Talk:Edward S. Herman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Edward Herman = Srebrenica genocide denier

Edward Herman is Srebrenica genocide denier, do some research before removing facts. Judging from 0 comments on his discussion page, it seems that he or people associated to him opened this article on wikipedia and wish to control it. Edward S. Herman has been criticized for Srebrenica genocide denial and is considered to be one of the most outspoken deniers of genocide in Srebrenica. (see 1 & 2) Revert war does not help anybody. He is outspoken Srebrenica genocide denier and that's a fact no matter what his defenders say about him. Bosniak 16:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Herman's position on Srebrenica certainly can be added to the article, and the Zmag source is an appropriate one (being his own words on the matter) - the blog, however, is not. Blogs are not authoritative and shouldn't be used for sources in Wikipedia. There are, of course, recognised critics of Herman and his position, and though they often misconstrue or misrepresent him and his work, that's not to say that there aren't viable sources available to cite in criticism of Herman's writings on Srebrenica and other matters. If you find such a source, please add it, but in doing so, it is essential that Herman's position not be caricatured in the manner of the reverted sentence. To describe Herman as a genocide denier is (intentionally ?) inflammatory and clearly tends to cast him into the same lot as such dubious folks as Holocaust deniers and apologists for Stalinist outrages and other atrocities. Any description of Herman's argument must deal carefully and not superficially with his points, because the issue is emotionally and politically charged. To treat what he says lightly (as in the reverted sentence) does him, his argument, and more importantly, the victims of the massacre a disservice. To give a more precise example of what I'm talking about: to say only that Herman is a denier of genocide in Srebrenica leaves the impression that he denies that anyone at all was killed (which is not his claim), it ignores the serious point he makes, that massacres - when their scale is augmented with terms like "genocide" - can be and have been used to justify even greater crimes (in this case, the greater numbers of dead produced by the US-Nato bombings and other military actions in the Balkans). Finally, you and I know that Edward Herman is, as they say, a controversial figure, and so his Wikipedia article is likely to be the site of edit wars and vandalism. Anything we can do to minimise the risk of such damage ought to be undertaken at the start. A balanced, in-depth presentation of his life and work is what is required, not a selective blast of incendiary accusations. (By the way, "critique" is not the appropriate word here, it should be "criticism", though I don't support the creation of a section of criticism in this or any other biography and would rather such material was organically integrated into the whole text itself.) Pinkville 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

..."Blogs are not authoritative and shouldn't be used for sources in Wikipedia." Are you implying that web sites are authoritative? Just because someone runs website it mean it's authoritative? What about official blog of Prof Deborah E. Lipstadt who fights Holocaust denial? Are you saying her blog is not authoritative just because she choose to publish her material via blog? What you say does not make any sense. Srebrenica Genocide Blog is well referenced as well as Prof Deborah Lipstadt's blog, with quality references, as opposed to ZMag trash whose deniers use ZMag to quote each other in sources to prove their pre-conceived conclusions. ZMag is the least authoritative web site to deal with anything. It's comprised by a bunch of people who reduced themselves to Srebrenica genocide denial (Ed Herman included) and who enjoy calling themselves "media analysts" (yeah right, nice name they gave to themselves). ZMag can only be used as an example of genocide denial. That's all. I will get back to you with more comments, when I get off my work (Yes, I still work on Saturdays). Feel free to use any source you like, there is plenty of them. Bosniak 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I modified the edit to try to be more balanced. Bosniak, you need to change your tone. Assume good faith. The Znet reference is Herman's own work! Such a primary source is certainly better than something someone writes on a blog, or anywhere else, without proper citation, etc. Rolando 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rolando, thank you for being fair and not lashing out at me. I will change my tone. I have included reference and quotations from respected British historian Marko Attila Hoare. Thank you. Bosniak 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Herman's most recent writing on this issue is here. Again, he isn't denying that killing happened at Srebrenica, he is pointing out that, first, the use of the word "genocide" in this case is inflated and propagandistic (he provides voluminous references to back up his argument), and second, that the use of the term was applied exclusively to Srebrencia - even though worse slaughters happened in other locales at the same time in the former Yugoslavia. Genocide refers to a planned eradication of a people, as with the native peoples of North America, the Romani and Jews of Europe, and the Africans of the Congo. Herman is talking about the selective use of the term genocide that serves specific interests... Pinkville 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pinkville, you are missing the point. I have backed up my edit with authoritative sources and also with a quotation Herman's own words. Herman has been criticized for Srebrenica genocide denial, quote:

"Hardly surprising, then, that Balkan genocide denial has centred its efforts on the Srebrenica massacre ever since. Recently, a ‘Srebrenica Research Group’ has been established by one of the most virulent of the deniers, Edward S. Herman... Herman concludes: ‘The ‘Srebrenica massacre’ [note the quote marks] is the greatest triumph of propaganda to emerge from the Balkan wars... But the link of this propaganda triumph to truth and justice is non-existent." ^{[1] [2] [3]} Bosniak 06:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, while I was trying to show Herman's views, and then the critiques, you have reverted to the ad hominem and demagogic tactic of likening Herman to an atrocity denier, which he is not. You have further buried his own argument within citations of criticisms of it. Herman acknowledges that thousands of Bosnian Muslims were killed around the time of the Srebrenica Massacre, but disagrees with use of the word "genocide" in this context, and his ongoing critique has been of the use of Srebrenica by the U.S. and its allies. Please make an effort to explain his argument fairly, even if you do not agree with it. Rolando 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passage on Srebrenica moved here

I've moved this passage here so that it can be made balanced. At this point, there's not even a vague attempt to describe Herman's position, yet the passage leaves the impression that he is a holocaust denier - which is absurd and slanderous. Expansion of this article should be conducted in a balanced and comprehensive manner, not in a scatter-shot manner. Pinkville (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pinkville, nobody is saying that he is Holocaust denier, please don't twist the facts. He is Srebrenica Genocide denier, and what we want include is his own quote, his own words, that's all. Why is it so hard for you to accept there are Srebrenica genocide deniers, and why are you comparing genocide with Holocaust? You are well aware of the involvement and failures of your Dutch troops in Srebrenica, arent you? Do you have agenda here? I am not accusing you of anything, but I am simply curious, and when I am curious, I ask direct questions. LeeCorrie (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll start with your question "why are you comparing genocide with Holocaust?" Um, yes. Because the Holocaust was genocidal. The slaughter of the native peoples of the Americas was also a genocide. The killing of one third of the population of East Timor by invading Indonesian forces was genocidal. And so on. The word "genocide" has a specific meaning, it doesn't merely mean "the killing of a lot of people". Yes, we should have Herman's own words - up to this point no serious attempt has been made to provide Herman's position, instead, he has simply been tarred with this "genocide denier" brush. As I stated earlier, there's no problem including information on this issue in the article, but it has to be presented fairly. You can't present the criticism of a position that hasn't been represented. And "Srebrenica Genocide denier" misrepresents Herman's position and misrepresents the events themselves. Finally, I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "the involvement and failures of your Dutch troops in Srebrenica" - I'm Canadian, not Dutch. Either way, what has that got to do with an article on Edward Herman? I do have an agenda, which is to help provide a NPOV biography of one of the most important media analysts of our time. Pinkville (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

LeeCorrie,

1. By including a subsection titled "Srebrenica Genocide Denial" you are stating that he is "genocide denier"
2. Criticism of Herman's position/views on the Srebrenica massacre should only be presented once his own position/view has been presented (in a POV way).
3. If you are to call him a "Srebrenica genocide denier" (or "genocide denier" for that matter) you must find a credible source which provides this. This does not include selfpublished websites or discussion forums.

Osli73 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)