Talk:List of genocides/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Chetniks genocide against Muslims and Croats

I don't think that this case should be on this list. The source used for the death toll count, Human losses of Croats in World War II and the immediate post-war period caused by the Chetniks, does not use the word genocide. The 47,000-65,000 estimate is from researcher Vladimir Žerjavić (p.86) and he does not use the term genocide either. As the author of the journal makes it clear, these are estimates on the total human losses and includes combatant and civilian casualties. So it is WP:SYNTH to use this for a list of genocides by death toll. As another user remarked above on a separate section, the reliable source should directly say that a genocide caused X deaths. This should automatically disqualify this entry from the list but there are other issues with it too.

This article states "this list only considers mass killings which are recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention." I don't know that any of the sources used in the respective article, Chetnik war crimes in World War II, use the legal definition but their own interpretation. A few of the sources might be RS, others are more questionable and polemical in nature. For example, one source there says that 100,000 Muslims were killed by the Chetniks which is higher than the generally accepted Muslim casualty of all causes and all perpetrators during WWII per this graph. It's not clear that there is a consensus that this was genocide, only that some historians view it as such. --Griboski (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, @Paul Siebert: and @Davide King:, some feedback on this would be appreciated. I'm not sure how it's justified to keep this case based alone on the fact that the source used for the death toll does not say the deaths were as a result of genocide. --Griboski (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. Please go ahead and do so. I don't want to edit the article because someone will accuse me of "edit-warring" since I earlier tried to remove this entry on the basis of poor sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tried removing it but was reverted twice by editors who ignored the WP:SYNTH issue and I don't want to engage in edit-warring. --Griboski (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: You came to my talk page days ago asking for sources and I pinged you presenting three. Not to mention the criteria is still being discussed for what goes on the list. Perhaps @Maleschreiber: can explain the source Hoare 2006 better than I. @Volunteer Marek: and @Nug: were involved in restoration as well so not sure why they aren’t in the loop. OyMosby (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: perhaps you can weigh in as well? This seems similar to the Polish genocide discussion below. We have sources stating it was a genocide. Why is rhe criteria “It was a genocide and x were killed” in the same sentence? OyMosby (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Griboski and Buidhe. If the sources do not describe it as genocide, then we can't include it here. Khirurg (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Except they do.....which means you agree to keep it in the article Khirurg. Thanks for coincidentally stopping by! “Hoare’s monograph is divided into eight chapters addressing the Serb Rebellion against fascist occupation, the Croatian Ustasha and Serbian Chetnik genocides, the shift from a Partisan strategy...”[1] historians regard Chetnik actions during this period as constituting genocide. I keep showing the sources. If you want to look. There is also Zdravko Dizdar's "Chetnik Genocidal Crimes Against Croatians and Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Against Croatians in Croatia During World War II (1941-1945)" in Aleksander Ravlić (ed.) 1998 book Southeastern Europe 1918–1995. There is also the book Genocid nad Muslimanima by Vladimir Dedijer, which focuses on the genocide carried out by the Chetniks on Bosnian Muslims in eastern Bosnia in particular. Buidhe and Griboski you might get accused of edit warring as you are removing sourced material. I stopped reverting to avoid 3RR edit waring as well. There is no reason for this edit war as we have multiple sources showing it to be Genocide. OyMosby (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several sources and they can be found in the respective article. That isn't the issue. The question is whether a large portion of RS say it was genocide to the point where there's a consensus that it was. For example, there are sources that describe it as ethnic cleansing 1 2 3 4.

All of that aside, you haven't addressed the main issue here, which is that the source that's used for the death toll count does not say the deaths were as a result of genocide. In fact, the term genocide is not used at all in the source. So we can't list it in this article which specifically lists genocides by death toll. --Griboski (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You realize Genocide by Death Toll is literally genocide by death toll right? Genocides listed in order from largest to smallest. Simple. Who created that rule and no the sources are valid. Five sources seems fairly decent consensus. Who defines what is “a large portion”? As Ustashe gangs engaged in ethnic cleansing in areas. In the Bosnian Genocide you had cases of ethnic cleansing such as the Srebrenica Massacre. Doesn’t mean in whole it wasn’t genocide. The article lists genocides in the order of there death toll. What is this arbitrary rule that the same source has to list that number of victims as the author deeming it genocide? This feels more like splitting hairs. We have a genocide and we have the number killed by the perpetrators both elements backed by RS hence true to the title of the article. Not to mention why are we deleting parts of the article when there is still an ongoing discussion as to how the article is to be defined? FYI David McDonald lists both Ustashe and Chetnik atrocities as not genocide so this contrarian angle isn’t a good standard. OyMosby (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It is implied that there were 47,000-65,000 deaths as a result of genocide, which is not stated in any of the sources. It is patently false. The article lists death tolls caused by genocide. --Griboski (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR only if we added together sources to come up with a number of victims on our own. Then I would wholeheartedly agree with you Griboski. However, all articles about events are then synthesized as they are an mixture of various cited sources describing an event. We know a genocide happened and we know the number killed approximately by perpetrators. I fail to see the synthesis or OR here. @Nug: said it best in their diff. “ Surely this article has to be consistent with Genocides in history” I will continue this tomorrow as it is getting late where I am.OyMosby (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No. We can't state or imply something that isn't supported by the source. It's pretty simple. --Griboski (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is. Both criteria (if it was a genocide) and (how many were killed) are met. That seems simple. I’m not inventing terms or numbers here. Now if I started adding massacres of various villages from various sources and combined the totals, THEN I would completely agree with you mate. Both elements are aources. I don’t get this criteria of having to have the same source stating both. We have sources which claims the killings as Genocide and other sources that detail the figures. I see no rule on this page that you keep asserting. And it seem a number of editors take umbrage with Buidhe’s idea or standard. So until then we shouldn’t be deleting any genocide from the list. Okay now I really need to log off for now. Take care for now. OyMosby (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH issue has been brought up by multiple editors. This article is a list of genocides by death toll, the 47-65,000 figure is literally the most important part of the entry, and at no point does the source used to back it up describe these deaths as having resulted from genocide. Moreover, the figure includes all Bosniaks and Croats killed by the Chetniks, including Ustase and Partisan fighters, not only those killed in massacres. Furthermore, the source explicitly states that the historian who provided the 65,000 estimate later lowered the figure to 50,000 deaths, for a range of 47-50,000. Glaring WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one making “Glaring WP:TENDENTIOUS edits” here so save the insults. I am not the only one who is agreeing with the sourcing as Chetniks were added back in by multiple other editors some of which who have no bias in the Balkan field. You call me out in your article edit diff personally ignoring that @Maleschreiber: also reverted and add Chetniks back to the list. And are all the other editors “tendentious” or “partisan, biased, or skewed as a whole” as well? As for the figures it is cited in the death toll sources that it was at the hands of Chetniks against civilians which can even bee seen cited on the Chetnik war crimes in World War II. I’ll leave this discussion for others to continue as I’m not going to deal with petty bad faith insults as this is not the first time you directed such at me personally before, as a number of times. Bu bye. OyMosby (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Perhaps you could provide input as you have in other sections? OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the objection here is. Sources do seem to describe it as a genocide. There are also sources which describe it as "ethnic cleansing" but those two terms are not mutually exclusive. Genocides very often involve ethnic cleansing. Are there sources which explicitly state that it wasn't a genocide?

Or is the objection regarding the death toll? Is it disputed? Is the argument that it's "too low" or something? Can one (or more) of the editors removing this text clarify? Volunteer Marek 18:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably some editors think that sources with "ethnic cleansing" fact refute sources with "genocide" fact. I think that sources which talk about Chetniks crimes do not claim that it wasn't a genocide. And the numbers are undefined, so that's also problem for some editors, but in historiography there are different numbers. I think that this informations may be part of this article. Mikola22 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please read above. The only source used for the death toll count (Geiger) does not say that the deaths were as a result of genocide, but that is what is used for the death toll count here. An editor summarized this problem with another case here: [1].

As far as whether enough sources state it was genocide, that depends on what you all decide for the inclusion criteria. That's a separate issue. But as an aside, I don't think any of the sources use the UN convention to make their determination which is what Buidhe was arguing for when considering what to include on the list. --Griboski (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The link you provide is a discussion about China, not the Chetniks.

Ok. So is the argument whether it's genocide or about the death toll?

This source in text is given as supporting "genocide". Is there any reason to question it? Does it give the death toll?

This source is also provided but I can understand the argument that it's outdated (1975)

This source is also provided but I don't have access to it and no page number is given.

This source is also provided but the particular page given, page 42, is not available for preview, so I can't comment.

This source in text is given as supporting the death toll. But the objection is that it doesn't use the word "genocide"? Is that correct?

This source, currently not in the article afaict, gives the death toll (86,000 to 103,000 "majority at the hands of Chetniks") and calls it a genocide.

Are there any sources which state it was not a genocide? Volunteer Marek 21:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The link is useful because the editor points out the problem with using a death toll that doesn't state those casualties were caused by genocide as here. That is the issue with the Geiger source, correct. The Tomasevich book should be the 2001 one, not 1975. Tomasevich, Hoare and perhaps Redžić are RS and fine to use, as linked by OyMosby below. I can't verify any of the other sources as I don't have access to them. The Cohen source you linked to doesn't give a precise data. We know that between 86,000-103,000 total Muslims were killed in Yugoslavia during WWII of all causes, how many of those were victims of Chetnik genocidal violence is unclear. I'm not aware of any source that state it wasn't a genocide except for one (David Bruce MacDonald) but he denies the Ustaše genocide against Serbs as well and seems to have a fringe view of what constitutes genocides, so not worth including. --Griboski (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Could we then add it to the list, based on Cohen etc., but say that sources are unclear on the total death toll? And yes, I wouldn't take anyone who claims the Ustase murders weren't genocide too seriously. Volunteer Marek 18:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be better to add an explanatory note to the Geiger source. Cohen's is way too high and even more imprecise, as it represents both the military and civilian death toll from all perpetrators and only for Muslims. He just used the total casualty numbers estimates that were provided by two researchers. It's explained here. --Griboski (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this not valid in summarizing the death toll? I pulled this summery from the Chetnik War Crimes in WWII article for a quick summary “ Croatian demographer Vladimir Žerjavić initially estimated the number of Muslims and Croats killed by the Chetniks in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina at 65,000 (33,000 Muslims and 32,000 Croats; both combatants and civilians). The historian Sabrina P. Ramet also cited that figure, and wrote that the Chetniks completely destroyed 300 villages and small towns and a large number of mosques and Catholic churches. In another paper from 1994, Žerjavić estimated the number of deaths at 68,000, of whom 41,000 were civilians and "casualties of direct terror". In a 1995 paper, not counting Partisan deaths, Žerjavić estimated 47,000 "victims of the Chetniks" (29,000 Muslims and 18,000 Croats). In 1993, using primarily identification by individual names, researchers Mihajlo Sobolevski, Zdravko Dizdar, Igor Graovac and Slobodan Žarić estimated that the Chetniks were accountable for the deaths of 3,500 people in Croatia's territory, although this figure is based on incomplete research. This differed from Žerjavić's initial estimate of 20,000 for Croatia's territory. Dizdar later accepted Žerjavić's 65,000 total for Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 2012, without providing a reference to a victim list or a verification of the data, Dizdar said that there were "over 50,000" documented, researched and registered Croat and Muslim victims of the Chetniks. The historian Enver Redžić wrote of "tens of thousands of Muslim lives" lost in Chetnik massacres. The historian Šemso Tucaković estimates in his book "Crimes Against Bosnian Muslims 1941–1945" that around 100,000 Muslims were killed by the Chetniks. OyMosby (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Tucaković's claim is WP:FRINGE as I already explained above. Redžić who does say genocide happened, does indeed state that "tens of thousands" lives were lost in massacres, but not 47,000-65,000. By all means, continue pointing out information that no one is questioning while ignoring the fact that the death toll here from the source is not said to be as a result of genocide. Type out a novel, if you must. --Griboski (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, given that you've been editing for at least five years now, you know perfectly well that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The article you're citing has a host of issues, the most prominent of which is that it is a WP:COATRACK of wartime atrocities, several of which weren't even committed by Chetniks. For example, it implies that the Partisan-perpetrated Kulen Vakuf massacre and various killings committed by ad-hoc Serb peasants during the June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina and the Srb uprising can be attributed to Chetniks, which is false.

Multiple editors have cited WP:SYNTH. Although you've had an abundance of time, you have opted not to address this issue in any meaningful way and have instead decided to write several paragraphs about how many sources describe Chetnik atrocities as genocidal, which is a dodging the point entirely. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

AB, I agree with you about Vulen. But that doesn’t discredit the rest. I did not just write about “Chetniks being genocidal” but provided a number of sources stating stats on number of victims. I’ve been a editor for 4 years with extended breaks, you have been an editor far longer and more experienced than I, yes. But I wouldn’t be writing all this if not for these sources convincing me. Else I wouldn’t be here on this page. I don’t see where I am ignoring Griboski or yourself. I disagree that the same book has to mention genocide and the specific amount. One of the books labeling it genocide gives a statement of tens of thousands being killed as a result. So there is merit to this. What final stat is to be used we will see. I am not trying to be an ass or pov pusher. I know there is bad blood between you and I in the past but lets move on as I’m not looking for conflict or fights. We shall keep this strictly cordial from now on. Okay?OyMosby (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the same book has to mention genocide and the specific amount. What you or I agree or disagree with is irrelevant. WP:SYNTH is very clear on this point: "Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." If you have something new to bring to the discussion, please do so. Otherwise, this is going to be nothing but an enormous waste of time for all parties. Cordial enough? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

“Cordial enough?” Seems more sarcastic than sincere but I’ll take it :) And agreed I will not repeat old already presented info. I still disagree with synth as one of the sources mentions Genocide and tens of thousands dead as result in the same book same source. If I find extra new info I will present it here. CheersOyMosby (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with AB that there is WP:SYNTH going on here. Khirurg (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have this source for genocide fact. [2] Mikola22 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

All I see is discussion of crimes in the 90s not the topic at hand unless I missing something here, Mikola22....OyMosby (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The source at the beginning talk that the killings in Bosnia have more characteristic of genocide than Srebrenica. I don't know if it is the whole source or just a part but it can be used as evidence of genocide. There is also a mention of the number of killed Croats from Bosnia, which is realistically about 45 thousand, (page 492) although the structure of those killed is not specifically stated. Mikola22 (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the sources and Chetnik war crimes in World War II#Genocide of Muslims and Croats, without searching for other sources, this case should be on the list without question. The only issue seems to be the number of casualties, however a consensus should be found using RS and better understanding of the criteria & scope of this article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should wait for the outcome of the discussion in the central article. Many editors, as well as many scholars dispute the genocide categorization. Compared to other crimes in Yugoslavia during World War II, there is a lack of academic consensus. Also, that classification is not widely accepted or included among the genocides in the mainstream media, by scholars, memorial centers, institutes, authorities, Raphael Lemkin, Israel Charny's the Encyclopedia of Genocide, Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Combat Genocide Association, Genocide Watch etc. Many authors question the categorization because Chetniks didn't have a regime, state apparatus, propaganda machinery, etc. --WEBDuB (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And, of course, you have a solid source to substantiate your estimate, or is that just a claim without any critical analysis by trained scholar(s) ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The idea that the Chetniks committed genocide against both Muslims and Croats during WWII is definitely not a "mainstream" idea. Else we would be able to search for it and easily find many RS publications and institutions which support that claim, but we don't. What we get, after having to dig deep, is mostly a bunch of historians from the former Yugoslavia like Klemenčič, Žagar, Dizdar and Čekić who are coming from the wronged parties' perspectives and asserting this. Hoare and maybe Redžić are possibly the only solid RS. Meanwhile, Tomasevich who is also a RS indirectly implicates the Chetniks in genocide during WWII in one sentence in his 2001 book. Yet, in his 1975 book, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: The Chetniks which is all about the Chetniks, he does not state that they waged genocide (as far as I know). To be fair, maybe this is because there hasn't been enough research done on this, and historians from this region are the ones who are relegated this responsibility. But whatever its worth for inclusion here is, WEBDuB is correct in his assessment. --Griboski (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Griboski, I think Santasa99 is asking where all these sources are and who all these authors are. I don’t think they are denying the mainstream part. With claims comes burden of proof. WEBDuB’s assessment isn’t completely correct as he has yet to produce all these sources that claim it was not genocide. I understand his point on the “mainstream” part. But this is discussed already as to why that might be due to how events took place. Tomasevich’s “The Chetniks” (I think it was simply called just that) was released 1975, where as the later book “War and Revolution in Yugoslavia” was released in 2001. Could be in his research he came to the conclusion later on? Not sure. He never got to finish his other book “The Partisans” unfortunately, which would have been a interesting read and source. Not for this subject but in general. I keep hoping his family would publish what he wrote so far...Hell I’d love to read a biography on Tomasevich as he has a great writing style and seems like an interesting individual.OyMosby (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice @Griboski, you have explained all this so eloquently, but you still missing the point - you are not in a position to say what is and what is not "mainstream view" in the environment of serious science, this is not matter of fringe or pseudo-science, and you have no way to measure it in any way. Your only option, which served the project well, is to assess scientists' legitimacy and/or credibility.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes we can measure whether a view is mainstream or not by observing its prominence in the respective field. If 10/100 works on the Chetniks say it was genocide, then it's still a minority view. So I think you're the one missing the point. That is separate from the validity of the claims made by the authors in question. It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. I also find your labeling of history/historians as science/scientists odd. We're talking about humanities. Anyway, I do question the legitimacy of a couple of them. Dizdar for example, has written a highly polemical article on the Chetniks. In it are phrases and terms such as "crimes of genocide of Greater Serbian nationalists and Chetniks in an even more terrible form, .. took place against Croats .. in the republic of Croatia in 1991.." and "third wave of genocide". According to him, Chetniks also committed the first massacre against Croatian civilians in mid-April 1941 before the Ustaše did against Serbs, a view that I don't think is held up by any other historian. --Griboski (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There are more than enough reliable sources to include in this list of genocides that the Chetniks committed genocide in WWII. Enough of that. The sources that say they did include some of the most highly respected academic sources on the Chetniks in WWII, Tomasevich, and in respect of their activities in Bosnia, Hoare. They are backed by Mennecke, Bećirević, Dedijer & Miletić and others regarding the Chetnik genocide against the Bosnian Muslims, and Redžić and others regarding the genocide against the Croats. As far as I am concerned, the only question here is what figure should be placed against the Chetniks for those two groups. Despite what some appear to claim above, IS NOT original research to use academic estimates of Bosnian and Muslim non-combatant losses at the hands of the Chetniks and place them here alongside the Chetniks. For starters, Tomasevich, who says there was genocide against both by the Chetniks, endorses the population loss calculations of Žerjavić. My view is that as Žerjavić's work on casualty numbers is highly respected and accepted and quoted by many of the mentioned scholars and others, we should use his estimates. They are 32,000 Croats and 33,000 Bosnian Muslims in the territory of the NDH, which is reflected in Geiger, which is currently used in the list. Personally I think we should use direct citations to Žerjavić, because Geiger is just citing his numbers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with editor Peacemaker67, Žerjavić is quoted in many sources and I think his numbers should be a quality foundation in this case. Mikola22 (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

For Genocide of Croats part, there are also Ravlić, Hoare, Evan Daniel who confirms Hoare and as PM noted already Redžić. There is also Dizdar (who I’m iffy on credibility on this, PM could see) and is noted in Aleksander Ravlić (ed.) 1998 book Southeastern Europe 1918–1995. So I agree with Peacemaker for the inclusion on the list and the statistics. OyMosby (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

(OK, proper, trained historian or researcher, than.) I apologize for longer post directed at Griboski that follows! When researchers begin to clash over perspectives, numbers, data, then papers begin to emerge that try to make sense of that quarrel, or to critically assess validity of one view or the other, and try to establish what would be the predominant view at that point, that is, the "mainstream view" — we would could now refer to such critical reviews papers and used them as sources to substantiate your claims, if there exist a "mainstream view" on Chetniks and their crime, and if there exist such source. Obviously, they do not. Further, "works on the Chetniks" is a field? "If 10/100 works on the Chetniks say it was genocide", what kind of "100" works, what discourse, on what topic - what if that's, actually, "10 of 10" in reality; are these "100", analysis, critical analysis, commentaries on genocide/war-crimes, or general histories, or even romanticized war biographies, memoirs? "10" compared to what, to "90" that have no mention at all, or disputing "10", or whitewashing Chetniks, or distorting facts? According to which methodology you are going to assess "100" works, and what methodology used in them will meet your norms, what do you intend to assess in them, its content, or analyse its discourse!? Or you simply counting books on Chetniks - one has genocide in it, 3 don't mention it,...etc. Ultimately, "mainstream view" compared to what - you can assess individual scholar qualitatively, if he is a "mainstream", which, if one is credible and prominent, could be said, but you certainly can't measure "mainstream view" (unless you are researcher yourself but then again it would defeat the purpose since you would never be able to use your own research here, and the same is true for your personal opinion - I have opinion too, I think scholars listed by User:Peacemaker67 are credible and prominent, or "mainstream" if you want). You would stray right into WP:OR if pretending that you are able to measure and assess "mainstream view" without outside critical view, and if it gets into the article - one editor is asking you, over and over again, for any titles that argue against "genocide" label, and you still haven't provided any, now I am asking for work that distinguish "mainstream view" on the subject. One legitimate, credible and prominent researcher is enough to set the record strait, and to set a basis for the "field", but if several says it is genocide that's enough to call things by their names.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to historical works who describe Chetnik actions in various ways, such as "retaliatory/revenge massacres", "atrocities", "ethnic cleansing" and so on but don't use the term genocide. The same type of works you are using in support of the genocide label. I'll reiterate again that it isn't mainstream unless it can be shown that it is the dominant/conventional trend in scholarship. As for the anti-Genocide label, you and another editor asked that to a different editor, not me. I replied to someone else above that MacDonald is the only one explicitly refuting it. It would be nice if editors read through the entire discussion thread instead of making inaccurate statements/asking things that have been addressed. --Griboski (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"Several sources" and "more than enough reliable sources" for the genocide claim is nice, but I think some are missing the point in this discussion. This list makes particular stipulations as to what can and should be included, those "which are recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention." Multiple RS doesn't guarantee inclusion, at least not according to some editors who are arguing against inclusion of some cases which are supported by several sources. There should be a clear criteria we can all agree on, otherwise specific cases will be included on the basis of how many vehemently argue against their exclusion. --Griboski (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate the extraordinary contributions of the editors who significantly improved the articles about Chetniks, but in this particular case, it seems to me that it is a matter of WP:GEVAL. It is important to follow the reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and not to present minor opinions as generally accepted view, especially in the case of sensitive topics. It is true that there are authors who claim that the Chetniks committed genocide, but their inclusion in that context as a supermajority and accepted view is WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. They were not a monolithic organization, with a defined leadership and a homogeneous ideology, as well as state apparatus. Many prominent genocide scholars (including Raphael Lemkin and Israel Charny), memorial centers, institutes and organizations (such as the Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Combat Genocide Association, Genocide Watch, International Association of Genocide Scholars...), head of states, authorities, etc, didn't include these crimes among the genocides. All this is a sufficient argument that this is not a supermajority view!

On the other hand, there are also relevant authors who have directly dealt with the categorization of Chetnik crimes and refuted claims that it was genocide, but massacres, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. That is horrible enough, there is no need to equate it with some other events. Some of these authors are Paul Mojzes, David Bruce MacDonald, Tomislav Dulić, Michele Frucht Levy. Also, some reviewers questioned the use of the term “genocide” by Marko Attila Hoare, who is often referred to. Furthermore, Samuel Totten notes that some historians argue that the Chetniks committed genocide. He didn't say that it was a dominant and unanimously accepted position.

The term of Chetniks genocide is not accepted at all by mainstream media (besides the Al Jazeera and some pro-government Balkans media outlets and media that try to establish a false balance, primarily trivialize the Genocide of Serbs and make it less visible), and Wikipedia should present a predominantly accepted view and name. (WP:POVNAMING) It is extremely difficult to find a connection between the terms Chetniks and genocide by the Google search. If we want, we can find authors and media outlets who describe the Bleiburg repatriations and Foibe massacres, as well as Operation Storm, as genocide, but that is not a generally accepted name and conclusion. The fact is that there is no academic consensus, and especially not media and public consensus. I think that we should include in genocide-related articles, lists, and templates only those for which consensus is unquestionable.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Heather Williams and Gumz did not question genocide in their reviews.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

They described that Hoare explained that the Chetniks were weakly organized, divided, without a centralized leadership capable of carrying out their own genocide, while Gumz also stated that he uses the term “genocide” partly because of its emotional value. Both pointed to a number of inconsistencies in the book. Certainly, a huge number of other arguments remain that refute the claims.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed how you, Giborski, and maybe few others, employing this remark taken out of Hoares book by Levy, and then reinterpreted as a some kind of gold standard (just like you reinterpret Gumz, who assumed not "stated" that it could be that Hoare use it for its emotional value - unless both you and Gumz read minds, we can only assume, although in context of what Hoare wrote there and elsewhere we can say, with some degree of certainty, that he meant genocide when he said genocide). Thing is, "weakly organized, divided, without a centralized leadership capable of carrying out their own genocide" does not stand in Genocide Convention, just like Dulić may have his own definitions of genocide, or Katz his own, but we are not in a position to cling to them and use them in interpretation. Bottom line is that non of these people refuted, seriously, or questioned genocide term as utilized by Hoare. And how about Levene's remark, which could be used against this particular idea about incompetent and ineffective Chetniks, as his comparison of Ustasha and Chetniks is no less logical then any of aforementioned arguments against genocide claim: "what makes Chetnik genocidal violence so compelling is that it was achieved with even less coordination than the Ustasha could muster, almost as if its commanders knew what was expected of them."--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"I noticed how you, Giborski, and maybe few others, employing this remark taken out of Hoares book by Levy, and then reinterpreted as a some kind of gold standard.." Spelling mistake first of all, but secondly, I never did that. I don't even have access to the work by Levy. Please stop attributing things to others that aren't true. Thanks. --Griboski (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Inserted subsequently @Griboski:, I apologize for misspelling your nickname, but I can't apologize for including you into above post, because you haven't been completely honest about your reliance on Levy. I do believe, though, everything you said, access to her paper and not explicitly using her remarks in your writing, however, to WEBDuB's usage of that particular remark of hers in his own argument, you responded and wrote immediately downstream that "(...) whatever its worth for inclusion here is, WEBDuB is correct in his assessment". So, combined with the fact that I used verb "employing" (not "putting forward explicitly in writing"), your acceptance of WEBDuB argument which includes these remarks, felt quite straightforward to me. But I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my misspellings, grammar mistakes, and other unforeseen problems with my English.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Levy was first brought up after I made my comment in support of WEBDuB. I was not aware of it. I never used the source as a basis for anything. I haven't used it, period. So when you keep saying things like "you haven't been completely honest about your reliance on Levy" even after I explain this, which is plainly clear to anyone who's read the thread, you come off as intentionally misleading and false. What I'm guessing you mean is we are relying on authors like Levy, Mojzes and others of a similar opinion listed here, in which case you have a point. You cannot take a source however that was used in a later comment by an editor and atribute its usage to another editor in a past comment. I'm going to assume good-faith and that this is an issue with English usage. I just don't appreciate the false accusations. I accept your apologies though. --Griboski (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Everything you have written confirms that there is no consistency and certainty around definition and categorization, with virtually no author (except a few). Our problem is whether we will interpret this way or in another way, but we shouldn't be reviewers here and criticize publications and books. The fact is there is no academic consensus, nor is it an established majority view in the mainstream media. If you claim otherwise, you should provide us with a source that analyzes various claims and draws conclusions about the widely accepted view on Chetnikс crimes. I have already added something similar. If it weren't for Hoare's book, it would be practically impossible to find the terms “Chetniks” and “genocide” combined in in genocide research journals and on the Google Scholar, which confirms WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Even the basic Google search takes a lot of effort to find that. Also, we should not analyze and draw conclusions here about whether some crimes fit the Genocide Convention. (WP:NOR) Inclusion in lists and articles about genocide without clear and consistent criteria, ignoring many other sources related to the topic, violates Wikipedia fundamental policies and can lead to chaotic situations.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Now you are really reaching with this attempt to revers the situation. Nothing in my post can lead one to draw your conclusion (by the way Levy is really insignificant contributor to the subject of genocide). It's up to you and other like-minded on this issue, to prove that there is a "mainstream view" on Chetniks' war-crimes and genocide, and that there is some kind of disagreement among scholars which makes genocide proponents minority or less credible, and so on.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Really? How do you explain the absence of including Chetniks in the comprehensive lists of genocides by Lemkin, Charny, genocide research journals, Combat Genocide Association, Genocide Watch and similar? There is no disagreement, but these events are dominant completely outside the context of genocide. Levy is not prominent in this field, but this article is extremely important as many relevant genocide scholars have cited it, and even included it in their books.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Super misleading to use David Bruce MacDonald unless you agree with him that the Ustahe atrocities are not considered genocide which he claims in his view. Let’s not cherry-pick from within the source. So I don’t think he is a good example for those claiming it was not genocide as he thinks a group has to be killed as a whole or intended to be killed as a whole. Never seen anyone claim Operation Storm as genocide aside from nationalist blogs or a certain government. There have been some sources that claim it was ethnic cleansing. How does one honestly compare Chetnik atrocities and documented intent during WWII to Operation Storm (again which can be argued as ethnic cleansing yet I don’t see it being taken off of the ethnic cleansing list article due to conflicting sources. Funny that). What an incredibly horrid and misleading comparison. Not even remotely in the same realm of sourcing to back up. Such media outlets tend to be biased and nationalist based and cannot be compared to respectable RS sources as were listed above. People preemptively fleeing vs being targeted in an open plane to rid a population are two different things and you know that. Some RS sources claim it was ethnic cleansing which a lone is hotly contested. This conversation seems to be going knowere and is reaching knew lows. I have nothing more to add here. More sources label Chetnik actions along woth their plans Genocide and Genocidal than any saying they were explicitly not to be labeled so. End of discussionOyMosby (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Super misleading to use David Bruce MacDonald unless you agree with him that the Ustahe atrocities are not considered genocide which he claims in his view. What does it matter now? I hope that this debate does not lead to wrong comparisons with other articles and some countermeasures. (WP:WINNING) Sometimes someone's opinion is an exception to the supermajority view, and sometimes it fits in with others. However, I'm not talking about the publication from 2002, when MacDonald said that is difficult to prove genocide in WWII Yugoslavia, but from 2009. He analyzed further in more detail and wrote there was no concrete evidence that the Chetniks intended to exterminate the Croatian population, unlike the Ustashas, whose crimes mainly fit the definition of genocide.

People preemptively fleeing vs being targeted in an open plane to rid a population are two different things and you know that - Of course I know that, but that's exactly why I say that we shouldn't wait for Google search to match the desired keywords, but to look at the whole context. We all know here that practically all genocide scholars, related organizations and mainstream media didn't include Chetniks among the examples of genocide. More sources label Chetnik actions along woth their plans Genocide and Genocidal than any saying they were explicitly not to be labeled so. - Where do these claims come from? An incomparably larger number describe Chetniks crimes with some other terms or, listing genocides through the 20th century, completely ignore them. Also, those sources that explicitly deal with the question of whether it is or not genocide, concluded that it is not.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

” I hope that this debate does not lead to wrong comparisons with other articles and some countermeasures. (WP:WINNING)” Please stop with repeating this paranoid line and passive-aggressive tone. I hope this push back against the notion of Chetniks carrying out a genocide is not a countermeasure as well by such logic. ”wrote there was no concrete evidence that the Chetniks intended to exterminate the Croatian population, unlike the Ustashas, whose crimes mainly fit the definition of genocide. ” not intending to exterminate an entire population is not the definition of genocide. As it van be in part not just the whole. He says the Ustashe atrocities have a stronger case but does not directly flat out say it was genocide but that its closer to being Genocide than the actions of Chetniks. Notice he says “mainly” so we are deciding for him what he flat out claims? He didn’t really change much from his older book. As it is obvious the Ustashe crimes were far worse in scale, planning and scope and their system making them FAR more obviously genocidal. And is likely why they are mor notoriously well know “in the mainstream”. You and I agree on one thing. Let the sources speak for themselves. But let us not speak on behalf of the sources. That is all that can be done. Bye.OyMosby (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: Lemkin died 1959 and first realistic war census(war reparations) has been conducted in 1964(official secret until 1989). The question is whether earlier war censuses contained crimes of all armies, etc. For that reason the question is whether earlier historians had official data obout Chetniks crimes(in numbers). Here I have source and table obout losses ie Chetniks victims. For Bosnia and Herzegovina and NDH we have no official data before 1994. Source, page 11, [3]. Chetnik victims are according to this source 65,000 for Croats and Bosnians in NDH. Mikola22 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I have no problem with you. You know very well that it is not paranoid, that I was a victim of long-term abuse and harassment. So I beg you not to give them ‘weapons’ with such comments. ‘Countermoves’ are common on Balkan topics, especially with the wars in Yugoslavia during the 1940s and 1990s. It's all easy to check. When someone is debating an article, other editors immediately start commenting on how it should be changed on another article, etc. I think it is really important that the criterion for inclusion is academic consensus, which in this case is obviously lacking. Many editors try to point that out, including those that no one chould say are biased in Balkan issues. Thank you. --WEBDuB (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Levy is irrelevant, and paper is even more irrelevant - that paper has been cited something like 25 times per Google Scholar, which is really, really small, insignificant number!? One remark: Charny doesn't accept Bosnian genocide, while being most active in fighting Armenian genocide denial, and keeping the post at the Israel moral borders - god forbid if someone accidentally give some credence to Arab, or anyone else for that matter, claims about Israel's brutality over its Muslims, so where would we be if we give all our attention to Zuroff, Charny and alike.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• An overview of bibliography argues in favor of the inclusion of the event as genocide. Equally reliable and WP:EXTRAORDINARY bibliography would have to be listed for it to be considered contested.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place for such debate. All papers and books have been reviewed and we should accept them as such. Hoare is also a controversial figure with controversial statements about the Balkans, he has even been challenged by part of public in B&H and called a revisionist. However, Charney's book is one of the most influential in the world on the genocide topic. Certainly, a much more significant work in the field than all of Tomasevich's and Hoare's, and especially of Dizdarr's and Redžić's. Also, citing 25 times with inclusion in several books is not bad at all. Who decides what the criteria are for a relevant article? Honestly, we don't need to get involved in such comparisons.

The only question is whether any claim is supported by an overwhelming majority of scholars and institution. As in the case of the Atrocities in the Congo Free State and Great Leap Forward (for which there are even more sources than for Chetniks talking about genocide), the lead clearly states that they are excluded because other therms are more often used, such as mass murder, crimes against humanity, politicide, classicide, or war crimes. Or on the other hand, we can change the name of the article to the List of mass murders by death toll.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

For those who argue that Hoare is controversial entire western world is controversial and ant-Serb. Good science is good science, whether it is conducted by Charny or Tomasevic, Redzic, Hoare or someone else, only those who find Hoare controversial, off the top of their head, can say that there is a difference. 25 citations for the paper that is out for 30+ years is nothing - 24 of them are most likely her students citing her. As for your question, "(w)ho decides what the criteria are", I am asking it for two days now.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This debate has totally deviated from the main course. If the overwhelming majority of sources described the crimes not as genocide, and if most genocide scholars and relevant institutions do not include Chetniks crimes, there is no need to provide a source that explicitly says that was not genocide. That is the criterion. Moreover, here we even have sources that directly deal with the issue of categorization and that dispute genocide! Most importantly, neither Žerjavić nor Geiger mentions genocide, and they are cited as a source on the death toll. (WP:COATRACK, WP:OR) --WEBDuB (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You have a shocking case of IDHT. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::That's not an answer and it looks like singling editors out ("YOU", "SHOCKING CASE").

All in all, nobody can refute that major sources and encyclopedias on genocide do not list Chetnik massacres and war crimes as genocide, it's simply not mainstream and it's not considered a fact by all authors, as explained above. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of all uppercase letters in this case is deceiving, which is inappropriate and should be removed or rewritten accordingly. As we all see, the editor did not use all uppercase letters in his post on what really is shocking case of WP:IDHT!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I beg everyone not to engage in false accusations, labeling and inappropriate mocking tone. Respect your fellow editors, even when you disagree, and try to resolve disputes by consensus through civil discussion. We are really far from the consensus at the moment. A numeorus editors oppose the current version, including those who don't take paret often on Balkan topics and who can't be said to be biased or tendentious. I apologize if I repeated some things. The irrefutable arguments of the editors who pointed out the problem and started this discussion (and later my arguments) are ignored all the time, and the discussion turns to some parts that are not essential. --WEBDuB (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is a pointless discussion that just goes round and round in circles. If you think you have a case for its removal, then let's talk about the neutral wording of a RfC so we can get a community view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Circassian Genocide

According to the neutral sources death toll in this genocide is between 800 000 - 1 500 000. So, it was needed to be rearranged in the list. Apollo (Helius Olympian) 08:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2020

for Generalplan Ost in the Soviet Union including civilian losses and German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. Can some one change the start date to 1941 the Germans did not invade in 1939.Operation Barbarossa 154.160.14.142 (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the GO began in 1939 and involved more than just the Soviet Union. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

the genocide in Darfur

Do you think the Genocide in Darfur ended with the coup in 2019 or is it still ongoing?--Garmin21 (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)