Jump to content

Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Should the first sentence contain either the term 'genocidal killing' or 'genocidal massacre'?

SNOW close as proposed in section immediately below due to proposer having left WP. Non-admin close by involved editor Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the first sentence contain the term 'genocidal killing' and/or 'genocidal massacre'? The article as a whole is in some ways separated from events preceding and following, which confounds the chronology somewhat. Nonetheless, for the period of time as has been defined (which isn't exactly idiosyncratic) events from July 11-31 1995, as conventionally understood as the "Srebrenica genocide" and/or "Srebrenica massacre", are neither limited to 'genocidal killing' or 'genocidal massacre'. This is reflected in the article and sources, which document, for example, the rape of women and children, and continued deportation/forcible relocation of citizens of Srebrenica.

Neither the phrases "genocidal killing" nor "genocidal massacre" are expressly used in the sources linked as support for the phrase, which has been added and removed in various edit wars for the past several days – the terms are potentially WP:OR, and certainly non-exhaustive. However, they are typically understood as excluding the aforementioned additional actions which are recognized as part of the Srebrenica genocide, such as when in other contexts the terms "genocidal killings and rape", "genocide and rape", imply different things. See also the article genocidal rape and the concerns which it brings up.

I submit that it's simply easier and more concise to go with the formulation The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide... Of course, the entire sentence has formulation issues – it goes on to say of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War, but as it currently exists, and in the hopes of putting an end to an edit war and making some progress in conversation, it seems necessary to take it a step at a time. 122141510 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support terms massacre and genocide per terms used in sources. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding massacre – I would understand "Srebrenica massacre", in effect colloquially, including killing, rape, and relocation as has been documented in this article. What about "massacre" on its own? Would a formulation like The Srebrenica massacre [...] was the massacre include or omit the additional actions? 122141510 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you reformulate that. I didn't understand. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you say "Srebrenica massacre", then I understand it as currently meaning everything that's in the article – the killing of citizens of Srebrenica, and rape of citizens of Srebrenica, and forced deportation of citizens of Srebrenica.
If you just say "massacre", then I understand that as only talking about the killing. The dictionary definition of massacre is, per Wikitionary, The killing of a considerable number (usually limited to people) where little or no resistance can be made, with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and/or contrary to civilized norms.
If there is no dispute with these definitions, then saying "the Srebrenica massacre was the massacre..." is technically incorrect, because it doesn't include the rape or deportations. My question was a more open-ended attempt to see if I'm correct without a simple "do you agree"? 122141510 (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Srebrenica Massacre with capital 'S' and 'M' is the name of the event which includes everything described in the article. The event was a genocide. Term massacre with lowercase 'm' is a general term with the meaning described in any dictionary. The Srebrenica Massacre was not merely a massacre. It was also a genocide and it includes other crimes then just a massacre, plus an intent to destroy the group. This is all written in the article named 'The Srebrenica Massacre'. Trimpops2 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and fine but human curation of information generated by ChatGPT to clarify understanding and direction of conversation in a highly contentious topic is not a flagrant abuse, and I wasn't going to frame the conversation as being necessarily beholden to the information. @Soni: with respect, not the most helpful contribution here. 122141510 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can use ChatGPT to generate this information, you should be able to find sources to support your arguments, directly or otherwise. All GPT does, human curated or not, is regurgitate the same information from Wikipedia and other sources, but without the ever important attribution.
Personally, I think this RFC itself should also be closed, simply because of WP:STICK. There was an RM, then an ongoing Move review. You do not need an RFC on effectively the same broad question before that MR itself is closed. I recommend WP:3O or WP:DRN (and as a last resort WP:ANI) to resolve all questions at-large instead of a lengthy RFCs (or similar) on every sub-decision of this article. Soni (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to that. I am simply not interested in another edit war and round of harassment from Pincrete. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests did not clearly delineate the best option about how I might save myself another week of arguing with that editor. If RFC is not the best method by which to request input on a specific content issue from a broad number of uninvolved users then I've probably picked the wrong mechanism. But that an uninvolved editor can jump to censure any mention of ChatGPT before contributing to the RfC, or intervening in the above endless argument, or the ongoing edit war (of which myself and Pincrete are not the only parties, hence my assumption WP:3O was not the best choice), is unimpressive. 122141510 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on 3O, apologies. As for the rest of it, I did weigh in, saying "This should have been closed because I think the Move Review is too connected to the question being asked". The overall discussion is nearly 54K words (or 2 tomats), expecting every editor to contribute after reading it all is a bit of a timesink. The first thing I read was an irrelevant argument that should be struck, so I hatted it. Editors can and should do that even regardless of how much they involve themselves in the rest of discussion. Soni (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are endorsing a move which does not even have an effective rationale – I mentioned I empathise and appreciate that anyone trying to close that review should be thanked for having the time, patience, and willing to put themselves up to criticism. Regardless, it seems to me that the move review is looking to endorse the closed move request as it exists. As such the article needs to be addressed with its current title, and part of that is that the opening sentence is being edited in a way that doesn't agree with the current title and in a manner that I am confused by, and the rationale given by the editor makes no sense. Given the fierce, volume-long defense and subsequent ad hominem attacks on me for arguing the opposing, I'm inclined to think there must be something behind that fury, hence the benefit of the doubt and attempting to solicit additional opinions. 122141510 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could save my yourself self another week of arguing with that editor (me) by simply closing this 'fake RfC', reverting to the version that was stable for several years before you and the IP edit-warred in the present version, then start a discussion on talk. You could begin by explaining why you think describing the event as genocidal killing is not supported by sources. If a consensus of editors agree with 'your' text, it would of course stay. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could begin by explaining why you think describing the event as genocidal killing is not supported by sources. I did in the RfC. Are you unable or unwilling to read it? 122141510 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply for clarification, do you mean that the term is not supported by sources because that specific phrase is not used by those currently used? Pincrete (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The RfC isn't remotely neutrally phrased nor are all three of the options recently discussed actually offered by the proposer in a concise and neutral manner. A valid RfC might ask what should the opening sentence be? or identify the three opening sentences recently used in the article - with an option to suggest a 4th. By excluding from the discussion the most recent opening sentence (inserted by an IP in the last few days and edit-warred into place by the proposer, only a few hours before starting this RfC), the proposer is simply inviting participants to reject two previous versions and thus implicitly endorse his favoured one, or enshrine it in 'stable' position, despite it never having received even tacit approval by any editor other than himself. Snow close as pointless, while the move review is ongoing. Not neutrally phrased, and not actually representing all the options under discussion and content which is disputed.Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor is party to the edit war, despite their implication otherwise. They have rejected any opportunity to constructively participate in consensus-building conversations in multiple conversations ongoing on this talk page. The RfC is hopefully an attempt to proceed with constructive edits to the article. 122141510 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I imply that I am not a party to this dispute, but ask anyone with the stomach to do so, to read The genocide was the genocide the section above to judge for themselves who they believe to be attempting to constructively participate in consensus-building conversations.
I have clearly stated that I am open to any suggestions as to what the opening sentence should be, but certainly believe that this version which had the tacit approval of all editors for several years, until only a few weeks ago, should be the version used pending a new consensus. It is the convention, that we use the stable version until a new agreement is reached, unless pressing reasons exclude it. That version opens: "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 etc". There are no 'pressing objections' to that text that I can see.
The version currently in place which has never received even tacit approval from any editor apart from an IP who first inserted it a few days ago and the proposer of this RfC, who edit-warred it into place only hours before opening this RfC, and which is even excluded from discussion in this RfC, opens:The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide of more than 8,000 etc.
The proposer of this RfC is also one of the main participants of a recent (failed) move proposal which aimed to retitle the article as Srebrenica genocide they are also the proposer of a current move review aiming to overturn the outcome of the move discussion. I find it difficult to see this RfC as anything other than a bad faith attempt to circumvent the outcome of that failed move proposal by simply repeating the alternative title (Srebrenica genocide) as the opening, defining, sentence.
Ample sources exist that describe the event as a 'massacre', as a 'genocide' and describe 'killings'. That they don't use them in particular combinations is immaterial IMO, since the meaning remains the same. The ones presently used in the article almost certainly endorse all three words, the only question is which we want to use, in which order to most fully, clearly and neutrally describe the event. Pincrete (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the following diffs for editor's involvement in edit war; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note that in these editor asserts two different versions of the opening sentence as the "stable long term version", which is by definition impossible. Note also that editor continues to assert that he "find[s] it difficult to see the RfC as anything other than a bad faith attempt", but in the previous conversation they link to, have threatened to report me for pointing out that the overall character of their edits to this article are consequential as they lessen or otherwise diminish the definition of what a massacre is, as opposed to genocide. They continue to consistently disrupt conversation on this talk page, and are effectively undermining this RfC by continuing to write walls of text that serve to discourage or otherwise overwhelm editors from being able to participate. This allows a lack of consensus to ever form, which suits them fine, as they've clearly indicated in past conversation on this talk page a strong preference for the status quo. 122141510 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing more than 5000 unarmed people can hardly be "just a massacre". When someone kill a dozen people, it is dubbed as a massacre. Like Belgrade school shooting. As far as I know some verdicts given by the Court of Hague include the term "genocide". The Court said it was a genocide. So why are we even discussing about which term would be most appropriate? Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody AFAIK has ever said "just a massacre", certainly not in any discussion here. But it is simply a fact that sources use both terms with a slight preference for 'massacre' and not infrequently they describe the actual 'killings' as a massacre and the crime as genocide. Even the UN and ICTY in their official pronouncements have done that. This isn't strange, in other massacres the crime committed was murder. The terms are not mutually exclusive anymore than 'poisoning' and 'killing' are. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete is not familiar with definition of term genocide. See below. 122141510 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue then? Why don't you just come up with a solution that would work for all sides? Did you know that official Serbia has been desperately struggling to make the event look more like an accident than an organized killing of dozen of hundred handcuffed men. Therefore it prefers the term "massacre" over "genocide" for the simple reason that the first one sounds less tragic than the later.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can write in the first sentence that this massacre had genocidal intentions, that is the goal of eradicating the Muslims from the region. Perpetrators succeeded in his regards. Twenty nine years after the only trace of Muslims in that region left are mass graveyards.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The boat has sailed on what we call the article, a recent move request failed. It's called the Srebrenica Massacre because that is the term most often used by sources and has been for a long time. The first words for the few last years have been "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide,was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War." I personally think that long term version addresses your 'intent' concern. BTW, apparently we use the word 'genocide' more often than any articles about similar events, so it can hardly be argued that we are 'downplaying' that word. Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The RfC is limited to the first sentence, but the entire opening section would benefit from identifying the event correctly from the first sentence. It would reduce the need to clarify what is actually understood by the title of the event, which includes genocidal rape and forced deportation. Those opening sentences which formulate defining the event only as a massacre or a genocidal killing necessarily excluding these additional details and diminishes the event. It is no wonder past editors have felt obliged to reiterate the fact the event was a genocide in the full sense of the term, as the opening sentence has previously made this unclear. 122141510 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does using the word 'genocide' communicate that rape and forced deportation occurred in a way that massacre excludes? Both of these things happened at Srebrenica of course and under certain circumstances "acts of extreme violence, such as rape and torture, are recognized as falling under the first prohibited act" (killing members of the group). Thus rape can be genocidal in intent/a manifestation of genocide/a common adjunct to genocide, but it is stretching credibility to suggest that the usual meaning of 'genocide' conveys either rape or forced deportation per se.
I agree that the article should identify the topic fully, clearly, concisely and accurately. We don't agree about the recent edit-warred-in version fulfilling that, or certainly about it being the clearest or only "correct" version. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide: Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people, either in whole or in part. [...] The Genocide Convention establishes five prohibited acts that, when committed with the requisite intent, amount to genocide. Genocide is not just defined as wide scale massacre-style killings that are visible and well-documented. International law recognizes a broad range of forms of violence in which the crime of genocide can be enacted [...] While mass killing is not necessary for genocide to have been committed, it has been present in almost all recognized genocides. In certain instances, men and adolescent boys are singled out for murder in the early stages, such as in the genocide of the Yazidis by Daesh, the Ottoman Turks' attack on the Armenians, and the Burmese security forces' attacks on the Rohingya. Men and boys are typically subject to "fast" killings, such as by gunshot. Women and girls are more likely to die slower deaths by slashing, burning, or as a result of sexual violence. The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), among others, shows that both the initial executions and those that quickly follow other acts of extreme violence, such as rape and torture, are recognized as falling under the first prohibited act. [...] This second prohibited act can encompass a wide range of non-fatal genocidal acts. The ICTR and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) have held that rape and sexual violence may constitute the second prohibited act of genocide by causing both physical and mental harm. [...] While it was subject to some debate, the ICTY and, later, the Syrian COI held that under some circumstances deportation and forcible transfer may also cause serious bodily or mental harm.
After extended conversation with someone such as yourself, I realized there are those who are unfamiliar with the language and terminology they are using who will very strongly and consistent assert information which is incorrect. The question I believe is worth tackling is thus, and part of what informs the RfC. i.e. or those more familiar with the material and the English language, "massacre" will only speak to the act of killing, and so "genocide" is necessarily required to remain as it is to contain the totality of events. Anything else is technically incorrect. But this leads to another question to answer – who do we expect to read this article? what level of familiarity do we expect? – but given one of the first sources linked is a 19 page appeal judgement summary from the ICTY, I assume we're necessarily expecting some heightened level of familiarity. At the least the format of Wikipedia means that genocide should remain in the opening sentence so that readers can familiarize themselves with the depths of the term – I encourage you to do the same. You continue to state stuff and nonsense as if any of it were factual. You've no idea what you're talking about, and I did not open the RfC to argue with you again. 122141510 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disputes that rape can constitute genocide (I contributed to the 'Bosnian rape' article), nor that rape and other forms of extreme violence are common adjuncts to genocide, the question was How exactly does using the word 'genocide' communicate that rape and forced deportation occurred in a way that massacre excludes?. If you want to ensure that rape, forced deportation and other crimes are given clear, WP:DUE coverage, the obvious way is to cover them explicitly in the lead, not by assuming that the reader consults the genocide article and absorbs all of it.
I long ago apologised for initially forgetting that the long-term stable version was not "genocidal massacre" (inserted by Tom B around a month ago) but in fact "genocidal killing", which was in place for several years before that. Your favoured version has in fact never had the support of anyone, neither tacit nor explicit apart from you and the IP who initially inserted it a few days ago. You do not even invite RfC-ers to consider, examine, evaluate it alongside the other versions in (clearly unneutral) opening statement. Pincrete (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the least the format of Wikipedia means that genocide should remain in the opening sentence Err it is. It's the alternative title and no one has ever suggested removing that. It is even repeated at least once in all the proposed opening sentences. The question is whether we describe the event ONLY by repeating the alternative title. I don't particularly agree with the second part of your sentence so that readers can familiarize themselves with the depths of the term, we're mainly writing about what happened at Srebrenica, not on genocide.Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're mainly writing about what happened at Srebrenica, not on genocide. A genocide happened at Srebrenica. 122141510 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed SNOW close of RfC

Unless anyone objects in the next 48 hours, I will close the above RfC, the proposing editor says he has left WP and the RfC is a bit futile without that editor being active.

I have already restored the long-term opening sentence (was the July 1995 genocidal killing of …). We can either discuss the various recent variants of this 'opening' and/or any other proposals, and if necessary run a new (neutral) RfC if agreement can't be reached here. Pincrete (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as proposed.Pincrete (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, I am reading the discussion above. It simply draws my attention that you used every argument at your disposal to discourage the use of genocide in the title. Strangely enough, at the same time, you allow the term genocidal killings to be used. So, in other words, my logic tells me: If something is dubbed as "genocidal killings", then it can be called genocide for short.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Владимир Нимчевић, are you talking about the move discussion, or the opening sentence discussion? The alternative title of the article is Srebrenica Genocide, it is in the opening sentence of the lead, which already has more instances of the word 'genocide' than the Holocaust or any comparable event, so I can hardly be accused of using every argument at your disposal to discourage the use of genocide in the title. It's there already, multiple times! What is the simplest, clearest way to describe what happened at the Srebrenica massacre/genocide? Is the relevant question.
The 'genocidal killings' text was the long-term stable text, I have few strong feelings about it either way but restored it pending discussion.I do strongly object to simply repeating the alternative tile as the opening text, on stylistic as well as other grounds. Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence states that massacre is a genocide (that is genocidal killings). I hardly see any difference between a genocide and genocidal killings. In fact, those two words are pretty much the same. The adjective genocidal comes from the word genocide, it means "something related to a genocide". If something is related to a genocide, why don't we call it a genocide in the first place? When speaking about your sources, you may have come across more instances of mentioning Srebrenica massacre than of Srebenica genocide, but still this article admits that this massacre wasn't just any other massacre committed during the war. It was a genocidal massacre. In other words, it is a genocide, after all, but you call it a massacre, even though you define it as a genocide. If something. Remember the saying: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are not accussed, we are not in court. I am just sharing my point of view. I see an inconsisitency in your argumentation as mentioned above.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The opening sentence calls it both a genocide and a genocidal killing: "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim[s]." What's the problem with that? Also, "genocide" encompasses more than killing. The UN Convention defines 5 genocidal acts only one of which is killing. (See Article II here) Using the term "genocidal killing" is therefore the correct subset for this particular genocide. DeCausa (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, so you also agree that this sentence can be interpreted as saying: "Srebrenica massacre... was the July 1995 genocide, (the type of genocide which involves killing)." If something is defined as a genocide (which is the case here), then it should be named so. I see no point in saying that this event is also known as a genocide, if we define it as a genocide in the first place. It is like we are saying: A ball, also known as a sphere, is a spherical object. That is duplicating, and duplicating is neither a good style nor a encyclopedic.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is what genocidal killings actually mean in this context. If it the other way of saying that Srebrenica massacre is a genocide (the type of genocide that involves killings), then there is no point in keeping the part of the sentence that says: also known as Srebrenica genocide. In other words, that's repeating.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason why this should be named Srebrenica genocide is that the term genocidal killings used in the opening sentence actually leads to the article genocide.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you are talking about? What specifically do you want changed? DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you see there is a repetition in the opening sentence? "Srebrenica massacre, also known as Srebrenica genocide, is a genocide..." Genocidal killings is just another way of saying a genocide that involves mass killings... Even the link in the sentence leads to the article related to genocide. From what I see here, this should be named Srebrenica genocide. The only problem, as far as was able to see, is that sources tend to use the term massacre, rather that genocide. Also, the article is part of the category Bosnian genocide. So Srebrenica massacre is either part of the Bosnian genocide, of which we don't have an article, or a genocide itself. The first sentence says everything.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what you want to change it to? I don't see any problem with the current sentence so what are you proposing it to be changed to? Or are you just talking about the article title. You need to be clear - what are you proposing?DeCausa (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying from what is given here, in this article, this should be named Srebrenica genocide. You don't see any repetition? That is strange. This sentence would sound more natural had it been written this way: Srebrenica genocide, also known as Srebrenica massacre, was the act of killing etc.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, can't do that. We follow WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Srebrenica massacre is perhaps a more common name than Srebrenica genocide, but Srebrenica massacre is defined as genocide here. Thus, this article is essentially about genocide, but the genocide is titled as massacre.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has only just recently been a move discussion, to rename, followed by a review of the move discussion, followed by … .
That bird has flown I'm afraid, whatever anyone's notion of what the article title should be, it's 'massacre' for the foreseeable future, because that is still the name most commonly used to describe the event. Quite a few genocides don't have that word in their title, most obviously the Holocaust. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the bird has flown, nor the ship has sailed away. How did you come to such a conclusion? Did you read a lot of articles and books on the subject, or do you just suppose it this as you say it is? Holocaust is a different story. It was coined before the term genocide was introduced. This article is related to an instance of genocide (genocidal killings, as you say), but, strangely, you refuse to name it the same way. So Srebrenica massacre it is a genocide after all. But you just do not want to allow it to be titled likewise. It is essential to be aware of that fact. Now I can add the article to a category related to genocides.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already added to a genocide category. Look at the list of categories at the bottom of the. article. You seem to fail to understand Wikipedia article naming policy or previous discussions including the RfC. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen several sources cited in this article that use the term genocide in the title, yet still, you keep saying the more common name is the Srebrenica massacre. Where is your evidence that the latter is true? Few months ago the UN declaration was adopted, removing any ambiguity about interpreting this event. It should be viewed as an act of genocide. Naturally, the Serbian side has maintained its separate stance, but that does not mean others should follow the Serbian suit. Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
have seen several sources cited in this article that use the term genocide in the title, yet still, you keep saying the more common name is the Srebrenica massacre. Where is your evidence that the latter is true? Errrr No one disputes that some sources refer to the incident as SG (that's why it's an alternative title FFS!). The UN and ICTY use both terms in different contexts, the UN has recently favoured SG, but we don't follow UN usages.
The evidence that SM was much more common than SG in the past and is now slightly more common is in the move discussion, please read it. We don't follow, nor seek to go against fringe positions, such as Serb deniers, just as we don't seek to marginalise flat-earthers or covid conspirators. Pincrete (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also not seen the evidence that the most common name is massacre. The move request is pending review. Also, Pincrete, I wasn't really convinced by this comment of yours [1]. Also, I'm very well familiar that the genocide is heavily denied in Serbia and it's just natural that people who deny the genocide would like to "lower" it to "only" massacre. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much problems with the lead sentece regarding the info presented. It clearly defines the event as genocide. I'm not really interested whether it can be forumated in a better way, just the info given. I was advocating to rename the article into the Srebrenica genocide because that term is more precise and it can't be misinterpreted as "mearley a massacre, but not genocide". Trimpops2 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead alone currently uses 'genocide' or 'genocidal' nine times, that's eight times more than the Holocaust I believe! While I would not wish to give comfort to 'deniers', countering them isn't our purpose, they wouldn't take us seriously anyway IMO. Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't have probems with article text in regards that it describes the even as genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you that Holocaust was coined before the term genocide was introduced. Holocaust was introduced to emphasize those murders carried out by the Nazis.

Errrr No one disputes that some sources refer to the incident as SG (that's why it's an alternative title FFS!).

Come on, Pincrete, you can do better than that. SG wasn't merely an incident. The killings were committed on purpose. Systematically. Even the Dutch forces helped Mladic realize his evil plans (unintentionally and indirectly, of course) by handing over those civilians (unarmed men). Those were cold bloody murders. No one can deny that. Even the Serbian side can't deny they actually took place. I remember the time when they denied they even happened on their watch. They wanted the world to think some other forces carried out those attrocities and that no killing was committed on Serbian part. Incident? That is exactly what those deniers expect us to think. They don't want any responsibilities on their shoulders. And you should not make it easy for them. There are a lot of references that mention the event as SG. I haven't started counting them, but I think I should do that.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to edit the article. I don't see why Pincrete would have any objections to different forumation for the lead sentece as long as it contains all info as present sentece. It doesn't matter if the presente sentece is longstanding. If you think it can have a better formulation that's more clear and less repetative, I don't see any problems there. What's your purposed sentece? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said "merely an incident". An incident = an event (the term you use) = something that happened! Pincrete (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, can you understand that some have implied "merely" a massacre , but not genocide? Or merely war crime, but not genocide, or merely killings, but not genocide? Do you understand that not every massacre is genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think I have ever heard anyone say "merely" a massacre , but not genocide, though I've heard all kinds of 'denial' iro Srebrenica. If they have said this then it's an extremely odd thing to say. It's like saying "merely" a bloodbath , but not murder, "merely" mass slaughter, but not homicide. It isn't even clear what these mean.
But people will find all sorts of ways to 'downplay' extreme behaviour if they are determined to do so. Holocaust deniers will typically say that "the numbers who died are greatly exaggerated", without saying how they know this or what the 'real' numbers are. WP is an encyc making available factual info to those curious enough to want to read it, it isn't an organisation seeking to fight or negate 'denial'. When challenged about this earlier you produced ample sources that said that Serb politicians denied the genocide, but none that appeared to have said "merely" a massacre. Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said that they implied the word "merely". What they say is something like "a terrible massacre, but not genocide". Do you understand that the meaning is the same? Not genocide is the key point there. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica changed title to Srebrenica genocide

Check it here: https://www.britannica.com/event/Srebrenica-genocide 77.77.216.185 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 addition to Srebrenica

An issue had been noticed at Talk:Srebrenica#"British Army documents declassified in 2019". This was apparently added in an anonymous edit in 2020. If there's something useful for this topic there, it should be added here instead. --Joy (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in 2024, another editor had also amended it with this change with the edit summary: Added a page that has the quoted letter visible - source is very pro-serb, shows other articles at end though. --Joy (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 years later

..and Wikipedia still won’t call this outright a genocide in the headline. That is why the idea that Wikipedia operates on is utterly flawed in its utopia. Scores and bands of unvetted unmerited biased partisan ”editors” hiding behind user names you would find in a Reddit thread and who through their share malicious commitment manage to push through what is in the best case an awkward bizarre status quo and in the worst case an outright blurring of facts. Wikipedia will probably be replaced by AI (already now AI searches on Google provide a more neutral and versatile understanding of many subjects). Until then seemingly the genocide in Srebrenica (Bosnia) will remain here on Wikipedia, as it did in 1995, a testament to the shame and disgrace human endeavor is capable of. 83.250.222.89 (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is tiresome, the lead alone states (I believe) 6 times that twhat happened at Srebrenica has been ruled to constitute genocide, therefore it is simply absurd to imply we don't make this explicit. But WP article names are dictated by WP:COMMONNAME, and it is still the case that in English, "Srebrenica massacre" is the more common name, this was assessed to still be the case only a year or so ago. Possibly because the name was established long before the court rulings, I personally remember when the event was referred to as "the Fall of Srebrenica", and some languages still use that term. Whatever name it went by, the more one found out about it, the more "shameful" it became.
Not everything is called the XYZ Genocide, the wartime killing of around 6 million Jews is generally called The Holocaust, not "The Jewish Genocide" the 1930 killing of Ukrainians is commonly called the Holdomor, not the "Ukrainian genocide". Personally, and I hasten to say this is personal, I don't even understand why the cynical murder/massacre/killing of around 9,000, terrified, demoralised, completely unarmed men and boys is somehow OK, but if you call it 'genocide' it becomes somehow 'badder'. My own experience of A1 is that it ordinarily produces verbose garbage, so I don't see a threat yet. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very persuasive explanation, thank you Jameson Nightowl (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, "I don't even understand why the cynical murder/massacre/killing of around 9,000, terrified, demoralised, completely unarmed men and boys is somehow OK, but if you call it 'genocide' it becomes somehow 'badder'". I've explained it to you, but you simply refuse to understand. It is "badder" to Serbian goverment which is accepting the crime killing/massacre, but denying the genocide. That they are doing this is simply a fact. So please, stop preaching that this should be that way in your opinion. It is that way and that's it. They are considering it "baddder" and it's not a streach to understand why people who recognize that genocide had happened are having problems with statements "it was a terrible crime, but not genocide". I've explained it to you that not all massacres are genocides by the Genocide convention. In that aspect as well, it's "badder" because 2 things need to be proven, act of massacre and the intent to destroy the group. So, it is "badder" both by Genocide convention and by the opinion of those who deny the genocide. 89.172.69.207 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-read what Pincrete has said because you've missed the point. The Hundred Years War lasted 116 years. Bombay Duck is a fish. Tin foil is now made of aluminium. The Holocaust was a genocide. Our article titles use the common name in English. You need to read WP:COMMONNAME to understand. But that's doesn't change what it is. The article makes it crystal clear it was genocide. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeCausa, Do you agree that some people (most notably Serbian government) is accepting that a terrible massacre had occured, but deny that genocide had happened? I'm not saying the article does it nor that anything is wrong with article title as is. Can we agree on that? 89.172.69.207 (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many genocides have their "deniers". But, so what? The function of Wikipedia articles is not to right wrongs. And our talk pages are also WP:NOTAFORUM to make a points about real world issues. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm glad that you agree. DeCausa So can we then agree, that the term massacre for this event, by itself (that means , without article body explaining) can have double meaning. It can be used by those who accept that this specific massacre constitutes genocide and by those who deny genocide but accpet the crime of killings/massaccre? And in that regard , can we agree that the term genocide for this event is more precise because in encaptulates both the crime of killings/massacre and the intent to destroy the group. I'm not asking which term is more common, but which one is more precise. 89.172.69.207 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've alrrady explained to you that that's not a question that's relevant to Wikipedia and if you continue with this you will be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a question relevant to the article and I'm in the bounds of discussing the article content. 89.172.69.207 (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I obviously agree totally with DeCause about commonname, but over and above that, we aren't here to argue with 'denialists' of any kind. In my experience, those who seek to downplay the ignomony of this event will do so regardless of overwhelming evidence or any legal ruling etc. There are people who believe the earth is flat and that viruses cause autism. One cannot argue with a conviction that someopne did not get to based on evidence or logic. One can only provide the evidence to open minds. We are an encyclopedia, not an advocacy site, regardless of how much we might agree with what such a site's advocacy. Pincrete (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, I don't intent to write walls of text. I know all about common name, but I'll ask you again, which term is more precise. Because there is only one correct answer here. This isn't open for debate. 89.172.69.207 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is in simple terms more 'precise'. One conveys cruel pointless killing, one conveys a legal judgement about the intent of that killing with regard to the entire Bosniak people of the region (to effectively permanently destroy the Bosniak presence of the region). Is 'slaughter' more precise than 'mass murder'? One term is descriptive, one is definable legally. Regardless, we aren't here to tell people what term they must use, so the question is academic.
We don't tell people what they must call an event or place unless their clear intent is to downplay/minimise. Auschwitz was an extermination camp, its primary purpose was killing people as quickly as physically possible, but the common name is 'concentration camp'. In and of itself, using the term 'concentration camp' doesn't imply that one doesn't know the horror of what happened there, or that one seeks to downplay it.
There may well be people, especially Serb public figures, who seek to admit 'crime' or 'massacre' as a way of deflecting criticism. We aren't here to challenge such people or prove them wrong, or instruct them what term they must use. In my limited contact with such people, it would be fruitless anyway. I understand and broadly respect those that do challenge such minimising, but it isn't WP's purpose.Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section currently says that the massacre "was mainly perpetrated by units of the Dutch "peacekeeping" forces and the Bosnian Serb Army"

This seems very wrong 2600:1702:7220:C87F:DCFF:38AD:81E2:4F8 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=1300993922"