Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Question about added words in quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denial Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Srebrenica genocide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree. The common name policy means article names should indeed reflect what the reader is most likely to use rather than necessarily suggesting that the UN terminology is binding for this site, but the fact the UN calls it a genocide is just the latest in a long series of established entities referring to the Srebrenica genocide as the Srebrenica genocide. The UN call it the Srebrenica genocide, memorials in the city call it the Srebrenica genocide, the general public refers to it as the Srebrenica genocide. I am not a bureaucrat of this site, so perhaps I misunderstand the criteria, but it seems bizarre to see people citing the common name policy to defend the continued name that most users are now less likely to use (and have been less likely to for some time). 122141510 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

As I mentioned above, it seems bizarre to cite a common name policy to defend the continued naming of an article by something other than its current common name. Here, you are feigning neutrality with the guise of bureaucratically-minded diligence, but all your posts are throwing up roadblocks. 122141510 (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You keep claiming neutrality, but have taken time out of your day several times to respond to posts citing policies as a reason why the name cannot easily be changed. You took affront at me "impugn[ing]" some possible motives, but continue to do exactly that, and are now dismissing any arguments except yours as "irrelevant". I stand by what I said earlier – you are feigning neutrality, but rather support the current name, and cite existing policies as a reason it would be difficult to exchange. If you really had no horse in this race, instead of repeatedly citing why it cannot be explained, you might begin to cite resources or even actively assist in getting the ball rolling on investigating how to get the name changed. From your own testimony, you are obviously more familiar with Wikipedia policies than the rest of us – after all, according to you, we are but a bunch of previously uninvolved editors agreeing with each others irrelevant arguments, and we'll never "cut the mustard." So are you going to help or are you going to keep throwing up obstacles? If it's the latter, then as Njamu said, your comments are available for anyone to read, they do not need to repeated ad nauseum. --122141510 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I Agree with that. because Srebrenica genocide is a historical fact. Genocide is not about numbers (although 8,000 summarily executed is a large number), it's about intent. For anyone who analyzed international judgments, the intent was clear with written order from then the President of RS himself. We need to stop arguing and we need to agree that basic historical facts cannot be changed. Srebrenica genocide is the proper name. Thank you for giving me opportunity to vote on this subject. I hope my fellow Serbs will also vote in favour of Srebrenica genocide. 24.87.14.45 (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After reading thru the bricks of !votes, I can definitely say that there is no consensus to move at this time. I had thought of relisting but thought that would be a waste of the community’s time. Feel free to make another RM when due. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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

I Agree with that. I notice there are 2 sections on the vote. I was confused whether to vote above or below. First of all, Srebrenica genocide is a historical fact and genocide is not about numbers (although 8,000 summarily executed is a large number), it's about intent. For neutral observer who studied, analyzed (or simply read) international judgments on Srebrenica, the intent was clear with written order from then the President of RS himself, Mr. Radovan Karadzic. Basic historical facts cannot be changed. Srebrenica genocide is the proper name for this wiki article. The only thing I would suggest (for future) is to make this article shorter and a bit more concise, but that can be done some other time. It is more important to honor historical facts, and to name this article with proper name that is Srebrenica genocide. Thank you. 24.87.14.4524.87.14.45 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  I'd suggest the change from Sears Tower to Willis Tower occurring the same year as the tower's name changed is another similar example, and one which reflects that Wikipedia policies are regularly interpreted in a way that allows the site to be consistent for end users while still being dynamic enough to maintain relevance to a wider audience. There is no defined 'duration' for which a set of criteria must be satisfied to justify a move request. At any point in time, an article's title should satisfy policy and guidelines, and editors can always speak to how any title on this site satisfies them. When they can't, I don't see anything suggesting that in such a circumstance a move request should succeed if a more suitable title is proposed. --122141510 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Of course, you cannot solely look at the title as a thing purely without looking at the context of the article. As discussed in this move request and in examples of past move requests cited in this discussion, the word 'massacre' may be inherently POV in this context, which arguably invalidates the current title and so a conversation can be had either about reaching a consensus on a move to Srebrenica genocide as proposed, or else proposing alternate titles and hoping to reach a consensus on that. Of course, some editors might attempt to disingenuously reframe questions or other bad faith methods by which to stall out the process and attempt to ignore an obligation to work in good faith to reach a consensus, but those editors will eventually discredit themselves by repeatedly taking such an approach. 122141510 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  I do not follow a rationale for opposing for the sake of a "terminological structure" relative to other names. If anything, it could strike readers as bizarre that the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial links to something other than an article called Srebrenica genocide. 122141510 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

You may be entirely correct, but if you are, you'd have to submit a proposal to rename the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial and have that proposal succeed. But in lieu of that being done, the argument that the current article we're talking about should retain its current naming to maintain consistency with other articles doesn't exactly work. (You cannot have your cake and eat it too.) 122141510 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I didn't say you were the one making the argument, and I didn't say the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial was involved in any sort of 'denial'. You are moving goalposts. 122141510 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Don't misunderstand me. You've consistently claimed to be neutral and that "Personally I don't care that much what the title is as long as the article records as accurately as possible what happened and as long as the name is the one most readers are likely to recognise. I'm not certain what that is any longer. Others clearly feel they are certain." but all of your comments on this talk page have consistently questioned one potential title and not the other. My previous comment to you was in the context of the initial oppose by Sorabino, my questioning of their rationale for oppose, and your subsequent attempt to justify their pose with what seemed irrelevant. I would not accuse you of having any motive outside of an obvious preference for the status quo, despite your claims otherwise. Though they may not be entitled to articulate it here, others are entitled to infer why that might be the case. --122141510 (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I would suggest those citing COMMONNAME as reason to oppose to show their workings. Having read through the policy and looked through some relatively recent examples where an article name was changed per that policy, I anticipate writing a comment in support of a name change for this article, and citing COMMONNAME. --122141510 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I am not averse to going down the route of RGW, because I believe it should still resolve to renaming the article Srebrenica genocide anyways, but having lurked Wikipedia for many years, I do not know if I trust editors to fully appreciate that fact. I'd much rather see editors stick to recognizing that the most common name for this event should be the name used by Wikipedia. Again, if you are a Wikipedia editor – no, you do not take your marching orders from the UN, but when your name is at odds with what the UN is using, you should actively investigate why that is. Simply citing a policy to support the status quo of an article strikes me as lazy and misunderstanding the situation; the 'burden of proof', as it were, is on Wikipedia editors to find justification for the disparity. There is a lot to consider with the name of this article, and there will only be so many opportunities to revisit the title and seriously consider what it is called and why. In the progress of this proposal so far, I'm not seeing any serious consideration of anything. Even if the rename fails, I would suggest Wikipedia editors at least try to have a serious conversation. 122141510 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

COMMONNAME: Google Scholar Results

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

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

Adding to the Google Scholar data presented above, regarding the frequency of both terms, these are results for the first half of this year (2024), from 1 January to 30 June (today), showing no clear prevalence of use, with slight advantage for the first term. These numbers also indicate that the second term should not be regarded as the more common, at the present time, thus making the proposed move somewhat premature (2024 data presented bellow). Sorabino (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Support: Anything other than the term "genocide" is genocide denial. Also I would argue that if Armenian genocide has "genocide" in it's name, Srebrenica should also have it. | Z1KA (R) | 17:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

COMMONNAME: Google Scholar Results

Year	Srebrenica massacre	Srebrenica genocide
2024 (first half)	112	96

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

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

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

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

AI response: GPT4o

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

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

This comment is a good example of something I discussed in my support post – for some, it is the current article name which 'rights the great wrong' of daring to acknowledging the Srebrenica genocide as a genocide. Sorabino, you might not like the UN methodology and feel their procedures did not resolve to what you might think should be the best possible outcome, but this move request isn't an opportunity for you to legislate these things. (Aside: where did your comment spring from? "Regarding the consensus?" opened up the opportunity for you to begin questioning UN procedures here in what sense?) 122141510 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That's a very interesting point of difference. Since genocide does discriminate in its execution of mass slaughter, it's another demonstration how it's a more concise term for this article than massacre -- With conciseness being one of the criteria to consider for an article title. --122141510 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The equivalence is not false, but regardless. The only potential relevance of pointing out a vote "slipped through" would be to imply that there will could be some future vote that will revoke the recognition and that that vote would make a conscious point of using a different name. And then, in tandem, all the other jurisdictions around the world which have referred to it as the Srebrenica genocide will do the same. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that relevance is spurious. Sorabino questioning a UN procedure does not speak to the Wikipedia common name policy or any of the criteria for an article name. It goes down a rabbit hole with questionable motive to take this move request down at all. --122141510 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

That wasn't my argument. I appreciate one of my earlier comments in this discussion was not concise but it used the UN as an example of one of many sources demonstrating it is the most common name in use at this time. If this move request fails because the brunt of criticism continues to be on the UN in and of itself, vs recognizing the UN declaration is a reason to give one pause and evaluate the title of this article, then that to me would indicate that a new move request would need to be made immediately afterward because too many editors as misunderstand the situation because of how it was framed by the editor who initially requested the move. That is procedural fluff – I assume most people, including yourself, appreciate that the move request needs to be considered according to the relevant Wikipedia policies. Once again, we're not doing this, and further down Sorabino's rabbit hole we go. 122141510 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

We have not seen effective arguments in favor of opposing the move request on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Policies are sited but when I question why those policies are sited, no elaboration is provided, and good comments on this discussion are diverted to veiled arguments about the legitimacy of the UN. I would encourage anyone else in this user's position to recognize that, as comically absurd as some of the conversation can seem here to non-regular contributors to Wikipedia, the oppose argument is not providing any coherent rationale for their opposition to the move request. It seems that the next best thing they can do is create an impression of a lack of ability to form consensus. Emotional replies will feed into that impression so they are not just not helpful, I worry that they could actually harm the outcome of this request. --122141510 (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

This response does not speak to determining the most suitable name for the article according to Wikipedia policy, repetitive from your previous comments, and I assert is deliberately off-topic.. I request you to stop. (c.f. WP:ICANTHEARYOU) 122141510 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

As I said earlier, questioning a UN procedure does not speak to the Wikipedia common name policy or any of the criteria for an article name. So why are we having the conversation? I feel nothing you've just said is new from what you've said before, and nothing I'm saying is new from what I've said before. Your comment here is instructive – you seem to think continuing to attack the legitimacy of the UN's resolution will reveal the initial request rationale as 'invalid' and there is no further discussion to have. I myself said earlier If this move request fails because the brunt of criticism continues to be on the UN in and of itself, vs recognizing the UN declaration is a reason to give one pause and evaluate the title of this article, then that to me would indicate that a new move request would need to be made immediately afterward because too many editors as misunderstand the situation because of how it was framed by the editor who initially requested the move. That is procedural fluff... and from reviewing other move requests, that isn't how it works. If we can reach a consensus on moving the article even on criteria different from the initial proposed rationale for the move, we should work to do so. Your posts don't work to achieve that. You are simply reasserting the same points about the UN, over and over, and failing to impress their relevance on the greater picture that has been illustrated here. We're moving on to discussing the article name according to Wikipedia guidelines, criteria, and policy. --122141510 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

A good case has been made by Tom as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE. 122141510 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Alright, so you don't agree but aren't able to talk specifics when prompted, and have also ignored WP:TITLE and the fact Srebrenica genocide is more precise than Srebrenica massacre at least three times on this page. Your intangible opposition is noted but does nothing to help reach consensus. My assertion is that this is intentionally being done on your part because, as you mentioned on my talk page, you are biased to the status quo. I'd suggest yours and Sorabino's inability to work towards a consensus is deliberate action that should be discounted. --122141510 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Much of your response here speaks to your 'beliefs' and personal opinions about what the common name is, with anecdotes to support them. You make no strong case that 'massacre' or 'genocide' is the common name. Your criticism of 'genocide' as more precise being a circular argument is confusing. Are you asserting this article is not about a genocide, or that that is somehow up for question? There are a number of sources in the article that speak to that. How many of those sources do you assert are not reputable by the standards of Wikipedia? 122141510 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"the present name has very long term agreement and doesn't need justifying." That isn't true. Things should always be readily explained to anyone, even a wider audience. For example, when non-active editors of this site ask "well, why is Wikipedia still use the term 'Srebrenica genocide' when the UN and the US government uses the term, the term 'genocide' is more precise than massacre, and it is in the running for the common name?" editors should be able to point a policy and explain how the decision to maintain the current title speaks to those policies, and the policies are being interpreted in a way that keeps this site relevant and useful to users. "Well there was an agreement once and we don't have to justify ourselves" is self-evidently ridiculous. I believe it becomes fair to question whether your contributions are being done in good faith. --122141510 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A 'status quo' which I have no problem with, despite it being much less the COMMONNAME than it once was." In other words, you're not interested in working towards developing a consensus. All your comments have been working towards a filibustering technique because you are biased to the status quo, something you've now formally asserted yourself in these comments. Now that I would no longer have to ask other editors to read between the lines to infer that from your comments, I don't need to reply to any more of your comments, either. User:Pincrete's contributions to this conversation should be considered in this light as someone who is not working to build a consensus, but as a biased editor pushing their own PoV. --122141510 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this editor that COMMONNAME is currently a "toss up" of sorts. In such a situations, editors should take part in a consensus-building discussion, which editor has failed to do through their comments on this request. The assessment that the current title is less contentious, more established is their own, not formed by consensus, and with which no evidence to support that assessment. A case has been made that the current title is actually more contentious, and they have chosen to ignore that. 122141510 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I involved myself in this move request after a conversation I had with someone who has views similar to yours. I had the time and interest to attempt to prove to them "no, the article title up to this point has always had reasonable doubt about what the title should be, but now there is a material change in circumstances with a reliable source that anyone could understand as indicating a clear change in what the most common name used for the event/events is/are. A move request should succeed because Wikipedians are obliged to reach consensus according that and other policies". This move request will either succeed and prove you wrong (I hope you would be satisfied to be wrong in this case), or else you will be able to use it as an example par excellence of how Wikipedia policy is not applied consistently, and therefore the utility and reliability of the site for serious end users (such as yourself, myself, and my friend) is up for debate. --122141510 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  Using this rationale to justify the current title is a violation of WP:RGW. Massacre itself is, according to editors of this site in previous move requests, inherently WP:POV. You are yet again ignoring an appeal to reach a consensus to find the article title that best fits according to this site's guidelines and policies. 122141510 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose per the COMMONNAME evidence presented above by Tom B, and !votes along these lines by Pincrete, 162 and others. There may come a time when common usage favours genocide, but it isn't yet, and given that labelling it a "genocide" in Wikipedia's voice when not all sources do so is more extreme than calling it a massacre would also require a clearly defined common name along those lines to have emerged - a genocide is ipso facto a massacre, but not all massacres are genocides.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Srebrenica Massacre was a genocide. This fact isn't in dispute here. The article already says so. To claim that not all sources "do so" isn't correct. There are sources which deny genocide, but should we use those sources when the article isn't disputing genocide? I have posted examples of sources which use the term massacre in the title, but later in the text it's explained that this massacre is gencoide. No probelms with those group of sources. As I understand , your whole point is misdirected towards the discussion whether this massacre was genocide or not. This isn't the discussion for that. but not all massacres are genocides This is exactly why this article needs to be renamed, because the term massacre is misleading. It is used by objective sources which explain that this specific massacre was genocide, but also by sources which deny the genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As you put it yourself, " a genocide is ipso facto a massacre, but not all massacres are genocides", which is why it is less accurate and less precise to title this article as a 'massacre' rather than a 'genocide', in violation of WP:CRITERIA. 122141510 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Pincrete. There more important things to watch over in regard of this article and topic in general.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment on precision: I see several repeated mentions of WP:CRITERIA and "precision" here. In article title policy, precision means The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "Precision" in any other colloquial or formal sense, while possibly a valid concern, is what not this policy is concerned with. In this case, both phrases clearly refer to the topic of this article and not any other topic. They equally satisfy the criterion. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Fully support: It is more precise to call it Srebrenica Genocide over Srebrenica Massacre, and with that name Wikipedia shows support and more importantly recognition of the horrible attacks carried out by the Republika Srpska army. I actually believe it's necessary to rename the article as it raises more awareness about the event. A massacre can be an event outside of warfare, as in a terrorist attack or a mass shooting, but Srebrenica was a genocide, an ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims, a.k.a. Bosniaks, which were executed in order to create an ethnically clean Greater Serbia. Ajdin Sejdinović (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I can understand renaming to "genocide" per the UN but to me this still seems misleading in that I imagine most people consider genocides to be done in the context of systematic occupations rather than individual massacres on civil war–contested territory? Like it'd be much more logical to refer to the overall conduct of VRS in the war as a genocide, namely the "Bosnian genocide", and then we find that was not ruled a genocide by the UN etc.. I think the term from the lede, genocidal massacre, is good enough and encourages the finding of the UN of genocidal intent while still not falsely equating a massacre with the Holocaust, 17-year Gaza blockade etc.. Relatedly, the article needs an actual analysis of whether the massacre was also a genocide or not without just appealing to the UN as if they own the word. FMasic (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, this comment just show why the term massacre is not the right one for the article name. There's no dispute whether this was genocide or not. It was proven before international courts that it was and the article isn't disputing that. The genocide convention is pretty clear and it doesn't matter if some people are misinterpreting it. That's why we have international courts. Why are you even mentioning the Holocaust or Gaza? This isn't relevant here. the article needs an actual analysis of whether the massacre was also a genocide or not - no it doesn't. The article needs to report that it was a genocide as determined by international courts and the article needs to report that the genocide is denied by some. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

And you are misinterpreting the UN resolution. The resolution didn't bring any "judgement" over the events, but have condemned the widespread denial of the genocide in some countries. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIALNAME. —  AjaxSmack  19:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • UCN does not prefer either the current title or the proposed new title. How does OFFICIALNAME relate? 122141510 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title." —  AjaxSmack  19:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

      What is the official name of the event that is documented in this article? Who officially named it as such? 122141510 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, let's be blatant here. Some editos who don't acknowledge genocide (and the denial section shows how widespread that is) are just fishing for any reason to have this article say massacre, because that's an ordinary war crime and not genocide. If this discussion was to be set up proper we could distinguist between them and objective users which do use the term massacre , but also acknowledge genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That runs afoul of WP:AGF, but asking people to explain how a policy they cite as reason to support or oppose a request does not. 122141510 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510 Absolutely not. I don't have problems if anyone is denying genocide. Everyone is free to present arguments, sources, etc...absolutely nothing of "bad faith" there either from them by having such a stand, nor me if infere such a stand. Mayone genocide denial is a sensitive topic in the light of the holocaust, but my point is not that there's anything bad with that, but that we can't build wikipedia on misinterpretations. To distance from genocide and it's sensitivity, I can provide an example of the same discussion I have on Tesla page. People who deny Tesla was born in Croatia are ignoring sources and their whole stand is that this info is "not needed" in the article. Such a position is flawed , because they have formed the article text in such a way where it's possible to make such claims that Tesla wasn't born in Croatia. We can't have text with double meaning if we already have sources which are resolving that double meaning. If someone is denying genocide, fine , but don't pretend to be concerned about common name or something else. The Tesla article is a better example. Analogous to this situation would be someone with the stand "Massacre is a common name we don't need to rename", but on the talk page they would post comment "The genocide didn't happen at all, it was just a massacre". On that article they do exact that. On this article, because genocide denial is somewhat taboo, they are hiding their stand. I've asked several editors to see their stand, and you can read their answer. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Tesla talk page discussion is not the same issue as this. The only thing in common is your frustration. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the topic for such comments. I've merely used Tesla example to further explain my point that I was making regarding this topic and I think I have explained it pretty well. Trimpops2 (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On a quick glance through of the talk page in question I see some players and elements in common – e.g.; "oh look, the editor who doth protest too much when identified as pushing a PoV which happens to align with Serbian revisionism is pushing a PoV which happens to align with Serbian revisionism again!" – but AjaxSmack isn't one of those players or elements, and I'm not seeing what you are if you're jumping to make that connection as well. I also don't think bringing up another contentious topic which is actively being debated on another talk page is immediately helpful to the outcome of the RM here. 122141510 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No no, I was not trying to say anything against AjaxSmack. I really don't know hisstand, nor this was directed towards him. I've just answered in under his comment. Trimpops2 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On a quick glance through of the talk page in question I see some players and elements in common – e.g.; "oh look, the editor who doth protest too much when identified as pushing a PoV which happens to align with Serbian revisionism is pushing a PoV which happens to align with Serbian revisionism again!" Would you care to let us in on which editor or editors you consider are players and elements in common or pushing a PoV which happens to align with Serbian revisionism on that page or this. Or would you prefer to strike through the offending remarks? Your last attempt to discredit an editor at ANI was an unmitigated disaster in which every participant said you had no case whatsoever against anyone, were abusing procedure to win a content dispute, and you narrowly escaped a WP:BOOMERANG imo.

Assuming good faith is not optional and it is no less 'bad faith' to malign editors without naming them than otherwise. If you can't resist making toxic insinuations, please stay away from contentious topic areas. Pincrete (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Take it away from this discussion to the users talk pageTrimpops2 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In the many years I have watched this page, I do not recall ever reading an editor saying "The genocide didn't happen at all, it was just a massacre". Such editors simply don't exist AFAIK. Also, even those (mainly Serb) politicians who accept the term 'massacre' or 'killings' or similar, but reject the term 'genocide', don't say "it was just a massacre". You conjecture into existence motives for editors and 'politicians', which are not borne out by evidence (in the case of editors), or sources, in the case of politicians. I can also conjecture my own set of possible reasons why Serb politicians might be unwilling to accept the 'genocide' term, but willing to accept 'massacre'/'killings'/'somesuch', but that is what it would be, pure conjecture. You continue to speak of using one term rather than the other as deliberate 'downplaying' as though it were a common phenomenon here on WP and in the world outside, when actually, outside Serb society, it is almost unknown to in any way 'downplay' the horror of the event. There are scholars who have disputed the 'genocide' verdict, but to represent tham as saying, or implying, "it was just a massacre" is a grotesque distortion of their views. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

They don't have to say it in that exact words, but if someone denies the Srebrenica Genocide, by not contesting that the massacre actually took place, they are doing just that. And I'm sure I've heard the exact phrase or the equivalent one "it was just a war crime, but not genocide". You conjecture into existence motives for editors and 'politicians', I already told you, I don't care what their motives are. I'm reporting what they are doing. I can also conjecture my own set of possible reasons why Serb politicians might be unwilling to accept the 'genocide' you can, but why would your conjecture be relevant. I can report that sometimes they speak about their motives. Often they say that this is trying to label Serbs as genocidal nation and that they are fighting against that. But that's just for those who state that. I don't know what every single person listed in the denial section does that, unless they state their motives. But as I said, I don't need to report what motives they have, I'm just reporting in the denial section that they are denying genocide. as though it were a common phenomenon, yes, I've stated that it's widespread, nad you are free to read the denial section of this article. And your ridiculous objection is that I'm using SYNTH where I can point to several dozen cases, but I don't have a source to say "there are several dozen cases". outside Serb society, it is almost unknown to in any way, not true. Read the denial section, there are many individuals who aren't Serbian who are doing that. I was never stating this is only the case in Serbia, although in Serbia it's common to hear such statements.is a grotesque distortion of their views, no, it's an accurate representation of their views. Your only problem here is the word "just". If I said it and said: "it wan't genocide, but a terrible massacre", it's an equivalent statement. The adverb doesn't change the meaning of the even being a msssacre, but not constituting genocide. Of course, those who are smarter are not using the word "just", when denying the genocide, but they speak of how a terrible crime that was, but not genocide. And you can find your own words form a previous comment of yours in this last sentece, as you did it too. So if you are going to argue that it wasn't genocide, don't try to appease by talking how terrible crime that was. IT means nothing if it was "just" or "terrible" massacre in the sense that they are tryin to make, that is, that it isn't genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Tom B. I found an increasing trend of Srebrenica genocide appearing in scholarly publications. And even on the other side, there are many descriptions and definitions of the atrocity as genocide, in cases where the author chooses to use the term massacre. It's clear that the intent of the Scorpions was genocide. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Common name discussion is deeply flawed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would encourage you not to make primarily emotional arguments or double-post. It is difficult to read and does not advance the discussion. I have firmly insisted that those expressing their objection to this move request should be able to speak to Wikipedia policy and guidelines as rationale for their decision. I believe those in support of the move should also be able to do the same. Your approach also takes us down rabbit holes that do not clearly lead to building towards a consensus, nor do you clearly speak to how the proposed title satisfies policy and guidelines. I believe your general point – the current title is frustrating and for those unfamiliar with how the site decides titles, no clear and satisfying explanation that assuages any concern regarding bias of the current title has been offered – has been made in this move request. Also, if there is a covert denial on the part of some Wikipedians to tactically deny the genocide, it would be be done by experienced Wikipedians who, through years of 'selective pressure' insofar as how this site works, would be some of the most intelligent, patient, and methodical individuals in the topic area. They would be careful to not make their bias overt, and since Wikipedia does not have any process to automatically investigate or address bias just because someone accuses another person of bias anyways, it will not go anywhere. They would have learned how to manoeuvre the corpus of articles they are interested in to a state they are satisfied with, and then figured out how to 'weaponize' site policy to maintain the state of those articles. If anything, your emotional commenting will only make it more difficult to ever investigate such circumstance, because your posting style means you could easily be dismissed as WP:FRINGE by a dispassionate third party. --122141510 (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. Assuming, if this RM request fails, if someone came to the talk page trying to figure out if there is any reason Wikipedia's title for this article as something other than what government of the United States, the United Nations, and the ICJ refer to it by, there would be no clear answer. Some editors resist this questioning, framing it as if supposing that it implies that Wikipedia must necessary abide by the naming conventions of those institutions. Not at all, but when there is a question, the general public / readers as end users will have that question, it really should not be terribly difficult to get that answer. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and a curious audience should not bear the onus of reading through such a long RM and history to have a fairly simple question answered. I believe all contributors to the discussion have made whatever points they are going to make and the conversation has deadlocked due to factors for which I'm sure differing interpretations of can be ( and have been) offered. If there is a mechanism by which to formally request additional editors to weigh in and if not break the deadlock, potentially open new avenues for discussion, I should be glad to know about it. 122141510 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

  I didn't say it was? 122141510 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

  In the simplest case, a reader might think "huh, that seems like a mistake. I wonder if there's an explanation?" I'll abstain from going any further here in the interest of brevity. I've expounded in more detail in previous comments at least one other way a reader might respond to the current title. If I reiterate them again, other editors would be entitled to reiterate their responses, which I feel is unhelpful for this RM. 122141510 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

  [1] "I'm glad to have confirmed that the answer we have always given, which is to point to COMMONNAME usage has been proven to have been wholly historically correct." So the previous rationale for this article's title has up until now always been passionate defence of a guess? You're not really beating my suspicion of you as a biased editor. [2] "If the rename fails..." Yes, yes, and we've both already discussed our interpretations of what any outcome means. Do you ever really read my comments in full, or scan them to look for prompts to respond to? 122141510 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  "a thorough presentation of the evidence hasn't happened really on this naming discussion" is demonstrably untrue. You have simply chosen to disregard the evidence presented in favor of consistently reframing the conversation in your favor at every turn. As well, and suggesting that "as [I myself] have recorded" no evidence is asserting I said something I did not say, since Tom's documentation and my sourced statements are active contra to your latest mischaracterization of the discussion as it has progressed. At no point did you work to build any consensus. 122141510 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I thanked TomB for his evidence almost immediately, and referred to it. His was/is almost the only evidence offered, so hardly "a thorough presentation". I kept hoping that more would be offered, in order that a fuller picture could emerge. Too much time has been spent impugning the motives of 'defenders' which probably had an impact on how willing people were to participate.

  It wasn't the lack of evidence you bemoaned previously, it was (what you saw as) the lack of application of policy by both 'pro' and 'con'. the best approach for a contentious article title such as this one is to exclusively apply policy and guidelines … I don't think either side – oppose or support – has done that.. Apologies for misremembering your words. Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your apology is not accepted because are once again disingenuously taking my comments out of context. I did not see "a lack of application of policy by both pro and con". I said neither side made a compelling argument to do anything other than apply policy and guidelines. My quote, when you are not taking it out of context, is "I've suggested the best approach for a contentious article title such as this one is to exclusively apply policy and guidelines in any decision and actively discuss based solely on those policies and guidelines, unless someone can make a very strong and compelling argument to do anything else. I don't think either side – oppose or support – has done that.". 122141510 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is there a Wikipedia article that talks about a criteria of 'buckets' in the way you've defined them (even if by some other name)? Otherwise, there are some obvious flaws with the buckets as you've defined them, and I don't know if anyone would consider it as instrumental in being able to determine an outcome as you've decided. Mind you: Wikipedia policy isn't the end-all, be-all – if someone makes a case that application of policy would result in a worse outcome, the policies themselves allow for avoiding thoughtless application of policy as an absolute. Wikipedia is not as 'small c-conservative' as some editors proposed above. However, in previous posts, I've suggested the best approach for a contentious article title such as this one is to exclusively apply policy and guidelines in any decision and actively discuss based solely on those policies and guidelines, unless someone can make a very strong and compelling argument to do anything else. I don't think either side – oppose or support – has done that. 122141510 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Final words pending formal closure

My final words are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. It seems that these discussions had not produced a clear consensus in favor of the move:

1. Proponents of the move have failed to show that the proposed term "Srebrenica genocide" is more common than the long standing term "Srebrenica massacre" that is presently used in the title of this article.

2. Attempts to discredit the term "Srebrenica massacre" have also failed, since that term is widely and commonly used in scholarly literature and other sources, as shown below in the specifically initiated RfC.

3. Proposed move was inspired by the recently adopted GAUN resolution, that itself failed to achieve consensus on the main issues, thus resulting in a divisive vote, and failing to receive the majority support among UN members.

4. Whatever future terminological developments may be, long standing titles of articles such as these should not be changed on hints and assumptions. If and when some changes occur, consequent proposals and discussions would be welcomed. Sorabino (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why are you saying that the UN resolution failed?? This is simply incorrect: With 84 votes in favour, 19 against, and 68 abstentions, the General Assembly adopted a resolution commemorating the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and declaring 11 July as the International Day of Remembrance for the victims of the Srebrenica genocide [15]. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, don't distort my statements. I stated clearly that "recently adopted" GAUN resolution "failed to achieve consensus on the main issues", while your comment is suggesting something else. That was not fair. Sorabino (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any source? I've not seen that it "failed to achieve consensus on the main issues". First news to me. There was only 1 vote that I posted above, there were not multiple votes on separate "issues". I don't think I'm misrepresenting, but ok, let's see the source on this failed consensus on the main issues. I'll retract my comment if I'm worng. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Lack of support by the majority of UN members is a clear indication that the resolution in question failed to achieve consensus, and that is quite unfortunate. Sorabino (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's not how it works. The resolution passed. Your other comments are also divorced from reality. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you even acknowledge genocide happened? I don't think you do. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, calm down and don't be rude. You obviously didn't see or failed to acknowledge my initial posts. As stated above, we have two main articles here on EW. The title of the first (Bosnian genocide) has a broader scope, dealing in general with genocide in Bosnia. The title of the second (Srebrenica massacre) has a narrower scope, and those long standing titles, that are reflecting distinctions only in scopes of their respective subjects, without denial, should be preserved. Sorabino (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked you directly. Do you acknowledge genocide happened in Srebrenica? Don't avoid the question! Say yes, and I'll appologize for thinking otherwise. Otherwise don't call me rude for suggesting what your stand is here. It's not rude to suggest that you deny genocide in Srebrenica. You are free to deny it. If you are, at least be direct. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia being rude by listing all those people who deny the genocide in the denial section? Don't write such comments. I can suggest what your stand is in this dicussion about Srebrenica genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

And to suggest that the UN resoluton "failed to achieve consensus on the main issues" is just deceitful. The closing admin may not be familiar with the resoluton. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, stop being assertive. Issues related to genocides, including those that happened in Bosnia, are to important and sensitive to be discussed in such manner, by ignoring previous statements and responses, while bullying users into repeating or rephrasing their statements on your request. Succumbing to any kind of bullying would be undignified, in general. But if you think that such behavior is somehow helpful, please ask yourself, how would you respond to the misuse of the term genocide by those who claim that Republika Srpska is a "genocidal creation", thus labeling an entire constituent entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am not asking you to respond to that issue here, just think about it, in private, if you want. Sorabino (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked you directly , and you won't answer. Fine, you said your thing, and I stand by my assertion that you don't even acknowledge the genocide. This is exactly what I'm arguing that the term massacre is controversial.

I don't care about Republika Srpska, it's constitution or "misuse" of the term. I just care that genocide was proven in front of international courts. The only misuse here is your usage of the term massacre in the context of denying the genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, it seems that your answer is quite revealing. But, since you mentioned international courts and their rulings, let me repeat that on 31 March 2010 Serbian parliament officially acknowledged all rulings on Srebrenica by adopting a special declaration and invoking the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Serbian declaration contains affirmation of all relevant rulings of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on Srebrenica. Link to the official English text of the resolution can be seen in one of my posts above. Sorabino (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have asserted that you do not acknowledge it, and you haven't said otherwise. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As for official stand of the state of Serbia: No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide, as well as denying any responsibility on behalf of Serbia [16]

As for your sources. You just don't know to read that political statements. Serbia doesn't acknowledge the genocide in Srebrenica, but this isn't about Serbia. I have asked you directly, and you avoided that direct question. Enough said about you and your intentions here to push the controversial meaning of the term massacre by pretenting to use the other objective meaning of the same term. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, stop misrepresenting my statements. Your did not ask, you demanded, assertively and by repetitive bullying. But lets se how long will that continue and how far can it go. You are also misrepresenting the 2010 declaration, since it explicitly states that Serbia has officially acknowledged all Srebrenica rulings of international courts. Why are trying to muddle that fact? Regarding the use of the term massacre in the title of this article, it is obvious that such use does not imply any kind of denial. Sorabino (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm allowed to assert your stand and I'm allowed to repeat that assertion until it's clear that you are avoiding the question. Then I'm allowed to assert why you are avoiding the question. No problems there, and no bullying there.

I am misrepresenting 2010 Serbian declaration??? This is insane. You are using a primary source and you are telling me that my secondary source is misrepresenting the primary source??? No , you are the one who is doing OR on the primary source and you are misrepresenting it. I've had enough of this kind of discussion. I'm introducing my source to the denial section of the article. Do now revert me unless you have secondary sources. Trimpops2 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You misrepresented sources and my statements on several points, that is one of the main problems here, while assertions remain your own, since my position on both subjects and articles, including their titles (Srebrenica massacre and Bosnian genocide) is quite clear: present long standing solutions should be kept, without any misuse or denial, and that was my position from the very first post here. By your last comment, you are implying that I would revert your edits, without any grounds for such assumption, and that is also quite revealing. Sorabino (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't care about Wikipedia articles, Republika Serpska constitution, 2010 Serbian parliament statement when I ask you whether you acknowledge genocide in Srebrenica. Let's stop here, I asked several times, and you said what you said.

Didn't misrepresent anything. You misrepresented UN resoluton, as my source shows. Then you used the statement of Government of Serbia to misrepresent that Serbia is oficially recongizes genocide, which is a primary source. This is OR. I posted a secondary source which directly shows the opposite.

And no, Srebrenica Massacre is the title derived from the common name. This cannot stand indefinately when the common name shifted towards the term genocide.

You don't even acknowledge why 84 contries voted in the Srebrenica Genocide resolution. It was done because of the widespread denial of the genocide. And no, 19 countries against and 68 absent is not a "win" for Serbia. It just shows how widespread the denial of the genocide is which is shameful. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, check your facts before posting. GAUN Resolution on Genocide in Srebrenica was adopted by 84 votes in favor, 19 against, 68 abstained and 22 absent. Such a divisive outcome was not a win, for anyone. In principle, such outcome should not be viewed as denial, since the majority of UN members had various reasons for not voting for the resolution, as stated by their representatives during the debate in General Assembly. Some of the main concerns were related to the lack of consensus within Bosnia-Herzegovina, including possible negative impacts of a hastily introduced resolution on the peace process. In any case, those questions are very complicated, and much wider in scope then the main subject of these talks here. Sorabino (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that is enough from both of you. You are each reiterating points you've already made multiple times. 122141510 (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Trimpops2, although I don't know if we quite see eye to eye on rationale to support the move request, we do agree on supporting the move request. I hope it is not misinterpreted – your comments on this request are making it incedibly difficult to read through it. I tried to push a 'wrap' for final comments from existing participants, and I believe Tom has put in a formal request for closure. You've been introducing completely unnecessary headers, doubleposting, and now breaking the template of how posts are made entirely. You have also become entirely repetitive at this point, so I don't know what it's really even in the service of. If you have time to continue to comment, I would request you clean up the posts you've made thus far for formatting and ease of reading before contributing more comments. 122141510 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll try. Thanks. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Post-closure comments:

Replying to comment by Trimpops2 of 19:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC):

I thought I'd made it pretty clear. The UN does not own the word genocide. Reporting that the courts proved this event fits the genocide convention is only one part of the story. Denial is also relative to how genocide is being defined, and is therefore not necessarily the same as historical denialism. I brought up Holocaust and Gaza as an appeal to common sense because of the difference in (1) timescales and (2) how much the event represents the broader conflict. People speak of genocides of Jews, Palestinians, Bosnians, but not Srebrenicians. I will straight up tell you the genocide convention is wrong because it doesn't make these distinctions. Hence, framing criticisms of the word "genocide" as denialism is biasing the article. On the other hand, I do agree massacre is misleading for the reason you set out, hence would personally rather have "genocidal massacre". And I don't think this is a personal POV or such because I think the article's job is to report whether commentators are calling this a genocide or not, and why. And the courts are only one commentator, whose job is to try against the genocide convention definition and nothing more. FMasic (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I wonder again if the problem is that the nominator submitted a very simple "per UN" rationale and some editors have seen fit to argue about that and ignore the more compelling (and more relevant) COMMONNAME matter. The UN, the courts, etc. would be included in organizations which discuss the event and use the terminology to refer to the event, but should not be understood to 'own' the terminology. Many of the tangents the move request has gone down were about arguing about the legitimacy of the UN[?] or whether Wikipedia is beholden to what organizations term things (an imo bizarre way of framing how Wikipedia looks at reliable sources and others to determine the most common name in use for something). @FMasic as I notified you on your talk page there is a [move request] in progress and you may wish to submit your comments there. I think that some of us might still be stuck on the poor rationale for the request is probably something to be brought up when discussing how to relist, reclose, or otherwise finish processing this request. 122141510 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but many of those seeking to make COMMONNAME arguments in favour of a change, offered no proof but nonetheless preceded to try to argue that UN/US etc use somehow proved COMMONNAME. UN/US etc use is virtually the antithesis of the COMMONNAME concept. I pointed this out repeatedly including in the prior discussion. IMO, you are right that the various tangents virtually guaranteed that the move discussion would fail. Again, I told you so but I get little satisfaction from the outcome of this move discussion. Whatever my own prejudices on this subject and notwithstanding the fact that I came down unapologetically on the 'don't move' side, I would have welcomed a better informed and better 'toned' discussion.

The COMMONNAME use statistics eventually provided by two editors, were the only proof offered at all. Virtually everything else was so much hot air, much of it rancid in its tone. The statistics showed that usage was finely balanced but at no point in any year did uses of 'genocide' outnumber those of 'massacre' and the overall balance favoured 'massacre'. I respect that it was possible to come to a different conclusion iro the statistics, but it was not possible to claim that 'genocide' was the COMMONNAME, even if 'massacre' was less so than it once had been. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Evidence was provided, you chose to ignore it. This could've been a much simpler conversation where that wasn't buried under arguments to which you are anything but innocent insofar as contributing to its rancid tone. Is this move discussion a venue for you to intentionally misquote and twist my words to claim I said things you obviously would have no reason to expect I would, or for you and Sorabino to repeatedly question or cast aspersions on the UN, in a nature which had nothing to do with resolving the move request as such? This likely had a chilling effect on whether other editors might see this conversation and wish to contribute to it.

Again, I told you so. And here I thought you said that the matter between you and I was just settled on your talk page – but you seem to be instigating yet again. 122141510 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Reducing length

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the term massacre for Srebrenica genocide controversial?

The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". (Changed from this [17], to have sentence that is sourced)

1. Is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide? (Note that I changed it with from this [18], I hope that no one will complain that I changed the meaning of the question )
2. Should the article have a separate section explaining that controversy

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

• Agree on point 1, as the term is massively used in some countries to deny the genocide. Agree on point 2 as the readers are not being served neutral information by ommiting the wide usage of the term to paint a completely different narrative to the event. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• (1) Is the term massacre controversial? Yes, when deliberately used instead of 'genocide' in this specific context. One need only look at this article's talk history and the ongoing move request to see there is a controversy regarding the choice of terminology. In 2013, the then-Serbian prime minister acknowledged a "crime" took place at Srebrenica, but felt short of calling it a genocide [19]. For those who wish to deny the genocide, this seems to be the approach they prefer to take. For example, there is a text called The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics [20], which is dedicated to discrediting evidence proving a genocide took place (it is the sort of text which puts the word genocide in quotes). You will find, however, it has no problems using the term "Srebrenica massacre".

(2) Should the article have a separate section explaining that controversy? I think a section not dissimilar to what exists on the Bleiburg repatriations page may be appropriate (not for nothing, that page used to be called "Bleiburg massacre"). However, it's a section which any editor should take great care to avoid veering into original research regarding. I am not sure if there is any primary literature that's comprehensively documented who chooses to refer to it by which name and what those individuals/organizations believe they achieve in doing so. 122141510 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

One other thing I'd add – the parallels to the Bleiburg repatriation article are abound on top of what I already mentioned. In 2016, an editor asked if the article should be moved back to 'Bleiburg massacre', editors offered an emphatic "NO" because they felt 'massacre' was POV [21]. Likewise, several editors supported that article's 2014 move because they felt 'massacre' was controversial [22]. Obviously, there are contexts where the term is controversial. --122141510 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

The terms are not equivalent but many reputable sources refer to it as such. Wikipedia is not an area for original research but synthesizes information from primary resources, including the terminology they use, and does not necessarily comment on that terminology unless it finds a source that comments on it. As the first example which comes to mind, even though Caryn Elaine Johnson is her real name, everyone knows her as Whoopi Goldberg, and so that is the title of her Wikipedia article – but both names are mentioned in the lede. I firmly believe that this article should be moved to Srebrenica genocide, but do not think there is a strong case to remove the term 'Srebrenica massacre' from the lede (never mind the rest of the title). It's comparable to those who question the legitimacy of the vote that passed the resolution to recognize the Srebrenica genocide as such – they're missing the point entirely. Even if they convinced us the method was completely illegitimated, it wouldn't change the fact the resolution passed, and the resolution passed using that terminology. I believe you could make a convincing case that the term "Srebrenica massacre" is technically incorrect, but it wouldn't change the fact the term is commonly used and there are a number of sources that use that terminology. --122141510 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

1. "Serbia’s president apologized Thursday for the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, but declined to characterize the killings as an act of genocide." [23]

2. "Srebrenica was a “mistake” and a “huge crime,” ,“But it wasn’t genocide.” Bosnian Serb separatist leader Milorad Dodik told" [24]

3. "Montenegrin lawmakers on Thursday ousted a pro-Serb government minister who denied the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica was genocide." [25]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I gave the best advice I could simply because you are a new editor and may not understand WP norms, such as the most basic one that every claim must be independently verifiable. A reasonable explanation would be that they are denying the intent to destroy. isn't verifying, it's conjecturing about what you personally think the explanation for this behaviour could be ie it's WP:OR.

I've given the best advice I could, but as I said before, if you don't believe me, ask another experienced editor if the sources you have provided verify the claims you want to make.

You don't need an RfC, you just need reliable sources that say the things you want to say explicitly. Pincrete (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not true. I can make conjecturing on talk page. I don't need to post sources for each of my claims. However, I have done so , but you are either not acknowledging them or are misreading. OR or SYNTH shouldn't enter the article, but I'm not suggesting so. So, if you are going to label someone a new editor, and give advices, don't give false advices. You made no effort to read my sources, let alone to find other source which would help this dicussion. You are just complaining about literally everything. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've given the best advice I could, but as I said before, if you don't believe me, ask another experienced editor if the sources you have provided verify the claims you want to make. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please quote any of my claims which isn't supported by sources. I went far and beond to do that, although that's not a requirement on talk page, contrary to your false advices. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

From Hoare; "The judicial recognition of the Srebrenica genocide was the result of a process that was not foreordained. [...] Not all the ICTY prosecutors wanted to prosecute suspects for genocide [as] there were those, such as Geoffrey Nice, who wanted to stick to lesser charges more likely to result in convictions. This reflected a difference of opinion, among prosecutors, as to whether the ICTY’s purpose was to put perpetrators behind bars, or to establish the correct historical record." I read this as showing how the framing of the events at Srebrenica is actively disputed. Some prosecutors wanted to stick to lesser charges that they felt were more 'effective', and some wanted to stick to more accurate charges that were more precise. Thank you for sharing this source. 122141510 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

122141510, Hoare is describing a dilemma common to many prosecutions, whether to "go for gold: and risk failure or whether to choose a lesser charge with more likelihood of success. The choice wasn't of course 'massacre' or 'genocide', since 'massacre' isn't a crime as such, in fact the two are 'chalk and cheese'. Is a cat a 'feline quadruped mammal' or is it a 'common domestic pet', obviously both terms are equally 'accurate'. 'Massacre' describes a mass-murder event, 'genocide' describes a crime - which usually, though not necessarily - involves mass killing, but which is crucially defined by intent to destroy … . Hoare says that the prosecution team thought that 'genocide' would establish the correct historical record, ie was more accurate than whatever the alternative crime they considered charging the accused with. That isn't surprising as it would be a strange prosecution team who didn't believe in the aptness of the charges being brought. How much proof the team had available to them as to intent, planning, etc., I don't know, but the racial motive was anyhow almost self-evident to a layman.

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

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

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

I have no problem when the term massacre is used, as long as there is no doubt that mens rea is being denied. This article is an example where the term massacre is being used objectively [26]. The article uses "massacre" in the title, but is not denying the genocide. There is no problem with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A massacre isn't a crime" is going to be my example par excellence of Wikipedia editors that are lost in the sauce. I believe this is one of the only times (ever?) that anyone has ever put those words together in that order and meant to be taken seriously. 122141510 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A massacre isn't a crime as such." This is Wikipedia, not a high school debate club. In real terms, for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating. 122141510 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

From Hoare; "The judicial recognition of the Srebrenica genocide was the result of a process that was not foreordained. [...] Not all the ICTY prosecutors wanted to prosecute suspects for genocide [as] there were those, such as Geoffrey Nice, who wanted to stick to lesser charges more likely to result in convictions. This reflected a difference of opinion, among prosecutors, as to whether the ICTY’s purpose was to put perpetrators behind bars, or to establish the correct historical record." I read this as showing how the framing of the events at Srebrenica is actively disputed. Some prosecutors wanted to stick to lesser charges that they felt were more 'effective', and some wanted to stick to more accurate charges that were more precise. Thank you for sharing this source. 122141510 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

122141510, Hoare is describing a dilemma common to many prosecutions, whether to "go for gold: and risk failure or whether to choose a lesser charge with more likelihood of success. The choice wasn't of course 'massacre' or 'genocide', since 'massacre' isn't a crime as such, in fact the two are 'chalk and cheese'. Is a cat a 'feline quadruped mammal' or is it a 'common domestic pet', obviously both terms are equally 'accurate'. 'Massacre' describes a mass-murder event, 'genocide' describes a crime - which usually, though not necessarily - involves mass killing, but which is crucially defined by intent to destroy … . Hoare says that the prosecution team thought that 'genocide' would establish the correct historical record, ie was more accurate than whatever the alternative crime they considered charging the accused with. That isn't surprising as it would be a strange prosecution team who didn't believe in the aptness of the charges being brought. How much proof the team had available to them as to intent, planning, etc., I don't know, but the racial motive was anyhow almost self-evident to a layman.

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

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

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

I have no problem when the term massacre is used, as long as there is no doubt that mens rea is being denied. This article is an example where the term massacre is being used objectively [27]. The article uses "massacre" in the title, but is not denying the genocide. There is no problem with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A massacre isn't a crime" is going to be my example par excellence of Wikipedia editors that are lost in the sauce. I believe this is one of the only times (ever?) that anyone has ever put those words together in that order and meant to be taken seriously. 122141510 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A massacre isn't a crime as such." This is Wikipedia, not a high school debate club. In real terms, for the purposes of this article, there is no practical difference to the 'as such' you are delineating. 122141510 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

"I'm surprised that you aren't keen to endorse the very real difference..." I'm very keen to elaborate the very real difference, but not as you've delineated it. You act like your arguments are rational and represent common consensus and convention, and regularly reject the idea your assertions have a burden of proof, but your arguments are fantastical and your assertion you have some neutral or 'common sense' bias is incorrect when you're willing to throw everything and the kitchen sink to assert that 'massacre' is the correct term here. In this case, it's the idea of a "massacre not being a crime", which is a phrase that that has barely ever been uttered in the English language. From ChatGPT; "A massacre, by definition, involves the indiscriminate and brutal killing of a large number of people, typically viewed as an atrocity and a crime". The 'exceptions' to the typical are provided as ancient warfare, colonial conquest, reprisals and collective punishment, and biblical accounts, in the context that these acts are sometimes not considered as crimes at the times they were done. It concludes with the statement that "It's important to note that modern legal and ethical standards almost universally regard massacres as crimes against humanity." So once again, you might try to shift the burden of proof back onto me, but it's on you to more clearly identify what universe you are in where a massacre is not a crime, and explain the relevance of your little slice of reality to Wikipedia and its readers. 122141510 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's pointless to discuss with that user and some other's here. He's literally complaining about everyhing. Now we are to explain to him that a massacre is a crime because it inovles killings. Then he's say that this is SYNTH that no source says that a crime that involves killings are massacre...at some point it's pointless to discuss with someone who is acting that way. Let the RfC do it's thing and if needed the formal closure will objectively distinguish between such comments and normal and objective comments. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

when you're willing to throw everything and the kitchen sink to assert that 'massacre' is the correct term here. Never once have I said that any term is the 'correct' one, not even 'more correct' or any synonym I believe. Nor do I personally believe any word is - meaningfully - more 'correct'. There are several terms which have commonly been used since the 1990s,some of which are still in common use, each has its virtues. The position that anyone not using a single 'official' term ought to change their usage and must have some sinister motive, for not doing so has (repeatedly) been the stance of those wanting a move and has been one of the ugliest manifestations of this move discussion. Assuming good faith is not optional. Newbies and IPs are forgiven for not knowing that, established editors really ought to know better.

You have made several very insulting responses to my attempt to explain to a newbie editor, whose first language may not be English, why the sentence Genocide is a higher crime than massacre doesn't really mean very much. Just as "genocide is a higher crime than bloodbath", wouldn't mean anything. 'Genocide' is a defined crime, massacre/bloodbath/carnage etc aren't. You take great umbrage and attempt to prove to me the fairly obvious (and acknowledged) fact that someone can be charged with specific crimes because of their participation in a massacre, but the sentence Genocide is a higher crime than massacre still doesn't actually mean anything. 'Genocide' is commonly perceived to be the "the epitome of human evil", which I also acknowledged, but massacre still isn't a crime in any meaningful sense. I imagine that even ChatGPT understands the difference between "typically viewed as (an atrocity and a crime) and "is".Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't call me newbie. And don't question my knowledge of English. I explained it at leat a dozen times that genocide is a higher crime than massacre in the sense that not only the crime itself needs to be proven, that is actus reus, but also the intent to destroy the group, that is , mens rea. Higer in the legal sense that it also needs the intent to destry to be proven. Why are you failing to acknowledge that? And when I say massacre I mean The Srebrenica Massacre which is a war crime. I don't mean just massacre, but and war crime, killings...etc. This is not open for debate, as this is only reporting how the The Genocide Convention defines genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Newbie" is fairly standard WP slang for a newly registered editor. No offence was meant, but I won't refer to you in that way agaim. Mistakes in your grammar and spelling, and remarks that you have made imply that English isn't your first language. That's an observation, not a criticism. Many non-native speakers make notable contributions to WP.

Massacre isn't a defined crime in any legal system AFAIK, so nothing can, or needs to be proven about it, except that people died. You are trying to compare two distinct things, one is a defined crime the other is a descriptive term, like 'slaughter' or 'bloodbath'.

Mens rea is a necessary precondition for conviction in most countries for almost all serious crimes, it isn't unique to genocide. It largely means that someone understood and intended the harm done by their guilty actions (if I understand the term correctly, I'm not a lawyer). Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Acting like it is an attack on you when you are asked to justify or elaborate on your viewpoint doesn't make your viewpoint any less WP:FRINGE. 122141510 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My views on the COMMONNAME of the murderous events that took place in Srebrenica are clearly endorsed by half of academia now, and more than that until the very recent past. My personal views on the event itself are totally my own business, and not a subject to be interrogated on by you or anyone. Even so, I could not possibly have been clearer or more explicit in my total and absolute condemnation of the killings and my clear statements about who was responsible for planning and carrying out those killings. What's fringe about any of that?

Even if what you say were even partly true, Assuming good faith is not optional. I don't consider people speculating about what kind of Serb apologist I am, or what kind of bad faith actor(as you did), or multiple insults because I point out that 'massacre' is a generic descriptive term, not a defined crime to be acting like it is an attack on me. Is that your idea of asking someone to justify or elaborate" their viewpoint? It isn't going to work well for you if it is. Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Quoting WP:AGW doesn't give you carte blanche to be a disruptive contributor to a discussion and object to being called out as disruptive. Half of academia does not agree with your fringe views, which are, expressly, the idea that a "massacre is not a crime" – as discussed later in this talk page, this is a phrase which has barely any inclusion in the recorded history of the English language prior to your statement of it here. This is just the latest of multiple disingenuous attempts on your part to reframe a conversation to feign innocence and cast aspersions on others. I haven't had time before, but will take you up on escalating to WP:ANI. You will be notified on your talk page when I have submitted a case there. 122141510 (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If a 'crime' is something which someone can be charged with in a criminal court, tried on, and punished for, (the most usual meaning) then a massacre isn't a crime. One can of course be charged with many things because of one's role in a massacre, from the relatively trivial, all the way up to murder, war crimes, genocide etc. This meaning was obvious from my first post, but your attempts to make the words mean something strange or sinister, simply fall flat.

If a 'crime' is no more than a generalised expression of disapproval, then 'a massacre' may well be described as being a crime, but then so would anything else that anyone has ever disapproved of! Pincrete (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat myself: the idea that a "massacre is not a crime" is a phrase which has barely any inclusion in the recorded history of the English language prior to your statement of it here. When your thought experiment leads to you repeating the same conclusion ad nauseum, and contradicts the language conventions of the United Nations (see above move request conversation for sources), US government (see above move request conversation for sources), government of British Columbia (see above move request conversation for sources), reliable mainstream media (see above move request conversation for sources), the International Court of Justice (see above move request conversation for sources), then you're either making some WP:POINT that has no bearing on reality and shouldn't be seen as instructive in Wikipedia conversations or editing, or else firmly believe in a WP:FRINGE view that doesn't deserve due weight in the article, or even the talk page for that matter. 122141510 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

More sources:

1 "Six months before the scandal, Serbian media reported extensively on the 25th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. However, the narrative focused not on the genocide and its victims but highlighted the date, July 11, as the anniversary of an alleged assassination attempt on Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vucic. " [28]

1.1 "No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide" [29]

1.2 "However, genocide denial has been the official policy of the Serbian state since the 1990s." [30]

3 "Vucic told U.N. members after the vote that all those involved in the Srebrenica massacre have already been convicted and sentenced to prison" , "Both Serbia and Bosnian Serbs have denied that genocide happened in Srebrenica although this has been established by two U.N. courts." [31]

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

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

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

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

I'm allowed to put forward my explanation.

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

This is what I'm saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pincrete, I updated my original post for this request to a The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". With the question asked to a The Is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide?

I hope that now you'll stop with such unfounded objections you had. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The genocide in Srebrenica is often denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia Wholly agree and sourced but probably already in this article or almost certainly in the related 'denial' article. The term massacre has been used by some named politicians who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". Treading on eggshells here because you are trying to WP:SYNTH together a number of wholly true facts, to imply something not said by anyone. With the question asked … Is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide? Altering a question after an RfC has begun is a definite no-no. But the question is almost meaningless anyway now. You don't need an RfC you just need sources that say what you appear to be seeking to imply - that the use of 'maasacre' is used to deflect or downplay 'guilt. You may well be right, I've no idea, but you don't need to persuade me or other editors, you just need reliable sources saying exactly that. I haven't seen any yet.

as I said before, if you don't believe me, ask another experienced editor if the sources you have provided verify the claims you want to make Pincrete (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is sourced. My sentence: The term massacre has been used by some named politicians who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide"

Source: No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide Trimpops2 (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you be happier if I changed my RfC intro to this text: The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). No government since the fall of Milosevic in 2000 has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You are objecting about my intro, but this is not important for RfC. The important is the question whether the term is controversial when used in the context of denying the genocide. Maybe you need a lesson about how Wikipedia works. I can delete my whole intro and it still is a valid RfC. Me and 2 other editors voted yes. You didn't even vote no. So, what the pont of your obections to my intro? This RfC currently has 3 YES votes and 0 NO votes. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My comment was a clear NO, since it is quite obvious that fair use of the term "Srebrenica massacre" is not controversial in scholarly circles, as shown above. Sorabino (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, too much text. Then we have 3 votes yes and 1 no. Is that correct?

BDW, there are scoolary sorces which deny genocide and accept the massacre. Not all scholarly sources accept that genocide happened.Trimpops2 (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

But looking again, I'm not seeing your clear NO. I just see you posted a comment. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Technical note. It seems that an entire section of this RfC was copied and pasted within this edit, thus doubling several posts by mistake. Can someone correct that? Sorabino (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything doubled. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Take another look above, several comments were doubled by that huge (20,379 bytes) edit. Sorabino (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sorabino, I tried to fix it with this edit. @Trimpops2, a bunch of text was clearly duplicated and the diff Sorabino presents above clearly shows you made a faulty edit. Can you please acknowedge your mistake. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Another hotly debated move request on this site [32] is also regarding whether the term 'massacre' is acceptable for a Wikipedia article title and the discussion has received significant attention outside of the site's usual group of editors [33]. 122141510 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely different discussions. Here's the situation more clear. I'm arguing that massacre in the context of denying genocide is controversial meaning, while using the term massacre while not denying genocide is not controversial. We have only 1 vote against my suggestion vs 3 for, and as I explained , the vote against is arguing that the term is not controversial since it's being used by objective sources which do not deny genocide. He voted NO, to something I didn't even ask as a question in this RfC. I'm also arguing that it's not controversial when used in the contexts which acknowledges genocide. I can't imagine that anyone would vote "NO" , that the term isn't controversial even if used in the context which denyes genocide. Genocide being here an established fact by international courts. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, I'm arguing that massacre in the context of denying genocide is (a/the) controversial meaning, while using the term massacre while not denying genocide is not controversial. We have only 1 vote against my suggestion vs 3 for etc. It really doesn't matter how many editors vote for or against your proposition. It isn't going to find its way into the article since it is based on your (and editors') opinions and conjecture, not on what RS say explicitly. Even if we all agreed, the immediate question would be "controversial how?", "controversial in what way?". Your question doesn't appear to be a real question framed neutrally, merely a rhetorical device for seeking to imply that 'deniers' employ 'massacre' as a device for deflecting guilt. That may very well be true of some deniers, but without WP:RS that say that explicitly, and ideally identify those who they say do it, the whole discussion/RfC is pointless. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

We obviously disagree. I'm satisfiled with the posted sources. I already introduced one of them to the article which explains that no government in Serbia acknowledged genocide while accepting that killings happened. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Serbia's official stance is, and has been, to accept that killings happened but deny that they constitute genocide, is in the article. What is this RfC seeking to accomplish? Pincrete (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked whether the term massacre is controversial when used in the context which is not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept genocide happened. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Your posts are completely missing the point and I don't see why you find them relevant for this discussion.

it is based on your (and editors') opinions and conjecture. I haven't purposed any edit to the article, so I don't know what "it" means when you say it's based on my opinion and conjecture. I haven't purposed the whole section in this RfC, I just asked whether the article needs the section which explains this controversial meaning. I find that is the case, because the term massacre is also used by objective sources which accept genocide.

"controversial how?", "controversial in what way?". As I asked in the RfC, controversial when used in the context which accepts that massacre happened, but denying the genocide. This is the answer to your questions.

but without WP:RS that say that explicitly, and ideally identify those who they say do it. I posted sources of those who are accpeting massacre and killings , but deny genocide. Namely, all Serbian governments, a minister in Montenegro, Serb leader in Bosnia... Trimpops2 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We are just repeating ourselves. I don't see why it's hard for you to understand that simple question I asked in the RfC. I even went so far to find the sources you were seeking. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

By focusing this RfC primarily on the term massacre, you failed to raise or address similar questions related to the misuse of the term genocide by various extremists or revisionists who are trying to undermine the Dayton Peace Agreement and its constitutional arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina, by labeling one of BH constituent entities (Republika Srpska) as a "genocidal creation". As stated above, that problem is already addressed in scholarly literature (Google Scholar search for "genocidal creation"). Those questions are very serious, and shouldn't be overlooked within these discussions on Srebrenica. Regarding the terminology of the title, various misuses and controversies related to the terms in question (both massacre and genocide) are very relevant for this process. Sorabino (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems that's your prevalent motivation in this discussionsTrimpops2 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

And a lot of pointless discusson about my intro sentence which isn't even important for the question of this RfC. The question stands with or without my intro sentence. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, stop misrepresenting statements of other users here. It seems that you are sometimes more interested in distorting views of other users then contributing to this discussion. Sorabino (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing misrepresented. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the term massacre is controversial, as it is used to minimise and trivialise the extent and impact of the events, which amount to genocide, as recognised by two international courts (ICTY in 2004 and ICJ in 2007), and now also at political level by the majority of the UN General Assembly. There is really no good reason left not to rename this page "Srebrenica genocide". --Dans (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi 122141510 , Pincrete ,Coalcity58, Sorabino, Dans . This RfC template has expired. As I can see, 122141510,Coalcity58, I and Dans agree, and Pincrete and Sorabino disagree. Can we discuss the content to add, or Sorabino, and Pincrete you would like a formal closure on this? Trimpops2 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

What do we disagree about? This RfC does not propose any text nor provide any sources for such proposed text. IMO no one would want to formally close under such circumstances, nor could they come to any conclusion beyond a vague summary of editor opinion. Pincrete (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, your generalisation of other users views is quite vague and inprecise, since discussions within this RfC were much wider in scope, including controversies on both terms (massacre and genocide). If we should discuss the content to add, those additions should address both questions that were raised within this RfC. Sorabino (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I wholly agree on point 1 but remain uncertain about how point (2) can be implemented into the document. Using Bleiburg Massacre#Terminology as a template, you would be able to compare and contrast the terminology used to refer to the event by various sources, but if you're looking to make a statement that there are a number of individuals and organizations who prefer to use the term Srebrenica massacre to downplay the fact the event was a genocide, I do not think there are sources which have documented and noted as such which could be cited to allow such a statement to stand in the article. 122141510 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I also don't know. I gave some purposals, but some editors are just making it more difficult than it has to be. I'm starting to think that leaving this discussion would be the best option, pending sources that I can enter into the article directly. No, there are sources, I posted tham in this discussion and one is already in the article. What I don't have is a generalized statement that this is done by some parties. What I have is that this is done by : every single Serbian government since 90', official in Montenegro, officials in Bosnia. I'm sure some others from denial section, etc. I mean, everyone can read denial section and see that this is widely done. No one in the denial section is disputing that killings took place. Literally no one. But all those from denial section dispute that this killing constitute genocide. And since objective sources are using the term massacre, and they also use it, but with different intentions, I thought that should be in the article. But maybe I'm trying to much to prove what's obvious from the denial section...Trimpops2 (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That every Serbian Govt, and large numbers of Serb politicians deny the genocide is a fact, how many of them employ the word 'massacre' instead isn't recorded anywhere AFAIK, therefore the argument that they are using the term 'massacre' in order to downplay the seriousness of the events falls at the first hurdle. No one in the denial section is disputing that killings took place. Literally no one, actually read the section again. Large numbers of people have claimed variants on the theme that numbers killed are vastly exaggerated, that the numbers killed are less than the number of Serbs killed in the surrounding areas or that the only killings were done by a few 'rogue' individuals, not as a coordinated, planned criminal enterprise. Related claims are that the coffins in the memorial have bodies of soldiers that died elsewhere or are actually empty. One local politician said: "the massacre is a lie; it is propaganda to paint a bad picture of the Serbian people. The Muslims are lying; they are manipulating the numbers; they are exaggerating what happened. Far more Serbs died at Srebrenica than Muslims." So how is that acknowledging the killings?

Some of these "it's all a lie" claims were made in the immediate aftermath of the war, but many others are relatively recent, so it simply isn't true that No one in the denial section is disputing that killings took place, that is precisely what some are disputing or questioning the numbers or manner of death (claiming it to be in combat for example).

There are many ways that some people seek to 'downplay' the character or seriousness of the killings, using 'massacre' instead of 'genocide' isn't a significant one AFAI can tell or AFA sources record. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

how many of them employ the word 'massacre' instead isn't recorded anywhere, why would I care how many? I said some. I'm perfectly fine with only one example so I can summerize to "some". You are complaining that I can't say some if I don't have the source says the word "some" , although I have that one single example. Ok, fine, I have more than one example and all are , or can be in the denial section and I think it's equivalent to saying some, maybe even better. But, you are here arguing article content based on Wiki guidelines, while you voted no to 1st question which is flawed. If you answered yes, this would have some sense. I have provided too many sources for you to ignore them and vote no to 1st question. Even without any sources the question stands. that numbers killed are vastly exaggerated there you go. You are just proving my point. No one denies that the killings actually took place. They minimaze them, but don't deny they took place. the massacre is a lie, yes but later he explained what he meant, he didn't deny the killings , but has minimized them. So how is that acknowledging the killings, he just said it Far more Serbs died at Srebrenica than Muslims. Literally no one is denying the killings. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

why would I care how many (use the term 'massacre' to downplay the serious of the crime). If you cannot find sources that say how prevalent this is nor even that say 'some do this', you have no sources. It's pure speculation on your part. It may possibly be true that some people do this or have done it, but I can equally conjecture other obvious reasons why Serb politicians might avoid the 'G-word'. I believe it is practically political suicide in Serbia or in RS for a mainstream politician to accept the 'genocide' ruling. Also there are explicitly given reasons why some academics/scholars have fully acknowledged the awfulness of the crime, but questioned whether it fits the usual legal definition of genocide. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Also there are explicitly given reasons why some academics/scholars have fully acknowledged the awfulness of the crime, but questioned whether it fits the usual legal definition of genocide. There you go, you have just agreed with me! You have just said that "some" are doing this. You again went into speculation to "why" for some reason. Why are you then answering NO to 1st question??? You are making no sense at all. You are free to say that I need a source that says "some" to have it in the articel , but this is rationale for 2nd question. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You are playing rather infantile semantic games, not actually proposing the addition of any sourced text. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You have just made an admission. Let's not go around it. I'll ask you again, is the term massacre controversial when used in the context which denies genocide? And I'll ask you again, is this done by : every Serbian government since 90', Bosnian Serb leader, a state official in Montenegro. There you go, I named parties which do it. Sources are above, and I haven't used the word "some". Please answer those now since you made an admission. You are the one playing with sematics. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Article content purposal

I mentioned section, but a simple sentence that reads like this would suffice:

The term Srebrenica Massacre is sometimes used by parties which deny the Srebrenica Genocide, by not contesting that the massacre actually took place, but refusing to accept the ICTY and ICJ rulings that Srebrenica Massacre consistutes genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a simple sentece that is virtaully already in the article. This is the sentece from the article: "No Serbian government has recognized what happened in Srebrenica as a genocide. The official stance has always been genocide denial — not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide, as well as denying any responsibility on behalf of Serbia".

I've just generalized it by stating "some parties", because as sources list in denial section, it's not only Serbian government that's denying, but also officials in Bosnia, and other countries, as well a some officials in Israel...etc.. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The article already records the sourced fact that certain named (mainly Serb,) politicians and the Serbian govt deny genocide, but accept that a massacre occurred. Why would you want to alter this into a vague generalised, unsourced statement? You don't provide sources for this statement and you cannot hold an RfC and at the end of it propose text to add. Based on what?Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You are in minority. We have 4 editors agree that the term is controversial when used to deny the genocide. So either concede that we have a consensus and work to follow the consensus and enter this to the article, or I can ask for a formal closure, or we can have another RfC on the exact article sentence. This is not the continuation of the above debate. You are making this more complicated than it needs to be and you are wasting community's time. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You want to add text that says those those who deny genocide use the term Srebrenica massacre but you haven't provided a source that says that. The source you gave only says that some who deny genocide don't dispute that a massacre occurred. It doesn't say they use the term Srebrenica massacre to refer to the event as a result. You are cobbling up a bunch of sources and making a personal conclusion, and that conclusion is the text you want to add, which isn't explicitly stated by sources. That is a textbook case of synthesis and original research. So you are the one complicating things because instead of just finding a source that directly supports what you're saying, you have to resort to a confusing and pointless RfC. --24.114.50.223 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Btw, here are just two examples of news sources emphasizing the term massacre over genocide [34] [35] But I doubt anyone can accuse France24 or Voice of America of engaging in genocide denial. --24.114.50.223 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There is and never has been any specific proposed text and there is and never has been any sources to endorse that text. So you cannot have consensus in a vacuum, you cannot define the RfC text after the RfC has occurred, interpreting editors' comments to suit your personal beliefs. The RfC question itself is borderline meaningless the term is controversial when used to deny the genocide. Any denial of the genocide is controversial, whether it uses 'massacre' or not and how do we know that someone is using the term in order to deny 'genocide'? Are they going to tell us that is what they are doing? As the IP says, this is blatant WP:OR, because you personally think that everyone, or almost everyone, who uses 'massacre' does so to negate the crime. That may be true of specific 'deniers', but there simply aren't sources to endorse this as a general principle. As I said at the beginning, this whole RfC is and has been a gigantic waste of editors' time and goodwill and there isn't the smallest possibility of it being inserted in the article until/unless you can provide sources that endorse the specific text you retrospectively propose. Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

So you would rather have multiple entries into Denial Section from the presented sources, rather than have one sentece like this which states "some parties"? I don't see much difference between those 2. I'm fine either way. I also think I could find a source which speaks of this denial of "genocide" by accepting the "oridinary war crimes". I don't have time now, but I'll try. BDW, You know, IP and Pincrete, it's not prohibited for you to participate in building Wikipedia. I have raised a point that is very much obvious and instead of complaining, you can also try to find sources. I posted enough sources to be visible that this is done on a larger scale, and enough sources are posted in the Denial Section. You are just ignoring all that and complaining to me that I don't have sources which would say this in a generalized sentece, while I dozen of sources which specifically do that are aready in the article. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No, what we prefer is content which is verifiable to content which Trimpops2 (alone AFAI can see) considers very much obvious. Where people hold or held notable positions, (such as some Serb politicians), it is important to record exactly what they said and did, not render a mish-mashed simplified interpretation. There are possibly dozens of reasons why someone might prefer 'massacre' to 'genocide', apart from that posited, some very cynical, some not remotely so, such as some legal and genocide scholars have voiced. Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a dozen sources where people are denying genocide and stating that this massacre is a massacre, but not genocide. If this is so widespread, there should be sources that would read "some parties which accept the massacre and denying that this specific massacre constitutes genocide". You haven't done anything to help find those sources which obviously exist. As I said, I don't care about objective sources which don't deny the genocide, but are using the term massacre. I don't find that usage to be controversial. I find the usage controversial only when used in the way Serbian government is using it, as described by the source. You are making it more difficult than it is. It's not the problem that you would like to have sources, but you are disagreeing with that which isn't supported by sources and you are unwilling to help find sources. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You haven't done anything to help find those sources which obviously exist That's for two reasons, firstly because I don't believe they do exist and have better things to do than look for them, secondly, and more importantly, deciding text that you want to include and then desperately scouring the internet to find sources that justify that text is almost a textbook definition of WP:OR. We read the sources and only then decide what text to include. Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not the definition of OR. You have enough to answer 1st question as yes, but you are ignoring it. All your objections go towards the 2nd question. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Deciding on the text you want to include, and then looking for sources to justify it is clearly almost a textbook definition of WP:OR. We read the sources and only then decide what text to include. Expecting another editor to assist you in that 'wild goose chase' is just plain silly.

I've no idea what the two questions mean, they are phrased in a clearly non-neutral way more typical of a 'cold-call' telephone sales call than an RfC, they present no proposed text, they followed no prior discussion to resolve a specific matter and they provided no sources (ie, they broke almost every guideline of how an RfC should happen). Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. I have a dozen examples of this case and it's understandabe to state that some are doing this. It is a SYNTH, but not an illogical one to make. I've no idea what the two questions mean, great, we are discussing for weeks and now you are saying that you don't even know what the questions mean. You could have asked that weeks ago. RfC can ask a question without purposing a text which can be discussed later. The RfC is not non-neutral. It's neutral and proper, and to claim that after just admitting not understanding is absurd. You don't understand it, but you perfectly understand it's not neutral. Plain oxymoron. I don't have to provide any source to open a RfC. You are just making up rules. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a SYNTH, but not an illogical one to make. That's a self contradictory statement in WP terms. The reason I don't understand the questions is because they are so vague as to be - in practical WP terms - meaningless. If we all agreed that the term 'massacre' was controversial, or all disagreed, there would still be no sourced text to add and not even any agreement as to in what sense?/where?/ to whom?/why?/who says? the term is controversial. All of this was pointed out to you at the beginning of this - frankly, pointless - RfC. Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a self contradictory statement in WP terms No it's not. The questions are not vague. They are simple and clear to understand. Content can be further discussed. Are you willing to change your opinion on 1st question based on your previous admission? Trimpops2 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Attack type = Military assault ??

122141510, regarding this edit I am posting to query both the fact of your restoring Military assault as the (primary) attack type and also your edit reason. Firstly, 'military assault' redirects to 'Offensive (military)', which is characterised in its lead as "An offensive is a military operation that seeks through an aggressive projection of armed forces to occupy or recapture territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational, or tactical goal". You are effectively saying that the mass murder/massacre, genocide and rapes that occurred at Srebrenica was primarily an ordinary military operation intended to seize or occupy territory, when in fact all relevant territory had been seized and was firmly under Serb control before the massacre even began.

Regarding your edit reason: "The genocide was carried out by military". That does not automatically mean the massacre was a military assault. Militaries do many things apart from mounting offensives. Even within the history of genocides, Aushwitz, Babi Yar and countless other WWII mass killings were perpetrated by the SS, who were military. The Greek and Armenian genocides were mainly perpetrated by Turkish troops, but no one would claim that the SS mounted any kind of 'offensive' at Auschwitz or other camps. Ditto the other examples. Herding 1000s of unarmed men into sports fields and similar in order to gun them down (as is the case at Srebrenica) is not anyone's idea of a 'military assault' and it would be impossible I believe to find a source that claims that the massacre itself was any kind of 'military assault'.

What of course is true, is that in the days almost immediately prior to the onset of the massacre, Serb and other forcess attached to them mounted an offensive to sieze Srebrenica, (codenamed Operation Krivaja '95), which defied UN resolutions and directly challenged Dutchbat troops placed to deter any such action against the town. This "fall of Srebrenica" into Serb hands is clearly important background, but it is not what this article is about, which is explicitly about what happened after the fall, after Serb forces had total control of the town, ie,the 'massacre' itself.

I believe the entry has been there for a long time, and I only noticed it recently because of someone correcting 'CapitaliSation' of that text. Neither sources, nor the article itself support the notion that the massacre was any kind of 'military assault' or 'military offensive'. Despite the massacre being immediately preceded by such a military operation, I don't believe the term is justified as being the 'attack type', certainly not primary. Pincrete (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That language has been present in the article since at least 2016. The presence of the language in that article for so long represents an editor consensus, and should not have been changed without a conversation reflecting a consensus had changed. 122141510 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The need for a new consensus does not apply to minor textual changes. WP:BRD applies, which is why I've raised the matter here. Since you reverted, I assume you had a reason for doing so. Why did you revert to text which seems to contradict pretty much everything you write in the move discussion, that Srebrenica was primarily a genocide? Your edit reason appears to suggest that you didn't actually understand the text being re-instated. It all seems fairly WP:POINTy on the face of it.Pincrete (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

My edit reason does not contradict anything written above. I believe Wikipedia articles should be accurate. ""You are effectively saying that the mass murder/massacre, genocide and rapes that occurred at Srebrenica was primarily an ordinary military operation intended to seize or occupy territory, when in fact all relevant territory had been seized and was firmly under Serb control before the massacre even began." As you said, 'Military assault' redirects to 'Offensive (military)', which is characterised in its lead as "An offensive is a military operation that seeks through an aggressive projection of armed forces to occupy or recapture territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational, or tactical goal", so it is in fact not limited to what you incorrectly suggested above. There's really not much to discuss here – your proposed edit makes the article less accurate. I'd encourage you to read the relevant articles again, as your summation above suggests you've missed entire relevant portions of them. 122141510 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

So you don't believe that the Srebrenica massacre was primarily a genocidal mass killing despite wanting the article called the Srebrenica genocide? Seems like a contradiction to me! I don't know what "strategic, operational, or tactical goal" was intended by the massacre, except the elimination of all the males of one ethnic group from that region, which is usually called ethnic cleansing or genocide or sometimes androcide, not as either an assault or an offensive. You appear to be applying a very literal, semantic definition of offensive/assault. Are there any sources which describe the massacre as either an assault or an offensive? That's how WP operates, how reliable sources describe the main character of the event, not how you or I define those words. I would be very surprised if there any, let alone the majority which would be needed to justify 'pole position' in the infobox as the primary character of the event. I wholly acknowledge of course that the 'taking' of Srebrenica, prior to the massacre, was a military assault and may well be commonly described as such by RS, but 'the fall' is not the focus of this article.Pincrete (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"That's how WP operates, how reliable sources describe the main character of the event, not how you or I define those words." Indeed, and your shifting of what you think the article is or is not about doesn't change what the article is actually about, and that the article documents who executed it and how they executed it. Your proposed edit makes the article less accurate, and deviates from what sources have said. 122141510 (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Generalities about my supposed shifting position, or other behaviour, are not the topic of this section. Where are all the sources that say that the 'genocidal massacre' of 8,000+ males was primarily a military assault or military offensive rather than primarily a mass-murder or genocide? Where in the article is the military assault/offensive identified and covered (except as background of what happened before the massacre)? These are the only things that matter, everything else is just hot air. Presumably you had some reason for your revert, otherwise it again looks awfully as though you are simply making some point for reasons best known to yourself. Appeals to accuracy fall flat when it isn't evident or sourced what exactly one is being accurate about. How is it more accurate to describe the massacre as a 'military assault', rather than as mass-murder or genocide? Pincrete (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Much like your purely theoretical argument above regarding some WP:FRINGE distinction about the idea of whether a massacre is a crime or not, I fail to appreciate how you think whatever WP:POINT you're trying to make here has any bearing on reality. Asking me for a source to define it as a military assault when the opening paragraph of this article defines the genocide as executed by Serbian military and paramilitary units is self-evidently ridiculous. While you seem to be wanting to make an argument that your edit doesn't contradict the article, to the average reader who would have this edit put in front of them, it would. As you do not WP:OWN this article, it is written for an audience other than yourself, and your edit contradicts years of consensus regarding its presence there, you'd do well to try, if only once, to build consensus instead of bludgeoning anyone who identifies some of your contributions as idiosyncratic and unhelpful. 122141510 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The 'theoretical discussion' about whether 'massacre' was a (recognised) crime was on talk, attempting to make something clear to a novice, seemingly non-native editor. It was not article content, nor even about specific article content. And there is nothing remotely FRINGE about making a distinction between 'bad behaviour' which you can be charged with and punished for and 'bad behaviour' which you can't. You can't be charged with 'bloodbath' or 'carnage' or 'massacre', the charge would have to be 'murder', 'conspiracy to commit … ', 'genocide' or some other defined crime.

The opening sentence of this article does not describe the event as an assault nor an offensive, it describes it as a "genocidal massacre". You are using that opening sentence to justify giving greater prominence in the infobox to the notion that this was a standard military offensive than to the notion that it was the murder of 8000+ unarmed civilian males. Which does not meet anyone's definition of a 'military assault' either in general nor iro Srebrenica. Yes of course the masscre was perpetrated by the military aided by para-militaries, but not everything a military does is automatically an assault or offensive, if it were Auschwitz and countless genocides would be 'military assaults' as would the guarding of public buildings across the globe!

You still appear to be reacting to other editors, and your interpretation of their behaviour, instead of addressing the question. Who, what sources and where in the article is it made apparent that this was (primarily) a military offensive rather than genocidal mass-murder? That is the proposition that you are defending, but not one I have ever heard expressed other than from hard-line Serb apologists, which I don't believe for a second you are. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"You are using that opening sentence to justify giving greater prominence in the infobox to the notion that this was a standard military offensive than to the notion that it was the murder of 8000+ unarmed civilian males." You are too often offering either/or options when the answer is both. If you feel that "military offensive" is the incorrect terminology, and linking to military assault is incorrect and there's a better way to denote the military nature of the operation in the infobox, perhaps you might like to offer an alternative that can be agreed upon. The argument as you're making it is a disagreement on language which probably could be resolved, but your edit was to omit the information entirely, which probably could not be resolved. 122141510 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither 'assault' nor 'offensive' are either sourced nor apt nor expanded in the body and both are linked to the same article. They are synonyms for all intents and purposes, that point was made by me in my first post above. There is therefore no justification for either being in the infobox, certainly not in 'pole position' as the main character of the attack. You are still effectively arguing that because it was done by soldiers (and para-militaries), its central character was a standard military operation and that therefore all those dumb sources and other people that thought it was primarily an ethnically motivated mass-murder/genocidal killing have somehow got it wrong! Auschwitz and Babi Yar must be military offensives too after all! The claim does not even make sense, apart from being unsourced. What territorial or strategic gain was gained or sought by the mass-murder of 8,000+ unarmed, passive captives?

Unless you can come up with some sources that describe the massacre primarily as a 'military assault', it will be removed pretty soon. You've had more than ample opportunity to justify the content by something more substantial than has been offered thus far.Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Neither 'assault' nor 'offensive' are either sourced nor apt nor expanded in the body and both are linked to the same article." Strongly disagree. As mentioned earlier, the opening paragraph contradicts your statement no matter how many times you repeat it. If you remove it it will be readded, you do not WP:OWN this article. 122141510 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I agree that the term 'androcide' is rarely used to describe the Srebrenica massacre. Although technically correct, (the mass killing of males), and although clearly supported by the article body, it isn't a common descriptor and I would be broadly neutral about it staying or going.

You still don't seem to understand what you have reverted to. Being done by the military doesn't mean that it is an offensive and anyway, being done by the military/paramilitaries isn't more important/more reported on than it being an ethnically motivated mass-killing/genocide. You are putting yourself in the position of defending a proposition as absurd as suggesting that the killings at Auschwitz weren't actually mass-murder or genocide, but in fact a 'military offensive' simply because they were perpetrated by the SS and attached soldiery who happened to wear uniforms! That the perpetrators mainly wore uniforms is clearly more important in characterising the event than that they killed 8,000+ unarmed civilian males!

Still no sources and no attempts to find them I see. Unsourced material, especially of a contentious nature, should be removed. It isn't a question of who owns the article. Pincrete (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"You still don't seem to understand what you have reverted to." Yes, I do, and I've said how I understand it and why I think the language is important. After reading your response, I'm again going to ask – would you like to offer an alternative to attempt to resolve what seems to be a semantic dispute? Let me try and explain to you one more time.

"Still no sources and no attempts to find them I see." I assumed you understood what I was getting at above and we might be able to skip ahead, but I misjudged the situation. For example, if I link to one of the same sources that is linked in the first paragraph to support the fact it's a military offensive and sure here's one of them for the sake of it, you and I aren't disagreeing on the fact the genocide was carried out by the military, but are having some abstract semantic debate about whether the term "military assault" or "military offensive" or something else is suitable terminology that is a correct two word synopsis that reflects military involvement.

There should be something to denote that the "attack type", per the infobox prompt, was not, for example, an ad hoc crime of passion that started and ended with the people on the ground, but a part of a systemic, premeditated action by the military, on the instruction of senior Serbian military and government officials, etc. You've argued '"being done by the military doesn't mean it is an offensive"'. As above, I really don't see why you believe this, as a military offensive is as such to "gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational, or tactical goal", and in trying to understand what exactly is your objection to the language, have tried to prompt you to offer an alternative. It doesn't necessarily need to be binding, it just needs to be something to try and proceed a conversation because you're currently just offering a sort of "it's either my way or the highway" approach that suggests you do seem to think you own the article, or at least get to unilaterally determine how disagreements are resolved. 122141510 (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Another possible topic of discussion here. Regarding your comment; "You are putting yourself in the position of defending a proposition as absurd as suggesting that the killings at Auschwitz weren't actually mass-murder or genocide, but in fact a 'military offensive' simply because they were perpetrated by the SS and attached soldiery who happened to wear uniforms!" I really am not, I don't see how it can't be both at the same time, these two things are not mutually exclusive and I don't know why you look at it that way. Would you like to explain yourself? 122141510 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The normal terms for conscious, premeditated killing are (mass) -murder and when done for ethnic motives genocide, or sometimes ethnic cleansing when accompanied by intimidatory actions. Conscious criminal intent and premeditation are central elements of murder, genocide and probably war crimes. The intent to destroy … the target group is the defining element of genocide. There are no specific terms AFAIK for such crimes when committed by the military, except various 'war crimes' - even though most genocides and similar mass murders have been perpetrated by militaries. Mass murder and genocide are precisely the terms which sources predominantly use to describe the massacre + also rape as an additional feature. These are also the terms we use in 'type of attack'. Does being performed by guys with uniforms really define the kind of event, more than what they actually did?

Soldiers getting 'swept away' by the feelings of the moment would never meet proof of intent or premeditation necessary for both murder and genocide convictions. Let us also remember that it was the civil and military leadership who were found guilty of genocide, (which required proof of their premeditation/planning and conscious intent), not individual soldiery charged with individual killings.

I can't find anywhere in the .pdf you link to in which the massacre is referred to as an 'assault' or 'offensive' or similar. Those words are used in the source, but in contexts which are clearly distinct from the actual massacre AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Does being performed by guys with uniforms really define the kind of event, more than what they actually did?" No, but why are you inventing standards and expectations that don't exist? Once again, this isn't an either/or. It can be two things. It isn't "more". I haven't said it's "more". Retaining the information in the article doesn't imply it's "more".

"There are no specific terms AFAIK for such crimes when committed by the military" Alright, so how about military assault? 122141510 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked that question sincerely but on looking at it now I can't imagine how it won't result in circular argument. Since I'm trying to break a deadlock, I went to a third party and asked ChatGPT to comment on how the term 'Military assault' was relevant in the infobox, and it proffered that This refers to the organized attack carried out by Bosnian Serb forces against the Bosniak population of Srebrenica, which was designated as a "safe area" by the United Nations." I asked it to offer better terms to capture the same meaning and relevance, and it offered military operation, armed attack, and military offensive. The last of the three seemed most appropriate to me, so I asked it to expand on how that might suit, and it offered the following;

• Strategic Planning and Execution: "Military offensive" conveys a sense of premeditated, strategic military planning and execution. The events at Srebrenica were not random acts of violence but were part of a larger strategy orchestrated by Bosnian Serb forces to seize and ethnically cleanse the area. This term emphasizes the organized nature of the assault, which involved coordination among various military units and the use of sophisticated tactics.
• Aggressiveness: The term "offensive" inherently suggests an aggressive, proactive military action aimed at dominating an opponent. This aligns with the forceful and decisive manner in which the Bosnian Serb forces attacked the enclave, overwhelming the UN peacekeepers and the Bosniak defenders.
• Military Objectives: Using "military offensive" underscores that the actions had clear military objectives—namely, the capture of Srebrenica and the subsequent control over the region. It also implicitly communicates that these objectives were part of a broader military campaign during the Bosnian War, which involved territorial control and ethnic redistribution.
• Legal and Historical Context: In terms of legal and historical analysis, "military offensive" is a term commonly used in international law and military doctrine, which can help in discussing the events in a context that is analytically rigorous and universally understandable. It fits well when discussing the events in judicial settings or scholarly analyses concerning war crimes and genocide.
• Implications for Civilian Populations: The term does not shy away from the implications of such a military strategy on civilian populations. A "military offensive" often involves not only targeting armed opponents but also significant effects on civilians, which in the case of Srebrenica, led to massive displacement, loss of life, and atrocities.

You don't have to speak to all of those to prove whatever point it is you are wont to make, but how about "military offensive"? Which of these points do you strongly disagree with, why, and does your disagreement necessarily point to needing to exclude a term reflecting the information such a term necessarily provides? Could a satisfactory consensus be reached by some other manner – for example, as you've repeatedly brought up this either/or nature to your POV, then maybe your issue is with the 'order' of terms as they are listed in the infobox. Could changing the order address some hierarchical confusion you seem to have here? 122141510 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I object to any term which is not prominently used by sources to describe the character of the event and which does not feature proportionately in our article (which the infobox is a 'key facts' summary of). I'm not aware of any sources describing the massacre itself as either an assault or offensive, (though the massacre was preceded by such an offensive to 'take' the city). Sources rather than any machine intelligence is the relevant criterion I believe, the machine, in this instance, has a very logical but very literal analysis of the event.

If we ordinarily put the attack type in chronological order, assault might be first (if we included the background events). But we don't ordinarily do that, we put in order of how sources refer to the event/what sources say happened and the prominence of coverage in the article body, (thus the rapes are less frequently referred to and given less coverage in the article body than the killings, thus are listed laterin the 'type' list). IMO, it is highly debatable whether the preliminary 'taking' of the city was part of the massacre itself, which is what would confirm that this was 'an offensive'.

We may be arguing at cross-purposes as to the purpose of this parameter of the infobox, which I assumed was how RS described the "what was done" element, rather than 'whodunnit' or 'why they dunnit' - which is crudely what we are disagreeing about. I don't have time at the moment because of other commitments, but I think we are not going to agree on this, so should see what others have to say, and/or I will start an RfC if it remains unsesolved.

I wouldn't argue for a nano-second about some other minor changes,(such as 'androcide') but I do object to implying that the massacre was a conventional war-time military operation in any way. Pincrete (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, I also fail to see what military assault would have with this article about Srebrenica Massacre. The massacre happened after undertaken military actions in Srebrenica. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea that the massacre happened after military action ended is what I think is the ambiguity here. When comparing how the genocide is documented in other resources, I noticed, for example, that Encyclopedia Britannica documents both the events in Srebrenica leading up to the period of the genocide (as Wikipedia has defined it) and also the period of the genocide in a single article. Many websites I read also did not clearly delineate a start point to the event. In fact, I even found that I had trouble keeping AI models like ChatGPT 'focused' on the genocide event when I prompted it, as it would often revert to talking about the entire event in full, rather than just the period of the genocide as defined here.

My point isn't so much that I think that this article should be merged with Siege of Srebrenica – for multiple reasons I won't go into here – but that there is a bit of a contrivance in the way it has been formatted. It is not as if on July 11 Ratko Mladic picked up a phone and said "this is no longer a military operation, now it is a genocide". I don't mean to be glib here, but I think it's the simplest way of expressing what I'm getting at – it's not correct to say the genocide "happened after undertaken military actions in Srebrenica". There is not a clear distinction that makes it possible to discuss it in that way, on this specific point. Rather, it happened both concurrent to and even as a part of military actions – or, rather, it is an action taken by the military, so it is itself a military action. I think that is reflected in the article and the sources, and the infobox should reflect that.

I was wondering if there was any easy way out by saying 'genocide as an attack type implies a level of organization that necessitates direct military involvement' but I don't think it necessarily was, as there are examples of genocides executed without exclusively military involvement (or even without military involvement whatsoever). 122141510 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with events in Srebrenica, but I was under impression that mass executions happened after men were separated from their families. Military Operation articles are structured in a different way than this article. I don't think that the event of massacre happening during military operation would imply that it itself is a military operation. It's just an event which happened during the military operation. I think that it just confusing to call this event a military operation, as those articles focus on military terminology, etc. I've also not seen anyone calling this event a military operation. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

From the military POV, this effectively was a military operation that was executed as part of the greater overarching RAM Plan, but I have not been successful in finding a primary source that makes that connection, so framing it that way in the article proper would violate WP:SYNTH. Having said this, even if I did find that information, I do agree that "military operation" is not necessarily the correct terminology to express to a reader that element of the subject of the article, which is why I didn't suggest it. As mentioned above, It's perfectly fine to attempt to figure out more appropriate terminology, but the article would greatly suffer if the current "military assault" was removed and nothing that would denote the same information, in the same manner or better, immediately replaced it. 122141510 (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Military operation is a bit more vague and and generic than 'assault' or 'offensive' but is otherwise almost a synonym. None of those IMO would be apt as the primary, defining character of the attack type. Certainly is was perpetrated by 'troops', but that info is already in the Perpetrator section, does it need repeating?

That the Srebrenica massacre was part of a greater strategic aim to create a geographically continuous area entirely of Serb majority territory, is widely held to be true. I wonder whether that is infobox material however, since it isn't reducible to a few words.

Regarding the after/during the military operation leading to the fall, I think the trials have established that the seizing of Srebrenica was always done with the specific intent of perpetrating the massacre (that there was conscious, premeditated intent), but as you say, we treat the 'fall' mainly as background to the massacre. From a purely practical viewpoint, it wouldn't be possible to merge with the 'Siege' article (article size here is already massive). Pincrete (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would the article suffer? This is just an infobox. The article body already is describing events around the massacre. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to say , I'm not that familiar with events around Srebrenica massacre, and this discussion is quite long. As I'm involved in other discussions I haven't read it all, but I tried to provide my opinion. I'm not disagreeing completely, but I don't see much benefit, nor I see much problems with your suggestion. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

From the military POV, this effectively was a military operation that was executed as part of the greater overarching RAM Plan. 'From the military POV' the Final solution was simply a, rational solution to a problem. That's how armies work, normalising everything they do, irrespective of how grotesque the resulting actions might be. But we aren't really interested in how Ratko Mladić etc perceived or portrayed the event, we are interested in how WP:RS characterise it. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources characterize it as a genocide executed by the Serbian military and paramilitary. Nobody is actively disputing this as this is reflected by the article and the sources used to compose the article, so I don't understand why you would want the infobox to downplay the involvement of the military in the event. 122141510 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Almost all genocides are perpetrated or led by military or para-militaries. There is a section of the infobox labelled 'Perpetrators' specifically to record 'whodunnit'. The 'type of attack' normally records what was done and NO sources record this as a military attack AFAIK, certainly you have presented none that do. It is pure WP:SYNTH to argue that because all sources agree that the perpetrators were people in uniforms, it is therefore a military attack. It simply wasn't and no sources say it was.

By the way, the main perpetrators were the VRS, the army of the breakaway 'Republika Srpska'. So they were mainly ethnically Serb, but not Serbian as such. The paramilitaries involved were mostly Serbians with a smattering of 'foreign' volunteers.Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So they were mainly ethnically Serb, but not Serbian as such. The Serb/Serbian distinction in the middle of the 1990s – during the ongoing dissolution of Serbia – was not commonly made and it was actually relatively common into the early 2000s for some Serb[?], whether they resided in what is today's BiH or in today's Serbia, to still refer to themselves as Yugoslavian by citizenship. If I understand the way you seem to understand and prefer to define the politics, nationality, and ethnicities of the region, there were no Serbians in existence until 2006 [36].

I would suggest remaining on topic rather than making any "by the ways". By this point it's obvious we do not get along and should try to limit ourselves to remaining on topic. I actually am satisfied with There is a section of the infobox labelled 'Perpetrators' specifically to record 'whodunnit' as an answer to the topic actually at hand. As I believe the only other active participant in this conversation was Trimpops2, who did not find my previously argument compelling, and I've mostly accepted your rationale to remove (I object to the logic as you've argued it in full, but I'm tired of arguing with you), I would not argue with you if you were to claim you reached a consensus to remove the text in question. 122141510 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Members of the various republics and other entities that constituted Yugoslavia were commonly known by the name of that republic long before those republics became independent. I'm sure there were Serbians fighting in the VRS and there was much heavy weaponry inherited from the JNA, but the army that perpetrated Srebrenica flew under the flag of the VRS, whoever might have been 'pulling the strings' or 'paying the piper' in Belgrade.

Such distinctions were tediously, but necessarily, made in reporting outside the region, since attempting to distinguish Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims (the term commonly used at that time for Bosniaks) from Croats and Serbians was the only hope anyone outside the region had of getting a handle on who was trying to slaughter who, where (and why).

Thankyou for conceding on this matter, I will impement the change. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So then by your logic – Members of the various republics and other entities that constituted Yugoslavia were commonly known by the name of that republic – if you are consistent with it, you should assert that Bosnians perpetrated the Srebrenica genocide. Why do you do otherwise? 122141510 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC) This is rhetorical but a response is sincerely requested. Since you have such a large control of this article I would like to comprehend how you understand the question and how it might influence future edits of this article. 122141510 (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This is rhetorical precisely, and somewhat absurd! By analogy, we ordinarily refer to people from the US as Americans, however in the context of a race murder, we might need to be more specific and refer to a white or black American. If we were talking about events during The Troubles, the text would be meaningless if we failed to distinguish which kind of Irish/N Irish person was doing what and why. In the context of a largely ethnically inspired war in Bosnia mainly involving Bosnians of Serb ethnicity and those of Croat ethnicity, each to a degree supported by Serbia proper and Croatia proper, both mainly fighting Bosniaks, it is is necessary to make the distinction as to what kind of Bosnians, and to a lesser extent Serbians and Croatians we are referring to (all largely referred to by self-identification terms and those used by WP:RS). That's a concise response, out of the top of my head, to a self-acknowledged rhetorical question. But yes, Bosnians were killing other Bosnians, often with the aid of their ethnic 'fellows' from adjacent countries and from their respective diasporas. Clearly they felt a stronger attachment to their respective ethnicities than they did to the entity in which they lived.

I have no control of the article, very little of it has been written by me, and I think it has lost coherence, but I do watch it, precisely because it is a target of 'random' and PoV edits of all kinds. I'm not going to apologise for that.Pincrete (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The genocide was the genocide

recently an IP replaced the description in the opening line that the event was a genocidal massacre with the event being a genocide. The IP , probably correctly says "I read all the sources, it says only genocide". I reverted this good faith edit. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1237058901 Another editor restored the IPs edit and I have just restored the long term version.

Firstly, the IP is correct that the sources used don't say 'genocidal massacre', however they also don't say that the event was a genocide. What they say is that people were found guilty of genocide because of their actions iro the event. In fact the ICTY ruling used as a main source specifically refers to the event as "The massacre at Srebrenica". The name of an event is not automatically the same as the name of a crime committed at that event.

If I recall correctly, the 'genocidal massacre' description was added some time ago by someone seeking to 'beef up' the 'genocide' element, therefore they added sources which endorsed the word 'genocide', they probably felt it unnecessary to provide sources which endorsed 'massacre'.

I am not especially wedded to the long-term text, but I see no problems with it. I do not believe it is SYNTH to claim that a massacre at which it was ruled genocide occurred is a 'genocidal massacre'. We could easily find sources that refer to the event as a massacre or find some new form of words to describe the event, but "The genocide was the genocide" is both clumsy English and a fairly crude way to bypass the recent failed move discussion IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)