Talk:Srebrenica massacre

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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 [3] – US Congress didn't refer to it as a 'massacre' either [4]. 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 [5] 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: [6]. 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"[7] 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" [8]. 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 [[9]], 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.[10]. 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 [11] 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"" [12]

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 [13], 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 [14]. 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 [15]

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)

The evidence showed a very small preference for 'massacre' over 'genocide' for two years only, for all other years the prefernce was substantial. On balance, I thought that indicated that COMMONAME had not changed, if the medium term were counted. That is a considered judgement which you are free to disagree with, as some did, it isn't 'ignoring the evidence'. Nobody "cast aspersions on the UN", we simply aren't required to be their 'echo chamber', they have their own press office. Ditto US, NATO, UK, PRC, RF etc. Why would any of these be treated as though they were holy writ? We record what they say in many instances, but not endorse or negate their pronouncements. You might as well ask the thousands of academics, reporters, book writers, ICTY, why they use the term 'massacre' to describe the event, rather than following the UN's lead. Even the Srebrenica Memorial itself, in all its publications calls itself that (it has a longer 'official' name which includes the word 'genocide' but it doesn't use it on a day to day basis or in press releases etc). Is it even plausible that they are all Serb-loving, genocide denying, revisionist, apologist scum? Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a disingenuous framing of the conversation. Discounting the UN, ICJ, or any other institution – which you did when you said your edits and contributions were informed by a certain scepticism on my part about the moral authority of UN pronouncements in this area, a concern which is immaterial when discussing what the common name is. Nobody is suggesting treating any one of these sources as 'holy writ' but taken as sum they contribute to the WP:COMMONNAME, which WP may indeed essentially be beholden to (with only a few exceptions, such as those articles where WP:BLP is an overriding concern).

There is absolutely nothing which obliges Wikipedia to be interpreted in all the regards as you have indicated – your arguments depend on non-conventional interpretations of policy, regularly mischaracterizing issues brought up, selectively ignoring sources, and mischaracterizing what editors have said in a manner that is aggravating – and it's you who are again bringing up the allegation that questioning you is likening you to a revisionist. There is no need for you to immediately jump to a victim role when you are asked to explain yourself. 122141510 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

FMasic. The UN does not own the word genocide. Who said it does? No, The Genocide Convention provides the definition. Reporting that the courts proved this event fits the genocide convention is only one part of the story. Most important part. I don't really understand what are other parts? Denial is also relative to how genocide is being defined, and is therefore not necessarily the same as historical denialism. You can deny. I will straight up tell you the genocide convention is wrong because it doesn't make these distinctions. Ok, you are free to have your opinion. Hence, framing criticisms of the word "genocide" as denialism is biasing the article. I said multiple times one can make a case and I'm fine with it. Just say, I'm denying and here are my arguments. And the courts are only one commentator, the biggest one. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a move review ongoing at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July. It might be better to participate in the discussion there rather than here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof I can't imagine that the move review might benefit from the tenor of this conversation. Though Pincrete constantly prefers to escalate/intimidate the conversation to WP:ANI, it seems to me that the situation is probably one to try and handle at WP:NPOVN, as they are now apparently denying that sources refer to the event this article covers as a genocide [16]. His contributions to the move review were disruptive, his contributions to this talk page are disruptive, and he appears to be on a knife's edge insofar as an ongoing 3RR [17] [18] [19] ...if he's not there already? 122141510 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A WP:3RR violation ordinarily refers to more than three reverts within 24 hours. The three edits you pointed to cover about 36 hours and are only three, so they do not show a violation. I did not look to see if there are more. There may be more than one way to interpret some of the remarks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:29, 29 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. 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)

It seems to me that you were paid from Serbia and they say there that it was some kind of crime, not genocide, not recognizing the international court of justice and the UN resolution. As far as I'm concerned, write that everything was made up there, because when you lie, you should lie properly, not minimize it like you do.193.31.30.70 (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not being consistent. You argued that it is not correct to identify a genocide executed by military forces as a military assault because none of the sources which all discussed at length that the genocide was an assault executed by military forces, but never used the exact term military assault.

Further, when you say that [Sources] also don't say that the event was a genocide. Of course they do! [20] Perhaps you are having trouble rendering the pdf file, but the very source in question identifies the event as a genocide. Why do you choose to ignore some sources, but not others? There is no need for editors to shop around and easily find sources that refer to the event as a massacre just because you don't like the ICJ, or (as in the above move request) apparently don't like the UN either. 122141510 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note also: the sentence is not "The genocide was the genocide", but "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide...". In the opening sentence as currently formulated, "also known as the Srebrenica genocide" is a non-restrictive appositive. With non-restrictive appositives, the essential meaning of the sentence should not change if the appositive were removed. By leaving the sentence as currently formulated, this holds true. However, if the non-restrictive appositive is removed from the sentence as you've suggested, The Srebrenica massacre was the July 1995 genocidal massacre... which leads to an article about academics discussing genocide which are "lesser in scale" and even "partial genocide". None of the sources compare the Srebrenica as being any lesser than other genocides, and one of the sources Wikipedia uses elsewhere [21], as I read it, states the opposite – I would charactercize it as saying that the Srebrenica genocide is a holon of the greater Bosnian genocide. In other words, your claim the sentence is grammatically invalid is predicated on mischaracterizing the sentence(!), and changes the meaning of the sentence with consequence to the reader. 122141510 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was grammatically flawed, I said it was clumsy English, which it is. We usually avoid opening sentences of the "The killing of Mary Smith was the 1999 killing of Mary Ann Smith …", kind (they are trite and communicate little). I am open to suggestions for rephrasing if people object strongly to the "genocidal massacre" construction. The effective sentence is still "the genocide was the genocide", apart from being clumsy English, it is 'taking a stand' on to the correct name/term to describe the event, contrary to the naming agreement and contrary to the actual source used.

The fact that the GM link leads to 'lesser' crimes is irrelevant. The purpose of such ,a link is to say what a GM is (though the meaning is fairly self evident), not to establish how serious/trivial Srebrenica was. A link is always removable.

I'd advise you to stop bringing up previous edit disagreements, it simply creates the impression that you are making WP:POINT edits instead of addressing the immediate topic. However, addressing your 'attack' question. No source describes the massacre itself as 'an attack' (no one disputes the adjective 'military' nor that the massacre was preceded by an action to seize Srebrenica - the fall, which could be called an attack) , so the adjective is apt but the noun very dubious, especially when put into 'pole position' for 'attack type'.

However no one (apart from the IP perhaps) disputes that the event was a massacre, nor that it was ruled to be genocide, nor that both terms are often used, to describe the event. The ICTY judgement (rejecting the appeal against a number of genocide convictions), which is currently used as the source, actually has a whole chapter entitled "The massacre at Srebrenica" to describe the 'killing spree'. Why they do this is pure surmisal, but possibly they are employing the recognisable name, or possibly they are following a convention of distinguishing between an event and the crime that was committed at that event or some other reason. Whatever their reason, they do it and no serious person could think that a rejection of an appeal would be seeking to minimise or downplay the gravity of the offence. They call the killings 'the massacre', but endorse the verdict that those killings constitute 'genocide'.

Thus, both 'massacre' and 'genocide' are almost indisputable as to both what happened, and as to the name used. Personally, I have no problem in merging the adjective and the noun, since both are extensively sourced and/or sourcable, but if editors object, we can find some other form of words for the opening sentence, which seeks to characterise/summarise what the massacre was.

What happened at Srebrenica is - almost equally - characterised as a 'massacre' (an emotive term similar to 'bloodbath', 'rampage', 'slaughter') and as a 'genocide' (a legal term, largely defined by intent), to endorse only one of those terms in the opening sentence is not supported by the very sources currently used, and is not neutral IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not a WP:POINT edit, it is attempting to make sense of and work with an editor who claims to be solely beholden to sources but then seems to work on a system of logic other than that (and one which is imcompatible with how Wikipedia work).

Please stop mischaracterizing what the sentence "effective[ly] is to "the genocide was the genocide", because your statement is incorrect. It has already explained to you how a non-restructive appositive works, and if you do not understand you are welcome to read the article which explains how it works.

You should clarify your claim that the source does not identify the event documented in this article as a genocide. It is difficult – nearly impossible – to work with someone if it is not possible to agree on a common reality. Does this require RfC? 122141510 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the details of that particular sentence, I agree that the amount of repetition of the word "genocide" in the lead section of this article seems excessive. The article about The Holocaust uses the word 'genocide' just once in its lead section. The Darfur genocide article uses it twice (one of which is the opening sentence's repetition of the article's title). The Armenian genocide article uses it four times (again, one of which is in the opening sentence's repetition of the title). This article uses the word nine times in its lead section. It's repetitive to a degree that gives the reader the impression that it's trying to do more than summarize the facts of the matter. It is not necessary or desirable to make the same point over and over. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes BarrelProof but in the most important part, "what is it", it was changed with the obvious intention of diminishing the genocide that was brought by the ICTY court or UN. It was changed a month ago [[22]] and it is not a stable version as Pincrete says, it was written genocide for years as sources say, so this was changed a month ago.66.59.199.220 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have questions about why Pincrete has chosen to revert this but Pincrete will (rightfully) protest if you say why he is changing it. But I do think at this point he is obliged to answer if he wishes to continue to participate in conversations here and edit articles here. This is nothing to do with his accusations that I see myself as a "Grand Inquisitor" but pushing back against the opposite – I feel like he is behaving in a bullying manner with this article, and he constantly refuses to have conversations by some manner or another – either playing victim, or else suggesting that conversations necessarily must be escalated to WP:ANI. He is as obliged to have conversations to build consensus as anyone else.

So the question is – why does Pincrete state a source that is reliable and relevant to the article that identifies the event documented in this article as a genocide, as saying a genocide did not occur? 122141510 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise for misremembering who and when the text was changed, it was as you correctly say changed about a month ago by Tom B, while he was 'pruning' the article. The previous long-term text was actually "was the genocidal killing". Are you saying you want that text restored rather than "genocidal massacre"? I have no objection if that is the case, though 'G M' seems much beefier if less explicit. 'GM' is no less sourced than 'GK', both are dependent on elaborating on the meaning of 'massacre'.

You would have no need to elaborate on why I changed something if you simply asked me.

No one could possibly claim in good faith that I have ever questioned whether a genocide occurred, particularly not in the present discussion or that I said that the sources used (an ICTY judgement for God's sake, rejecting the appeal against the verdict of genocide) are saying that a genocide did not occur. They are using the term 'massacre' to describe the event at which 'genocide' occurred. Much as a court decided that multiple murder occurred at My Lai or 'crimes against humanity' occurred at multiple locations in WWII. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that No one could possibly claim in good faith that I have ever questioned whether a genocide occurred, – above [23], you wrote that "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". [emphasis mine] I find it difficult – if not impossible – to understand what possible basis you would have for making this statement, and you have offered no clarification thus far. 122141510 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Full quote: 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". Thus the ICTY ruling makes a distinction between how it names the event (massacre) and the crime that occurred there (genocide).

So I repeat No one could possibly claim in good faith that I have ever questioned whether a genocide occurred. They could of course selectively edit the quote in order to intentionally misrepresent the comment to another editor, and then double-down by not even bothering to re-read when challenged about it but that would be such a boring, bad-faith, trolling, pathetic thing to do wouldn't it? Pincrete (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Three things;

1. WP:NPA. @Pincrete, if you cannot participate in conversations and building consensus for editing articles in contentious topic areas, maybe you're not suited to participate in conversations and building consensus for editing articles in contentious topic areas.
2. I object very strongly to your offer to editors – Are you saying you want that text restored rather than "genocidal massacre"? I have no objection if that is the case, though 'G M' seems much beefier if less explicit. – as if Wikipedia is about what we might want an article to say. That is not how Wikipedia works and you are crossing lines when you try and strike deals with editors that violate WP:NPOV by selectively interpreting, misreading, and/or ignoring sources.
3. You are not really clarifying how on earth the sources in this article do not affirm a genocide occurred. I don't know why you're struggling to read the texts, but you clearly are. Perhaps the ICTY rulings are too difficult for you. You might find the NYT article easier to read and understand. You might also refer to any of the other sources used throughout the article which state in no ambiguous terms that the event documented in this article was a genocide.

122141510 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You are not really clarifying how on earth the sources in this article do not affirm a genocide occurred Errr that's because the very source used confirms that the crime of genocide occurred at the Srebrenica massacre. Who disputes that? Not me. How often do I need to say that? How on earth could a source rejecting an appeal against several 'guilty of genocide' or 'complicity in genocide' verdicts possibly be construed as anything other than an confirmation that the crime was committed at Srebrenica? But also, since that source refers to the actual killings as 'The massacre at Srebrenica', it is also an endorsement of the COMMONNAME of the event at which those killings/crimes occurred.

But it isn't the job of an opening sentence to simply repeat the article title (or in this instance, the proposal is to repeat an endorsement of the alternative title only). The job is to say what happened, what the page is about. To that extent I think that 'the genocidal killing of more than etc…' - which is the long term stable version is actually the clearest and most explicit definition of the subject. But if anyone else has a proposal that better defines the topic (without clumsy, pointless repetition of the title or alt title), then let's hear it.

I'm neutral about the adjective 'genocidal' in that sentence. As BarrelProof says above, we already mention the 'G-word' many times more often than any comparable article, but I would neither argue for its removal nor against such removal. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Pincrete everything in history was written on this article up to the decision of the ICTY court on Srebrenica and the UN Resolution, and for you it is not valid. It is only required to write what is written in the sources. You work on purpose [[24]]whitewashing.216.189.150.121 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete regarding this diff;

1. Wikipedia does not allow for a consensus to be formed which overrides the use of reliable sources
2. The grammar claim is false and has already been debunked

I encourage you to pursue formal venues such as RfC or other methods of dispute resolution. You do not have a unique mandate to override site policy or ignore participating in conversations to build consensus to edit. 122141510 (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510 When there is a dispute, we revert to the long term stable version until the dispute is resolved.

Are you actually arguing that the sources used don't endorse that " The SM/SG was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War". Which part of that sentence isn't fully endorsed by the sources?

Clearly you did not even read the text or edit reason before hitting the revert button. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC) btw, I've never claimed that it was bad grammar, I've said it's pointless, trite, repetitious English which fails to define the subject simply and clearly.Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No one should be reverting to any version of an article to include statements which are unsupported by sources, regardless of any other policy. You are also required by decorum to participate in conversations to build consensus to edit. I get instead the impression you are ignoring any conversation you don't like. You included in your rationale to revert the document a claim of 'dreadful English', which I've already taken time to explain to you. In fact, your reversion is creating a grammatically inferior version – when the non-restrictive apositive is removed, you are in effect asserting that the article should state that "the massacre was the massacre". Including that rationale when it's already been explained to you is ridiculous.

You're now also switching which version of the statement you assert is the 'long term stable version'. It doesn't make much sense to assert multiple possibilities for what the 'long term stable version' is. 122141510 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong?

Good clear English is sometimes a matter of judgement, not dictat, but simply repeating the alternative title in the opening sentence seems pretty much the definition of pointless-ness to me. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC) ps Since you quote extensively from it, you obviously read my post in which I apolgised for forgetting the recent change made by Tom B, and thus mis-remembering what the long-term stable version actually was. But whichever version it was, it certainly wasn't the edit you and the IP are edit-warring back into the article. However all three versions are almost equally supported by the sources used. ICTY actually calls the event the M at S! So are they saying a massacre didn't occur that they spend a whole chapter outlining? Are they saying than 8000+ males weren't killed in that massacre. We have already established (I hope) that they aren't saying that genocide didn't occur there. You are being extremely selective in what you are prepared to admit the sources endorse.Pincrete (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the way you prioritize information is not logically consistent. Your questions do not lend to what we're disputing. We often talk past each other and run into conflict in this way, so, as I've suggested to you before, you ought to stick to the direct topic and questions at hand and avoid abstractions. I don't know which 'long term stable' you think you're referring to – you've indicated two versions of the sentence as the 'long term stable', which I just said is already inherently self-contradicting.

Sources support the statement that The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide....

You also might consider limited license to ignore opportunities to avoid dictat here. As I've suggested before, when editing articles in contentious topic areas, similar to how WP:BLP is handled, editors should err towards making edits which can be rationalized and defended using policy and guidelines, and not a matter of judgment. Your difficulty in contributing to this conversation, respectfully, I take as evidence to this end. Other editors can't read your mind and figure out what you think is a long term stable, and other editors can't make heads or tails of why you might feel so passionately about avoiding a risk of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in some areas but not others.

You continue to agree the event was a genocide (and, more importantly, agree that sources identify the event as a genocide), but then you object very strongly to the statement

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide

and argue in favor of either

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal massacre...

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing...

which again, seems more like a matter for an RfC than anything else. I don't appreciate why you think these sentences are better – you haven't answered directly, and continue to assert something about grammar, syntax, or bad English, while giving yourself unique license to determine what is or isn't bad English based on your own judgment and ignore the judgment of others, even though in my case I took time to explain to you the grammatical and syntactical concerns. You countered with an implication that it's a matter of judgement. Implicitly, by your action, it's a judgment you're qualified to and others aren't – not really how consensus works! 122141510 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong? I have never mentioned either grammar or syntax, you keep repeating the same claim, just as you repeatedly claimed that I somehow denied a genocide by citing the VERY ICTY DOCUMENT that disallowed the appeal against the genocide verdicts & sentences.

Of course genocide happened there, Of course it was a massacre, Of course men were killed, but attempting to limit to only one of those - ignoring that the very sources used are explicit about all three is very NPOV. It is difficult to see it as other than a bad faith to circumvent the (failed) name move while at the same time failing to define the subject and, tritely, repeating the alternative title as though it were the only way to describe the event. The "genocide was the genocide" is the effective sentence, or possibly the "massacre was the genocide, either communicates almost nothing IMO.

We already mention 'genocide' many times more often than the Holocaust article. Doesn't that say anything? Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The "genocide was the genocide" is the effective sentence. Do we need to RfC everything? I've already explained to you how you're incorrect here, and it is your diff rationale and previous comments which continue to bring up 'bad English' or otherwise. 122141510 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC

So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong? Third time of asking and still deadly silence. The latest excuse for reverting is shown to be either consciously dishonest or at least inadvertently inaccurate. The sources more than adequately endorse the long-term version (but they don't actually say the "Srebrenica massacre was the genocide", they say genocide happened at the massacre if we are determined to be ever-so pedantic). Do we need to RfC everything? Well you do if you can't get consensus for your desired change from either of the stable versions. It isn't me that insists that only one version of the opening sentence or only one article name is valid (and anathema on anyone who doesn't salute that version). Repeating the alternative title to define the article is pointless, muddled and appears to be a fairly pathetic attempt to circumvent the rejection of the failed move discussion. It also makes the following sentences pretty clumsy. I've already explained to you how you're incorrect I'm sorry, but as it doesn't seem to be obvious to you, I disagree. Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Third time of asking and still deadly silence. It is clearly not constructive for you and I to write entire essays back and forth at each other. I've explained why we are almost certainly better off tackling issues one at a time. We should start easy and remain on the assertion you made that the opening sentence has 'bad English' – it is one which is relatively benign and non-controversial. You also clearly feel strongly enough about it to continually assert your judgment as superior to mine, and have expressed disagreement.

I've explained to you what a non-retsrictive appositive is and how it should be considered.

Is it not obvious to you what a non-restrictive appositive is?

Are you unable to identify the non-restrictive appositive in the opening sentence?

What exactly do you disagree with?

I'll also bring up you have not been consistent with how you raise this issue. You objected to the formulation;

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide... and claimed [incorrectly] that this could be reduced to 'the genocide was the genocide'. You actually would've been more in your rights to object to the formulation The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal massacre... because by way of removing the non-restrictive appositive, the sentence is effectively reduced to 'the massacre was the genocidal massacre'. I believe your edits were in effect doing the exact opposite – you were making the sentence 'bad English' by way of introducing a tautology. 122141510 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong? Still no answer nor any reason why we don't adopt normal practice of going back to the long-term stable version until a new consensus is reached. The failure to do so is further proof of bad faith AFAI am concerned. Citing the sources used as a revert justification is simply false, they endorse all three above elements fully. If a better 'defining' sentence can be arrived at, Hurrah! but the revert to the IP's edit was unjustified edit-warring which actually ignored the content of the sources used. The IP clearly didn't read the sources, but you have and must know that your edit reason was simply false, whether consciously or because of careless reading I don't know and frankly don't care. Professions of good faith are simply hot-air when deeds contradict normal practice.

The only tautology I have accepted (but not particularly endorsed) is the use of the word 'genocidal' before 'killing' in the long-term version. I understand why people want it there, though as BarrelProof points out, we already use the 'G-word' many times more often than other comparable articles. I agree that 'genocidal massacre' is far from perfect, it was TomB who made that edit, not me, but it is preferable to 'your' proposed text IMO.

Your proposed text defines nothing. How does one justify simply repeating the alternative title as the 'defining' sentence? doing so clearly implies that the alternative title is correct, the actual title wrong. The proposed defining sentence reads like a huge PoV comment on the actual article title. Beyond that intrusive PoV 'comment' on the title, it communicates nothing apart from what some editors think we ought to call the event regardless of what the sources have and do call it, even the sources we actually use. How many times do we need to clumsily repeat the word 'genocide' to make the point? Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Professions of good faith are simply hot-air when deeds contradict normal practice. Quite. I see no reason to go down your argumentative and contentious train of thought. Your last several edits on this talk page have in effect accused me of being illiterate but you cannot, or refuse, process a conversation in a stepwise manner. Please refer to my prior questions. I haven't proposed any text yet. I don't believe we've gotten to that point yet. My impression is that the issue of grammar or 'bad English' should be resolved before I can offer anything. You can submit an RfC if you like but trolling me is not going to get me to relent. 122141510 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've submitted an RfC in lieu, and instead of edit warring. 122141510 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The recent article history sure looks like edit warring at first glance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel I am effectively being harassed, bullied, and intimidated. Efforts on my part to cool the conversation down are rebuffed or otherwise ignored, sometimes even in favor of calling me illiterate. In effect, Pincrete is arguing he is not obliged to reach any consensus with other editors. I feel like it is simply a tactic to either wear me out or tire me out. I have limited interest in relenting. It is my intent that I can attempt to have navigate the conversation towards productive consensus formation like adults, and it is my understanding that this is within the parameters and expectations of how this project works. 122141510 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You have accused me repeatedly of denying that genocide occurred, and repeatedly said that I say a source claims that a genocide did not occur - when it clearly doesn't say that and which I clearly haven't said. (I say the source (the ICTY judgement) calls the killings 'The massacre at Srebrenica' and the crime committed it calls 'genocide'). I do not apolgise for saying that anyone stupid or crude-thinking enough to be unable to understand the distinction between what the source calls the actual killings and the crime it endorses the 'guilty verdict' for, probably has no business editing this article. You have also accused me of being a Serb apologist (and come onto my talk page to assert that this isn't a personal attack and to assert your right to repeat it).

If this is your idea of YOU being harassed, bullied, and intimidated, I don't know what to say. I have clearly forcefully complained about, what I think is clear, intentional misreading of another editor's comments and clear, intentional misrepresenting of sources, but I have tried to correct errors without resorting to personal attacks. But by failing to address the question So which part of the long term stable version isn't supported by the very sources used? Were 8,000 + males not killed? Was it not deemed to be a genocide? Is the date wrong? while claiming that your revert was motivated by a lack of sources, you strongly suggest that you didn't even bother to read the text you were reverting from. (You actually say "The source explicitly identifies it as a genocide, not massacre. … your claim that sources claim the event was not a genocide is not credible" However a) the source explicitly refers to "The massacre at Srebrenica" to describe the killing but b) this is irrelevant since 'my' text doesn't even use the word 'massacre' c) Neither I, nor any editor on this article, nor any source we use (outside the 'Denial' section perhaps) has ever suggested that the crime of genocide was not committed at Srebrenica. A claim that has never been made by me, the sources, or anyone, cannot possibly be either credible nor not credible.)

If this were a single accidental misreading, a correction, and an apolgy would be sufficient, but it isn't. It's a stubborn refusal to acknowledge a number of factual mistakes following repeated correction and a doubling down of the initial error, which is inherently bad-faith.

Real life calls, but I will continue later and give you ample opportunity to remedy these errors by deeds, not words if you are sincere about the wish to 'turn down' the heat on discussion . Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no obligation to acknowledge your posts. If you insist on continuing to interact with me I will request an interaction ban. 122141510 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Note to admins: I have no obligation to acknowledge their posts at this time, given what they have said in this conversation. All their conversation is hypocritical bad-faith argument which is entirely predicated by an attempt to harass and wear me out rather than ever attempt to form any sort of consensus. You [admins] are culpable here, as collectively sat on your hands and allowed this user to harass me and own this article in the manner by which they have. I've asked for intervention multiple times and have received nothing. All ANI does is give this user the impression they can continue to do what they do – argue with editors, push the limits of edit-warring without explicitly violating rules so they can continue to do it. You've allowed this user to WP:GAMETHESYSTEM. I will be cooperative with any action pursued after the fact but if there is pushback along the lines that it is on me to escalate, the answer is that I tried. If the answer is that I didn't escalate correctly, that's unreasonable onus. I have gone out of my way to try and cooperate with this user and they have simply continued to abuse me in a manner which is outrageous and simply unacceptable. It is not on editors to tolerate abuse unless they're familiar with all the tools and loopholes senior editors are more familiar with, and it is not acceptable for admins to ignore bias being pushed in an abusive manner in the manner I've been forced to accept here. 122141510 (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

USER:122141510, I have no obligation to acknowledge their posts at this time, that is quite correct, however you do have an obligation to retract the claim that you have made 5 or 6 times recently that I have either denied that genocide occurred at Srebrenica or that I have said a source makes that claim. Recent example above: So the question is – why does Pincrete state a source that is reliable and relevant to the article that identifies the event documented in this article as a genocide, as saying a genocide did not occur?. underlining mine

Of course the source is relevant (an ICTY judgement and news report of that judgement disallowing an appeal against guilty verdicts on charges of genocide), of course it endorses that genocide occurred at Srebrenica since it confirms the 'guilty' verdicts, but it actually identifies the event which is the article subject as "The Massacre at Srebrenica" and devotes a sustantial chapter to detailing that 'massacre'. The ICTY judgement effectively distinguishes between an event, the actual 'killing spree', by calling it "the massacre" and the crime committed there, ie 'genocide'.

Nowhere do I make the (frankly absurd, self-contradicting) claim that the guilty verdict says a genocide did not occur. I have corrected you on this several times and yet you 'doubled down' by repeating this claim rather than retract, apologise and strike the claim. To misread once is human, to repeat the misreading repeatedly looks like much worse than carelessness. Thus, I do not now apologise for saying above anyone stupid or crude-thinking enough to be unable to understand the distinction between what the source calls the actual killings and the crime it endorses the 'guilty verdict' for, probably has no business editing this article. But I don't believe you are either stupid or crude thinking, I believe that you consider it your right to make personal attacks, (as part of a battle ground approach to editing) as you have directly said on my article talk when called upon to stop a previous return to speculating on talk as to which of your fellow editors were "Serb revisionists".

In the context of the Srebrenica massacre, saying someone denies the genocide, or claims that sources say that, is an overt personal attack. It questions their intelligence, competence and neutrality apart from deeply offensive in itself. I ask you to clearly concede that I have NEVER made any such claims nor said that sources make such claims and strike each of the repetitions of this that you have recently made. If you do not do so, I will be interpreting it as confirmation that you consider it your right to intentionally misrepresent editors' views, and will report you.

I don't ask you to strike comments about me or other editors being Serb revisionists/apologists or similar, since you would be striking comments almost all the way back to your arrival on this page and most of them, although they leave a rancid smell, are actually too silly for words. But if such idle speculations are made again on talk, I will be reporting you. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a case of mixing up Hanlon's razor. I suppose I gave you more credit than you deserved – you're functionally illiterate. You cannot even wrap your head around basic English syntax and grammar – how is possible to disagree with a non-restrictive appositive? Your posts here are ridiculous. And now you want to bully, harass, and intimidate others into accepting your lack of understanding of what a genocide is? 122141510 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The tone here has gotten bad enough that I'll be filing this dispute at WP:ANI unless I see a quick improvement. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If there won't be any direct intervention from you or any other administrator without an ANI being filed, then it should be filed. Pincrete is already undermining the RfC which was expressly submitted for the purpose of formally soliciting opinions from anyone else, rather than him and I continuing to bicker, and not yet another talk page section in which he might attack me in. 122141510 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Edit warring and accusations of bad faith about Srebrenica massacre. (FYI, I am not an administrator.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

• I support terms massacre and genocide per terms used in sources. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding massacre – I would understand "Srebrenica massacre", in effect colloquially, including killing, rape, and relocation as has been documented in this article. What about "massacre" on its own? Would a formulation like The Srebrenica massacre [...] was the massacre include or omit the additional actions? 122141510 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you reformulate that. I didn't understand. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If you say "Srebrenica massacre", then I understand it as currently meaning everything that's in the article – the killing of citizens of Srebrenica, and rape of citizens of Srebrenica, and forced deportation of citizens of Srebrenica.

If you just say "massacre", then I understand that as only talking about the killing. The dictionary definition of massacre is, per Wikitionary, The killing of a considerable number (usually limited to people) where little or no resistance can be made, with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and/or contrary to civilized norms.

If there is no dispute with these definitions, then saying "the Srebrenica massacre was the massacre..." is technically incorrect, because it doesn't include the rape or deportations. My question was a more open-ended attempt to see if I'm correct without a simple "do you agree"? 122141510 (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, The Srebrenica Massacre with capital 'S' and 'M' is the name of the event which includes everything described in the article. The event was a genocide. Term massacre with lowercase 'm' is a general term with the meaning described in any dictionary. The Srebrenica Massacre was not merely a massacre. It was also a genocide and it includes other crimes then just a massacre, plus an intent to destroy the group. This is all written in the article named 'The Srebrenica Massacre'. Trimpops2 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT is irrelevant. Please read WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Secondary for what sourcing is expected on Wikipedia, even on discussions. Soni (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment from submitter. For those suspecting this is a reaction to the move request failing, in some regards it effectively is. This RfC is informed from consulting with ChatGPT 4 (legacy model). I asked the following questions; 1. does the term 'srebrenica genocide' necessarily include the killing AND rape AND deportation? does the term 'srebrenica masssacre' necessarily exclude any of these? GPT 4 response to Q1 The term "Srebrenica Genocide" typically refers to a series of events that occurred in July 1995 during the Bosnian War, specifically targeting the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) population of Srebrenica. This term generally encompasses the mass killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, as well as acts of rape, and the forced deportation of Bosniak women, children, and elderly. Thus, the use of "genocide" acknowledges not only the mass killings but also the systematic nature of the atrocities intended to destroy, in part, a national, ethnical, or religious group, as such. On the other hand, "Srebrenica Massacre" typically refers more specifically to the mass killing aspect of these events. It focuses on the execution-style killings that occurred, which are the most documented and recognized elements of the atrocities. This term does not explicitly exclude the consideration of rape and deportation but is generally less comprehensive in scope regarding the full range of crimes committed during the genocide. Both terms are heavily loaded and carry significant historical, legal, and emotional weight, reflecting different aspects of the same events. The use of either term can imply different emphases in discussion or analysis, with "genocide" addressing the broader, systematic attempt to destroy a group and "massacre" focusing more on the act of mass killing. 2. colloquially, would the term 'srebrenica massacre' be understood as including the additional, because it is so often used interchangeably with 'srebrenica genocide'? GPT 4 response to Q2 Colloquially, when people refer to the "Srebrenica Massacre," they often are aware of the broader context of the events that occurred, including the associated acts of rape and deportation, especially because the terms "Srebrenica Massacre" and "Srebrenica Genocide" are frequently used interchangeably in various discussions and media. This interchangeability means that even though "massacre" primarily connotes the killings, the general public might still understand it to imply the broader atrocities due to the widespread knowledge of the event's comprehensive brutality. However, the understanding can vary depending on the individual's depth of knowledge about the events, the context in which the term is used, and the specificity required by the discussion or narrative. For those more familiar with the historical and legal distinctions, "massacre" might be seen as more specific to the killings, while "genocide" would explicitly include the wider range of crimes. In particular, For those more familiar with the historical and legal distinctions, "massacre" might be seen as more specific to the killings, while "genocide" would explicitly include the wider range of crimes. is generally my understanding. The event is colloquially referred to as 'Srebrenica massacre' but is technically incorrect – but it's at least in contention for WP:COMMONNAME, so it stands as the title of the article for now. Doubling down on that by defining the event in and of itself as either a massacre or a genocidal killing omits the additional actions. It's the For those more familiar with the historical and legal distinctions, that might actually be the more pertinent question to answer – who do we expect to read this article? what level of familiarity do we expect? – but given one of the first sources linked is a 19 page appeal judgement summary from the ICTY, I assume we're necessarily expecting some heightened level of familiarity. Ergo, the first sentence of the article is formulated incorrectly. No? 122141510 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's all well and fine but human curation of information generated by ChatGPT to clarify understanding and direction of conversation in a highly contentious topic is not a flagrant abuse, and I wasn't going to frame the conversation as being necessarily beholden to the information. @Soni: with respect, not the most helpful contribution here. 122141510 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can use ChatGPT to generate this information, you should be able to find sources to support your arguments, directly or otherwise. All GPT does, human curated or not, is regurgitate the same information from Wikipedia and other sources, but without the ever important attribution.

Personally, I think this RFC itself should also be closed, simply because of WP:STICK. There was an RM, then an ongoing Move review. You do not need an RFC on effectively the same broad question before that MR itself is closed. I recommend WP:3O or WP:DRN (and as a last resort WP:ANI) to resolve all questions at-large instead of a lengthy RFCs (or similar) on every sub-decision of this article. Soni (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that. I am simply not interested in another edit war and round of harassment from Pincrete. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests did not clearly delineate the best option about how I might save myself another week of arguing with that editor. If RFC is not the best method by which to request input on a specific content issue from a broad number of uninvolved users then I've probably picked the wrong mechanism. But that an uninvolved editor can jump to censure any mention of ChatGPT before contributing to the RfC, or intervening in the above endless argument, or the ongoing edit war (of which myself and Pincrete are not the only parties, hence my assumption WP:3O was not the best choice), is unimpressive. 122141510 (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right on 3O, apologies. As for the rest of it, I did weigh in, saying "This should have been closed because I think the Move Review is too connected to the question being asked". The overall discussion is nearly 54K words (or 2 tomats), expecting every editor to contribute after reading it all is a bit of a timesink. The first thing I read was an irrelevant argument that should be struck, so I hatted it. Editors can and should do that even regardless of how much they involve themselves in the rest of discussion. Soni (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors are endorsing a move which does not even have an effective rationale – I mentioned I empathise and appreciate that anyone trying to close that review should be thanked for having the time, patience, and willing to put themselves up to criticism. Regardless, it seems to me that the move review is looking to endorse the closed move request as it exists. As such the article needs to be addressed with its current title, and part of that is that the opening sentence is being edited in a way that doesn't agree with the current title and in a manner that I am confused by, and the rationale given by the editor makes no sense. Given the fierce, volume-long defense and subsequent ad hominem attacks on me for arguing the opposing, I'm inclined to think there must be something behind that fury, hence the benefit of the doubt and attempting to solicit additional opinions. 122141510 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You could save my yourself self another week of arguing with that editor (me) by simply closing this 'fake RfC', reverting to the version that was stable for several years before you and the IP edit-warred in the present version, then start a discussion on talk. You could begin by explaining why you think describing the event as genocidal killing is not supported by sources. If a consensus of editors agree with 'your' text, it would of course stay. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You could begin by explaining why you think describing the event as genocidal killing is not supported by sources. I did in the RfC. Are you unable or unwilling to read it? 122141510 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Simply for clarification, do you mean that the term is not supported by sources because that specific phrase is not used by those currently used? Pincrete (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Note: this editor is party to the edit war, despite their implication otherwise. They have rejected any opportunity to constructively participate in consensus-building conversations in multiple conversations ongoing on this talk page. The RfC is hopefully an attempt to proceed with constructive edits to the article. 122141510 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how I imply that I am not a party to this dispute, but ask anyone with the stomach to do so, to read The genocide was the genocide the section above to judge for themselves who they believe to be attempting to constructively participate in consensus-building conversations.

I have clearly stated that I am open to any suggestions as to what the opening sentence should be, but certainly believe that this version which had the tacit approval of all editors for several years, until only a few weeks ago, should be the version used pending a new consensus. It is the convention, that we use the stable version until a new agreement is reached, unless pressing reasons exclude it. That version opens: "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 etc". There are no 'pressing objections' to that text that I can see.

The version currently in place which has never received even tacit approval from any editor apart from an IP who first inserted it a few days ago and the proposer of this RfC, who edit-warred it into place only hours before opening this RfC, and which is even excluded from discussion in this RfC, opens:The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide of more than 8,000 etc.

The proposer of this RfC is also one of the main participants of a recent (failed) move proposal which aimed to retitle the article as Srebrenica genocide they are also the proposer of a current move review aiming to overturn the outcome of the move discussion. I find it difficult to see this RfC as anything other than a bad faith attempt to circumvent the outcome of that failed move proposal by simply repeating the alternative title (Srebrenica genocide) as the opening, defining, sentence.

Ample sources exist that describe the event as a 'massacre', as a 'genocide' and describe 'killings'. That they don't use them in particular combinations is immaterial IMO, since the meaning remains the same. The ones presently used in the article almost certainly endorse all three words, the only question is which we want to use, in which order to most fully, clearly and neutrally describe the event. Pincrete (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the following diffs for editor's involvement in edit war; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note that in these editor asserts two different versions of the opening sentence as the "stable long term version", which is by definition impossible. Note also that editor continues to assert that he "find[s] it difficult to see the RfC as anything other than a bad faith attempt", but in the previous conversation they link to, have threatened to report me for pointing out that the overall character of their edits to this article are consequential as they lessen or otherwise diminish the definition of what a massacre is, as opposed to genocide. They continue to consistently disrupt conversation on this talk page, and are effectively undermining this RfC by continuing to write walls of text that serve to discourage or otherwise overwhelm editors from being able to participate. This allows a lack of consensus to ever form, which suits them fine, as they've clearly indicated in past conversation on this talk page a strong preference for the status quo. 122141510 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Pincrete is not familiar with definition of term genocide. See below. 122141510 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How exactly does using the word 'genocide' communicate that rape and forced deportation occurred in a way that massacre excludes? Both of these things happened at Srebrenica of course and under certain circumstances "acts of extreme violence, such as rape and torture, are recognized as falling under the first prohibited act" (killing members of the group). Thus rape can be genocidal in intent/a manifestation of genocide/a common adjunct to genocide, but it is stretching credibility to suggest that the usual meaning of 'genocide' conveys either rape or forced deportation per se.

I agree that the article should identify the topic fully, clearly, concisely and accurately. We don't agree about the recent edit-warred-in version fulfilling that, or certainly about it being the clearest or only "correct" version. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide: Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people, either in whole or in part. [...] The Genocide Convention establishes five prohibited acts that, when committed with the requisite intent, amount to genocide. Genocide is not just defined as wide scale massacre-style killings that are visible and well-documented. International law recognizes a broad range of forms of violence in which the crime of genocide can be enacted [...] While mass killing is not necessary for genocide to have been committed, it has been present in almost all recognized genocides. In certain instances, men and adolescent boys are singled out for murder in the early stages, such as in the genocide of the Yazidis by Daesh, the Ottoman Turks' attack on the Armenians, and the Burmese security forces' attacks on the Rohingya. Men and boys are typically subject to "fast" killings, such as by gunshot. Women and girls are more likely to die slower deaths by slashing, burning, or as a result of sexual violence. The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), among others, shows that both the initial executions and those that quickly follow other acts of extreme violence, such as rape and torture, are recognized as falling under the first prohibited act. [...] This second prohibited act can encompass a wide range of non-fatal genocidal acts. The ICTR and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) have held that rape and sexual violence may constitute the second prohibited act of genocide by causing both physical and mental harm. [...] While it was subject to some debate, the ICTY and, later, the Syrian COI held that under some circumstances deportation and forcible transfer may also cause serious bodily or mental harm.

After extended conversation with someone such as yourself, I realized there are those who are unfamiliar with the language and terminology they are using who will very strongly and consistent assert information which is incorrect. The question I believe is worth tackling is thus, and part of what informs the RfC. i.e. or those more familiar with the material and the English language, "massacre" will only speak to the act of killing, and so "genocide" is necessarily required to remain as it is to contain the totality of events. Anything else is technically incorrect. But this leads to another question to answer – who do we expect to read this article? what level of familiarity do we expect? – but given one of the first sources linked is a 19 page appeal judgement summary from the ICTY, I assume we're necessarily expecting some heightened level of familiarity. At the least the format of Wikipedia means that genocide should remain in the opening sentence so that readers can familiarize themselves with the depths of the term – I encourage you to do the same. You continue to state stuff and nonsense as if any of it were factual. You've no idea what you're talking about, and I did not open the RfC to argue with you again. 122141510 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that rape can constitute genocide (I contributed to the 'Bosnian rape' article), nor that rape and other forms of extreme violence are common adjuncts to genocide, the question was How exactly does using the word 'genocide' communicate that rape and forced deportation occurred in a way that massacre excludes?. If you want to ensure that rape, forced deportation and other crimes are given clear, WP:DUE coverage, the obvious way is to cover them explicitly in the lead, not by assuming that the reader consults the genocide article and absorbs all of it.

I long ago apologised for initially forgetting that the long-term stable version was not "genocidal massacre" (inserted by Tom B around a month ago) but in fact "genocidal killing", which was in place for several years before that. Your favoured version has in fact never had the support of anyone, neither tacit nor explicit apart from you and the IP who initially inserted it a few days ago. You do not even invite RfC-ers to consider, examine, evaluate it alongside the other versions in (clearly unneutral) opening statement. Pincrete (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

At the least the format of Wikipedia means that genocide should remain in the opening sentence Err it is. It's the alternative title and no one has ever suggested removing that. It is even repeated at least once in all the proposed opening sentences. The question is whether we describe the event ONLY by repeating the alternative title. I don't particularly agree with the second part of your sentence so that readers can familiarize themselves with the depths of the term, we're mainly writing about what happened at Srebrenica, not on genocide.Pincrete (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We're mainly writing about what happened at Srebrenica, not on genocide. A genocide happened at Srebrenica. 122141510 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposed SNOW close of RfC

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

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

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

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

Владимир Нимчевић, are you talking about the move discussion, or the opening sentence discussion? The alternative title of the article is Srebrenica Genocide, it is in the opening sentence of the lead, which already has more instances of the word 'genocide' than the Holocaust or any comparable event, so I can hardly be accused of using every argument at your disposal to discourage the use of genocide in the title. It's there already, multiple times! What is the simplest, clearest way to describe what happened at the Srebrenica massacre/genocide? Is the relevant question.

The 'genocidal killings' text was the long-term stable text, I have few strong feelings about it either way but restored it pending discussion.I do strongly object to simply repeating the alternative tile as the opening text, on stylistic as well as other grounds. Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

By the way, you are not accussed, we are not in court. I am just sharing my point of view. I see an inconsisitency in your argumentation as mentioned above.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The opening sentence calls it both a genocide and a genocidal killing: "The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim[s]." What's the problem with that? Also, "genocide" encompasses more than killing. The UN Convention defines 5 genocidal acts only one of which is killing. (See Article II here) Using the term "genocidal killing" is therefore the correct subset for this particular genocide. DeCausa (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

My friend, so you also agree that this sentence can be interpreted as saying: "Srebrenica massacre... was the July 1995 genocide, (the type of genocide which involves killing)." If something is defined as a genocide (which is the case here), then it should be named so. I see no point in saying that this event is also known as a genocide, if we define it as a genocide in the first place. It is like we are saying: A ball, also known as a sphere, is a spherical object. That is duplicating, and duplicating is neither a good style nor a encyclopedic.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The main issue is what genocidal killings actually mean in this context. If it the other way of saying that Srebrenica massacre is a genocide (the type of genocide that involves killings), then there is no point in keeping the part of the sentence that says: also known as Srebrenica genocide. In other words, that's repeating.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All the more reason why this should be named Srebrenica genocide is that the term genocidal killings used in the opening sentence actually leads to the article genocide.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are talking about? What specifically do you want changed? DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't you see there is a repetition in the opening sentence? "Srebrenica massacre, also known as Srebrenica genocide, is a genocide..." Genocidal killings is just another way of saying a genocide that involves mass killings... Even the link in the sentence leads to the article related to genocide. From what I see here, this should be named Srebrenica genocide. The only problem, as far as was able to see, is that sources tend to use the term massacre, rather that genocide. Also, the article is part of the category Bosnian genocide. So Srebrenica massacre is either part of the Bosnian genocide, of which we don't have an article, or a genocide itself. The first sentence says everything.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't know what you want to change it to? I don't see any problem with the current sentence so what are you proposing it to be changed to? Or are you just talking about the article title. You need to be clear - what are you proposing?DeCausa (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am saying from what is given here, in this article, this should be named Srebrenica genocide. You don't see any repetition? That is strange. This sentence would sound more natural had it been written this way: Srebrenica genocide, also known as Srebrenica massacre, was the act of killing etc.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, can't do that. We follow WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre is perhaps a more common name than Srebrenica genocide, but Srebrenica massacre is defined as genocide here. Thus, this article is essentially about genocide, but the genocide is titled as massacre.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There has only just recently been a move discussion, to rename, followed by a review of the move discussion, followed by … .

That bird has flown I'm afraid, whatever anyone's notion of what the article title should be, it's 'massacre' for the foreseeable future, because that is still the name most commonly used to describe the event. Quite a few genocides don't have that word in their title, most obviously the Holocaust. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither the bird has flown, nor the ship has sailed away. How did you come to such a conclusion? Did you read a lot of articles and books on the subject, or do you just suppose it this as you say it is? Holocaust is a different story. It was coined before the term genocide was introduced. This article is related to an instance of genocide (genocidal killings, as you say), but, strangely, you refuse to name it the same way. So Srebrenica massacre it is a genocide after all. But you just do not want to allow it to be titled likewise. It is essential to be aware of that fact. Now I can add the article to a category related to genocides.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is already added to a genocide category. Look at the list of categories at the bottom of the. article. You seem to fail to understand Wikipedia article naming policy or previous discussions including the RfC. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen several sources cited in this article that use the term genocide in the title, yet still, you keep saying the more common name is the Srebrenica massacre. Where is your evidence that the latter is true? Few months ago the UN declaration was adopted, removing any ambiguity about interpreting this event. It should be viewed as an act of genocide. Naturally, the Serbian side has maintained its separate stance, but that does not mean others should follow the Serbian suit. Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

have seen several sources cited in this article that use the term genocide in the title, yet still, you keep saying the more common name is the Srebrenica massacre. Where is your evidence that the latter is true? Errrr No one disputes that some sources refer to the incident as SG (that's why it's an alternative title FFS!). The UN and ICTY use both terms in different contexts, the UN has recently favoured SG, but we don't follow UN usages.

The evidence that SM was much more common than SG in the past and is now slightly more common is in the move discussion, please read it. We don't follow, nor seek to go against fringe positions, such as Serb deniers, just as we don't seek to marginalise flat-earthers or covid conspirators. Pincrete (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've also not seen the evidence that the most common name is massacre. The move request is pending review. Also, Pincrete, I wasn't really convinced by this comment of yours [25]. Also, I'm very well familiar that the genocide is heavily denied in Serbia and it's just natural that people who deny the genocide would like to "lower" it to "only" massacre. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The lead alone currently uses 'genocide' or 'genocidal' nine times, that's eight times more than the Holocaust I believe! While I would not wish to give comfort to 'deniers', countering them isn't our purpose, they wouldn't take us seriously anyway IMO. Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have probems with article text in regards that it describes the even as genocide. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

You are free to edit the article. I don't see why Pincrete would have any objections to different forumation for the lead sentece as long as it contains all info as present sentece. It doesn't matter if the presente sentece is longstanding. If you think it can have a better formulation that's more clear and less repetative, I don't see any problems there. What's your purposed sentece? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No one has said "merely an incident". An incident = an event (the term you use) = something that happened! Pincrete (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

But, can you understand that some have implied "merely" a massacre , but not genocide? Or merely war crime, but not genocide, or merely killings, but not genocide? Do you understand that not every massacre is genocide? Trimpops2 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think I have ever heard anyone say "merely" a massacre , but not genocide, though I've heard all kinds of 'denial' iro Srebrenica. If they have said this then it's an extremely odd thing to say. It's like saying "merely" a bloodbath , but not murder, "merely" mass slaughter, but not homicide. It isn't even clear what these mean.

But people will find all sorts of ways to 'downplay' extreme behaviour if they are determined to do so. Holocaust deniers will typically say that "the numbers who died are greatly exaggerated", without saying how they know this or what the 'real' numbers are. WP is an encyc making available factual info to those curious enough to want to read it, it isn't an organisation seeking to fight or negate 'denial'. When challenged about this earlier you produced ample sources that said that Serb politicians denied the genocide, but none that appeared to have said "merely" a massacre. Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I said that they implied the word "merely". What they say is something like "a terrible massacre, but not genocide". Do you understand that the meaning is the same? Not genocide is the key point there. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment on the article title

It's surprising that opponents of the move are being labeled as giving cover for genocide deniers when one good reason to use the massacre title imo is that it leaves ambiguity between the view that the Bosnian genocide did not extend beyond srebrenica (the view of the icj and icty iirc) and the view that it was a broader event (favored by more than a few historians and scholars such as Martin Shaw). Moving the page to srebrenica genocide indicates the former position, while the current title leaves open the interpretation that it was part of a genocide, rather like the Babi Yar massacre (not Babi Yar genocide). (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica changed title to Srebrenica genocide

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