Battle of Locust Grove

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

While the genocide in the NDH is certainly the subject of much scholarly attention, the same cannot be said for the denial of said genocide. This article uses an array of different sources, some not so reliable, to craft a narrative about genocide denial, and we find ourselves in WP:COATRACK territory. I propose we merge this with Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. If a significant body of scholarship emerges about this topic in the future we can always revive this article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is both topics were split due to an undue amount of genocide denial topic being present of the Genocide of Serbs page as was discussed last year. This article allowed for expansion. If any info is unreliable or coat-racking, it can be removed I think. I believe the Genocide of Serbs page already has a denial section of fair size at least last since I reviewed the page. OyMosby (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with the dubious stuff excised. This is a POV-pushing fork created by the now TBANed WEBDuB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with the reason @Peacemaker67 gave. Mikola22 (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user was topic-banned here since March 2021 per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive283#Sadko. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Given all arguments presented by three editors here I am inclined to agree with the merger proposal by AB. OyMosby (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article is not coatrack nor POV fork, most of the sources used are highly reliable and there is decent amount of space for expansion. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user was topic-banned here since March 2021 per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive283#Sadko. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral The suggested target article is just at the lower limit (57 kB readable prose) where WP:SIZESPLIT might apply. It's better if this is cleaned up first, then we see how much remains (merging if there's not too much left - with consideration that if we merge this as is, this might be WP:UNDUE at the target article). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial concern. The large amount of info was the reaskn for this plit due to the undue amount on the other article. OyMosby (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this article's body, without lead, infobox, references, etc is ~1,500 words, 9.5 KB. RandomCanadian OyMosby is that okay to merge back in? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1500 words is still a decently large amount, and I see that what is left of the content is still enough to make a well-structured article. It would also likely bring UNDUE attention on this at the main article if it were merged as is. In short, if all of the necessary clean-up has been accomplished (I'm no judge at all on this topic which I know little' and I don't have lots of time right now to check it out), what this looks like is a a textbook example of an acceptable article about a fringe idea. If there's nothing else that needs removing, then I'll likely be moving to oppose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian it can be technically well-structured, but it's also fundamentally flawed in that it's not presenting a coherent concept with significant coverage in secondary sources, rather a plethora of organic fringe nonsense heavily interspersed with politics. We can't ignore WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGELEVEL and end up helping publicize a completely fringe idea; addressing the largely universal criticism of this denialism concept within the main article should be quite enough exposure for it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Denial of genocide of Serbs in ISC is a very much alive practice in Croatia and it needs to be documented as such. Recent example would be already mentioned Igor Vukić, historical negationist who promoted his book of denial of genocide on broadcaster HRT and is receiving funds from the government for his project. We are talking about the same government which was at opening of a monument to ustasha terrorist [1] who murdered Yugoslav ambassador. This article provides systematic presentation of denial of genocide be it in government, state institutions (schools for example), among political opposition or in film making such as Jasenovac – istina. Furthermore, this article is not an outlier as there are other articles which also cover denial of genocide or denial in general such as Rwandan genocide denial, Nanjing Massacre denial, Denial of the Holodomor, Armenian Genocide denial or Cambodian genocide denial. As user Sadko said there is space to improve this article further and include more examples. Istinar (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC) — Istinar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This user was indefinitely blocked per User talk:Istinar#Notice of sockpuppetry block. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I only had a brief look, but immediately one thing caught my eye - this article quotes an interesting article by Mirjana Kasapović who is certainly an authority, but somehow the article coverage manages to casually miss the end of her explicit conclusion, where she says that Napori da se umanje i negiraju zločini u NDH proizveli su suprotne učinke. -- "The efforts to reduce and deny crimes in the NDH have had the opposite effect." So while this phenomenon certainly exists, it could well be a WP:UNDUE violation to give it its own article, and thereby promote it in a way. I didn't check all of the sources for instances of this, but this reminds me of the kinds of awful source cherry-picking we've seen before in this topic area, and I'd be very wary of maintaining it by default. Especially given that a cursory look at article history shows that it was written by folks who had since been topic-banned from this topic area. There seems to be a bit of a 'disaster porn' trend there, and I'm not sure any actual random English readers are well served by this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is one of those sensitive questions where it is expected that editors from communities related to the subject of an article would have very different positions. It seems that the only way to rise above any potential biases is to address the question on the point of principle: should we have genocide-denial articles, or just sections in the main articles. My preference would be for the first option, since it provides a better frame for focus and clarity of content. I would support the same position in similar discussions on any genocide-denial article. Sorabino (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've literally posted yesterday about your apparent inability to establish a proper frame for focus and clarity of content in Talk:Duchy of St Sava#Duke_of_Saint_Sava, where you copy&pasted a bunch of Google Books search results in lieu of actual sourcing, and while failing to address that issue you've still just happened to move on to comment here. I'm sorry, but this is almost like actually trying to prove oneself is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather, to engage in axe-grinding on nationalist talking points. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, your introduction of an unrelated discussion into these conversations here may look like an attempted canvassing for support among editors who may be inclined to share similar views. Sorabino (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm not asking anyone else to support my argument, I'm saying that the previous argument we just had practically demonstrates that your comment here is at best useless, and at worst it's actively harmful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. To me, the article looks to be compiled from different sources in order to create a certain narrative. I don't find it looking scholarly or encyclopedic enough to remain an independent article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - we are facing insufficient amount of scholarship on the subject, and the reason for this is that phenomenon never attained status of a serious issue (serious in sense of a systemic negation, and in our context notable enough to fulfill project standard of stand-alone article), and so never drew attention of academia and researchers (except in institutional dark corners inhabited by ethno-nationalist). This is a POV-pushing with the dubious claims, resulting in fork created by TBANed WEBDuB.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Denial of the this genocide is widespread and it is a notable enough topic to leave the article as it is. Elserbio00 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elserbio00 where is it widespread? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Croatia, for example. Istinar (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Istinar That is demonstrably false, because we literally have it documented that it's just a portion of the far right in Croatia that advocates these views. How do you define "widespread"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see how widespread it is I suggest this article. I have also given few examples in comment here [2]. You also have courts who think nazi cry in public space is not a crime [3]. Istinar (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but your comment is patently false - this article does not demonstrate any systematic nature to it. None of the examples you cited showed systematic support for it, in fact they all showed piecemal support from people and organizations who are generally known to harbor fringe views, and occasional intrusions into the mainstream, which otherwise rejects this. And the 'nazi cry' issue is WP:COATRACKing another bit of far-right weirdness as genocide denial, which it may or may not be. An encyclopedia needs to treat topics with a modicum of scientific rigor, and this is not it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I'm arguing subtle points with someone whose username, istinar, translates to "truther". The edit history also shows a history of axe-grinding - WP:NOTHERE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you example of your own government and your own ministers opening monument to ustasha terrorist. I have given you example of your own courts legalizing nazi cry or government financial support to revisionist groups. If officials doing such things is not systematic I don't know what is. I will also give you example of a Roman Catholic priest and director of the Archdiocesan Archives in Zagreb who is avid genocide denier. You have entire section of high officials' statements in this article that show how systematic it is. Istinar (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for my name, that is not where is comes from, but you can keep lying about it if you want to. Your ad hominem insults should not be your arguments. As for WP:NOTHERE I could say the same thing about you just by glancing at your edits, at least when it comes to Serb-related articles. You could help improve this article by finding more examples of denial, but instead you put your time and energy in denying that such thing exists and that it's only "fringe far right". Istinar (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does unveiling a monument to a person born in 1950 automagically translate into denial of the genocide of 1941-1945? How does a Catholic archivist espousing some views translate into the system doing so? That's barely an argument that the relevant church system supports those views; to generalize even further based on that - is quite an obvious stretch. As for the username, I can't do much other than post a link like wikt:istina. This is not really a discussion about improving the encyclopedia, you're just abusing a Wikipedia talk page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user was indefinitely blocked per User talk:Istinar#Notice of sockpuppetry block. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose What we have is a notable topic with enough literature to keep the article. Claiming that it's not "studied enough" or that it is not "denied enough" is something I can't fully accept as an argument. The former president of Croatia, academics, journalists, popular fingers all denied the genocide or tried to minimize the scale of it. Ранко Николић (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ранко Николић so should be the topic of the article be denial, or also trying to minimize the scale of it? Where do we draw the line on the discussion of scale? How do we do it without ending up giving a platform to every weirdo out there who publicly said something wrong on the topic? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Recently published article in "Jerusalem Post" (which was removed after several days, with completely different article published [4]) mocked the victims of the Genocide of Serbs and presented "4.000 total victims in Jasenovac camp". That is a strong proof that denial of genocide is still very much alive and not the viewpoint share only by extreme political options. MareBG (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MareBG this is a classic WP:NOT#NEWS issue. Some random craziness happened in a media outlet, was clapped back instantly, and now we're supposed to have an encyclopedia article about it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The Jerusalem Post is supposedly a centrist newspaper, but still publishes articles questioning whether the Holocaust was the only genocide. Back in April, it published an article with the profound question: "Is it wise and moral to seek exclusivity of our own genocide – the Holocaust?" Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The so-called "genocide of the Serbs" is not recognized internationally or by the UN as genocide. To begin with, the figures are not clear and statistically it is impossible. Jews suffered genocide during WW2 and it was proven unlike Serbs. Do not mix everything up and change the title of the article please. Skr561 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be about the semantics of the word genocide, implying that the word must mean a crime that is completely comparable in statistics to the scope of the Holocaust. However, this is simply not so per current definitions at genocide, hence this discussion is off-topic here. It is curious that we're back to the issue of statistical relevance, just from the opposing point of view to those seen earlier. I think it makes sense to end this discussion, as it's fairly clear that we're not getting any more relevant input, and the consensus of editors in good standing has been reasonably clear for a while now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger. The main article could get too long. Subtopics of a larger general topic deserve more specialized articvles, there's nothing wrong with having special articles on particular apects of a wider topic.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]