No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide" [27]

1.2 "However, genocide denial has been the official policy of the Serbian state since the 1990s." [28]

3 "Vucic told U.N. members after the vote that all those involved in the Srebrenica massacre have already been convicted and sentenced to prison" , "Both Serbia and Bosnian Serbs have denied that genocide happened in Srebrenica although this has been established by two U.N. courts." [29]

Trimpops2 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources provide info that the official stand is to deny genocide. Thus all statements that are using the term "massacre" are using the controverisal meaning of "massacre". Trimpops2 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources you provide endorse the first sentence the official stand (stance??) is to deny genocide and that denial is widespread in Serbia/RS. They don't endorse the second, which is basically your own surmisal. Don't take my word for it, ask any other experienced editor. Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't a discussion about the second sentence from my intro to this RfC. I put forward 2 clear questions.

I'm allowed to put forward my explanation.

Second, the source 1.1 says "not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". This is what I'm in essence saying with my statement.

This is what I'm saying:

1. The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well) - confirmed by sources 1,2,3 of group 1 (as of now I posted 2 groups of sources)

2. The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide - confirmed by sources, confirmed by sources 1,2,3 of group 1

3. "to "lower" the event to the war crime "status" and negate that there was an intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national group" - I argue that source 1.1 of group 2 confirms it by saying "not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide"

I said "to "lower" the event to the war crime "status" - the source says "not contesting that the killings actually took place"

I said "and negate that there was an intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national group" - the source says "but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide" Trimpops2 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is here. Why do I have to explain it word by word? Trimpops2 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This 2 sentences are equivalent, and if you have problems with my sentence, I have no problems replacing mine with this one from the source. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)