Talk:Darko Trifunović

Removed ref

I found the context of this reference to be POV and found an NPOV ref for the content instead. I didn't want to lose this one, though, in case it's useful elsewhere: "Bosnian Muslims object to Serb terrorism expert addressing European conference". Report from TV Hayat, Sarajevo, 1800 GMT, 5 January 2008. Via BBC Monitoring. —  X  S  G  10:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

More removed refs, as they supported content that was about Srebrenica and Bosnia rather than the subject:

• "Imaginary Massacres?" TIME magazine, 11 September 2002
• "General guilty of Bosnia genocide". BBC News Online, 2 August 2001.
• "Serbs admit Srebrenica death toll". BBC News Online, 14 October 2004

—  X  S  G  10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite underway

I've started the (long overdue, I'm afraid) rewrite of this article by rewriting the first section. I thought I would pause at this point to discuss where we go from here.

Trifunovic has received a significant amount of coverage in the local and international media - Factiva finds around 80 articles about him or quoting him. The coverage breaks down into three distinct categories, which I'll order chronologically. You can see some of the coverage at [1] (although a lot of it is pay-per-view - fortunately, I've got library access to it).

• Citizenship controversy. In 2002, DT was an official at the Bosnian mission to the UN. After he accused his diplomatic colleagues of supporting Al Qaeda, he was recalled, sacked and eventually stripped of his Bosnian citizenship following claims that he had acquired it illegally. This seems to have caused a mini-scandal in Bosnia and wrangling between the Bosnian and Bosnian Serb governments. The affair is covered in a number of Bosnian and Bosnian Serb news reports.

• Srebrenica report. This is widely covered by international books, journals and news stories, and has been documented in the article. DT's subsequent exclusion from the European Police Congress is directly related to this and is also documented.

• Work on counter-terrorism. Since 2002, DT has been frequently quoted by media in Bosnia's two enties, Croatia and Serbia in his capacity as a "counter-terrorism expert" and a member of a three-man "counter-terrorism team for south-eastern Europe". His comments have been controversial, prompting a libel suit from a Croatian government minister whom he accused of being an Al Qaeda supporter.

The question is how much of this should be included. I'm inclined to include it all, since the citizenship controversy is a significant factor in how he got to be where he is now - i.e. his dismissal from government service and relocation to Serbia - and it is covered by reliable sources. The work on counter-terrorism is his current ongoing claim to fame, as he has been a frequent public commentator on the issue; he has been quoted and interviewed numerous times and has even given press conferences.

I'd be interested to know what other contributors think. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful regarding how this article is worded, as it's a BLP about a controversial subject. The subject of the article is the person, not the report, so I'm carefully striking any criticisms of the report (and carefully leaving any cited and quoted criticisms of the report's author). If the report is also notable, it should have its own article, where criticisms of the report, itself, would be welcome. For the body of coverage, I think it's important that we ask, "Is the source about DT or is it about the Srebrenica Report, merely mentioning that DT was the report's author?" prior to including it (or any of its content) in this article. I think the Citizenship Controversy you mention is very interesting and if properly cited can be a valuable addition to this article. I'd like to make sure we clarify whether DT was excluded from the European Police Congress or whether he chose not to go. Either way, it's notable and worthy of inclusion, however clearly, if there is contention over this in reliable sources, both perspectives should be presented. DT's work on counter-terrorism also should be included; I'm not sure the libel suit is worth noting until it has been resolved. I'm looking forward to assisting with your further edits, ChrisO; thank you for your efforts! —  X  S  G  00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"denied"

We keep going back and forth on this in edits. It's time we took it here. The lead of this article includes: "He prepared a report for the Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb) government which denied that the Srebrenica Massacre had occurred during the Bosnian War in July 1995." Being accused of "denying" something, is a very heavy charge, and thus the use of the word "denied" here borders on POV. I would like to remove the word "denied" in order to push this statement back toward NPOV territory, by altering it to read, "He preapred a report for the Republika Srpska (Bosnia Serb) government which posited that the Srebrenica Massacre of July 1995 during the Bosnian War never occurred." We seem to disagree about the use of "denied", as it keeps getting re-inserted, so I'd like to discuss this further.

Also, the lead contained this: "The report, which was described as the apotheosis of a "campaign of misinformation and deceit", was condemned by United Nations officials, survivors of the massacre and international judges carrying out war crimes trials and was eventually disowned by the Bosnian Serb government." While this is true, it is not about the subject of this article. Because of this being a BLP and a highly controversial article with little positive to say about the subject, any dwelling on the negativity of the report (and not on the author himself) is giving that negativity undue weight. To remedy this, I've modified the previous statement to "He prepared a widely criticised report for the Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb) government which denied that the Srebrenica Massacre had occurred during the Bosnian War in July 1995," and I've moved the references post "criticised", striking "The report, which was described as the apotheosis of a "campaign of misinformation and deceit", was condemned by United Nations officials, survivors of the massacre and international judges carrying out war crimes trials and was eventually disowned by the Bosnian Serb government." I believe that this weighs fairly. —  X  S  G  17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that many other articles on subjects who deny the holocaust are treated similarly to Trifunović. I don't necessarily think it's proper to do, however I can at the very least accept the consistency, here. —  X  S  G  18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've created a separate article on the report (see Report about Case Srebrenica). However, I think we do have to say something about its reception here, if only briefly: we are required by WP:NPOV#A simple formulation to attribute opinions to specific parties. We say in the article that the report was widely criticised (which it was); we therefore have to state who criticised it. As for the "denial" argument, the fact is that this is how the report was characterised by the vast majority of published opinion, and the cited source specifically characterises it thus (look at the article title: "The Death of Denial"). If you compare David Irving, a similar BLP in some regards, you'll see that we make no bones about describing his work as "Holocaust denial" because that is what the consensus viewpoint of his work is. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I really like what you've done, here, and the way you've backed it up. I don't think I can add any further value, here. Thank you! —  X  S  G  20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this biography neccessary?

The re-write is fine - but given the difficulties of this page (socking/BLP issues/biased sources) - this is always likely to be one of those problematic BLPs that causes edit-wars, libels and whitewashes. We know from experience that Wikipedia handles these badly, and although the article might be fine now, it is always likely to be a cause of grief disproportionate to its notability.

We've now got a good article on the report and its reception and its controversy at Report about Case Srebrenica. Is there really anything else to say here that can't be said there? Is this guy at all notable aside from that report and its aftermath? Would we do ourselves a favour by simply redirecting this BLP to the article on the report and its impact?

I was going to afd this on that basis, but discussing a merge/redirect here is probably more productive.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tough call. I suspect that it wouldn't be too tough to qualify Trivunović as an WP:ACADEMIC notable in the field of anti-terrorism research. I know, it's ironic. I think an AfD might be worthwhile in a few months if this article hasn't further developed naturally, and an AfD right now might just force people to research the subject and provide proper citations for independent notability. Personally, I'd like some time away from this subject to work on other things. Ultimately, I don't like the idea of pushing the issue just for the sake of preempting any possible future contention. Contentious articles exist. People monitor them to make certain they stay NPOV. It's not a problem until someone overreacts, and they usually wind up blocked for it. —  X  S  G  17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Contentious articles certainly do exist, but when we combine contentious with BLP and low notability, we tend to find that the POV pushers and are more numerous than the people willing (and knowledgeable enough) to monitor. What you say is right in theory, however in practice it very often fails. We have any number of ghastly long-term train-wreck BLPs - and plenty evidence that wikipedia is structurally unsuited to maintaining them over time. Anyway, the main point is - do we have any information here that is not contained in the article on the report? If we don't then merge/redirect is the way to go. It can always be reversed later if sources appear that show notability for something else, and that enable us to include information that isn't just a repeat of the other article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It is a tough call. He certainly has a significant public profile; he's a regular talking head in the Bosnian Serb media, most recently just last Wednesday on Bosnian Serb TV in Banja Luka:

[Presenter] There is a systemic action in Sarajevo aiming at attributing all responsibility to the [Bosnian] Serb Republic, which is confirmed by statements of Bosniak [Bosnian Muslim] politicians, who do not want to admit that war crimes had been committed against Serbs too, while highlighting Bosniak victims, a member of expert team for fight against terrorism, Darko Trifunovic, has said.

[Darko Trifunovic, member of Expert Team for Fight against Terrorism and Organized Crime] If you look at the El Mujahid unit, none of its members have been prosecuted despite Hague tribunal verdicts. On the contrary, we now have a totally opposite situation - Aiman Awad, wartime deputy commander and the person in charge of security of the El Mujahid unit, has been released without any criminal charges.

This is fairly typical of Trifunovic's public profile - comments (often fairly inflammatory) about the Bosnian Muslims or the Sarajevo government. What I've not been able to find, despite a lot of searching, is material about Trifunovic himself, other than a fairly small number of articles about the citizenship row I mentioned above. There is certainly very little about Trifunovic's claimed academic achievements. In all honesty, I don't think there's enough source material to write a decent article. So in conclusion, I would agree with Scott's proposal to redirect the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we have a consensus here. I'll go ahead with the redirect. But I would suggest keeping a close eye on it for the foreseeable future, given the interminable spamming of Trifunovic's resumé. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You gave less than twelve hours from proposition to "consensus". I find that highly improper. You may be right, however it appears that you heard someone agree with you and automatically declared a consensus, which I find a frustrating behavior because it then forces me to make a decision to revert your good faith actions or to make a new proposal to undo this until a proper amount of time for consensus has elapsed. As a rule, when something is proposed on a talk page, I wait a minimum of 48 hours and afterward allow the chatter to die down (if it hasn't already). —  X  S  G  22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way - I'll revert if you feel that strongly about it. But having spent some time today trawling through news archives and academic databases for any references to this guy, I honestly don't think there's much scope to create a proper biography of this individual. There simply isn't enough source material to draw on. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

XSG, I have to agree with you about the speed. 3 editors so far agree with the redirect. I don't know what you think, but at the moment, as it's been done, I'd suggest leaving it but keeping this discussion open. But as with Chris, if you really want the redirect removed, I'm happy with that as well. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted the redirect - we'll leave the discussion open a while longer. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had this article watchlisted since the earlier shenanigans, and while the editors here have done an excellent job with the available material I think on balance the redirect/merge is a good idea. If creating a rounded bio article is impossible, it's probably better to point to his WP:ONEEVENT and leave it at that. EyeSerene^talk 08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect - I concur. I think Trifunovic may be notable on his own, however I haven't been able to find a reliable confirmation of this. It's more appropriate that we redirect for now and allow for the possibility that this article should become independent again at some point in the future. In other words, I have nothing new to add. —  X  S  G  05:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems sensible - there's no reason the article can't be recreated if more sources emerge at some point. EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd have to say redirect as well. The article when I first saw it had some meat, but it was rotten meat - i.e. dubious commentary based on dubious sources. We were able to strip it down to some pretty solidly based material, but as it stands now, it's not really a BLP. I'm confident that I cannot add anything new here and if ChrisO isn't able to, I doubt we have any way to proceed. It's unfortunate because I do think there's something here (and it's not a happy story from my own POV), but we may have to wait a few years while online availability in the geographic area improves. Possibly there's something in the previously cited BBC transcripts, but I wasn't able to figure those out. The article isn't acceptable as it stands, so it should either progress now or be put on the shelf for awhile. I'm not worried about the external disruption, but I am concerned with properly treating the subject. Franamax (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re directed article

Hello to all. I try to create article about dr Darko Trifunovic and recently found out that there is re direction to some other article. Since that practice is not common at Wiki is there any particular reason for that? From Srebrenica Report article it is not possible to find any other info about dr Darko Trifunovic. My suggestion is that re direction is not proper way and that a article need to be created about living individual.DusanTR (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read the section above, you'll see why it was redirected. Basically, there was no information about Dr Trifunović, which met Wikipedia's standards that was not related to, and included on, the page Report about Case Srebrenica. Do you have information about him that doesn't relate to that? Note: the information needs to be verifiable from an independent reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for details.)--Scott Mac 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I read it and find out that there is several informations regarding dr Darko Trifunovic that all of this info is not included. Shell I send it to you or post here?DusanTR (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sending it to me is pointless. All information must be verifiable by anyone else from reliable independent sources - newspapers, books, etc.--Scott Mac 22:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok...I understand...so will start to enter directly into article. Is that ok with all?DusanTR (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. The discussion here decided that there was to be no article. If you want that decision changed, you'll need to convince us that there is material unrelated to Report about Case Srebrenica, that the material is notable, that it can be verified by independent sources, and that it can be written in a neutral manner. You need to present some evidence of all that, and then wait for people to discuss whether the decision to redirect this article should be reversed.--Scott Mac 23:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am bit surprise, but all, but that is my problem. Here is something for broader consideration. The Srebrenica Report is published by Government of Republic of Srpska. Same Government published two more reports:

1.Islamic Fundamentalists’ Global Network- Modus Operandi -Model Bosnia ref [2] 2.TERRORISM-Global Network of Islamic Fundamentalist’s – Part II -Modus operandi-Model Bosnia ref [3]. Simply question is why those two reports are not elaborate and why to tohose two reports is not given same treatment as to the first one? Just search over the Net and found out that all those reports were available on net from more tangible resource more than Srebrenica Report. Do not understand me wrong. I do not have anything against Srebrenica Report and this report shell stay. Also, just find out that dr Trifunovic published an article in high ranking scientific journal. Here is the reference http://ssc.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/30/0894439310378327.abstract So out of that it is clear that it is a case of an academicians with some scientific results. There is much more what I found like:Islamic Radicalization Processes in South East Europe Case Study: Bosnia ref [4]. There is no a single word that dr Darko Trifunovic was first foreign counter terrorism expert invited by Chinese authorities for the Olympic Games 2008. Here is proper reference and I found out even letter of invitation ref [5]. Or that dr Darko Trifnovic was invited in London 2010 to help British authorities for forthcoming Olympic Games ref [6]. Also, there is a lot of criticism on the account of dr Darko Trifunovic. For example he is criticized mostly from his opponent in Sarajevo for Srebrenica Genocide denial as you already indicate. Also, he is criticized that he is working against Bosnia and Herzegovina ref [7]. That he sue Bosnia and Herzegovina etc...so I do believe that there is a lot of thing to add in the article. DusanTR (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC) .....one more article...looks like that dr Darko Trifunovic was engaged in World Footbal Coup in South Africa. Here is reference ref [ http://www.vesti.rs/Politika/Orlovi-sigurno-lete-samo-helikopterom.html].DusanTR (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) None of this is really enough to support a standalone Wikipedia article on Dr. Trifunovic, as there are almost no third-party sources in what you have provided, so the article would likely be removed anyway as "not-notable". The previous version of this article consisted largely of negative information about DT inserted by opposing editors, mostly concerning DT's explanations that there was no massacre at Srebrenica. Another Wikipedia editor wrote a good article on that report and we decided it was best to only use that material and leave this entry as a redirect. If you can find newspaper or magazine articles about DT (not just mentioning his name), we might be able to have a balanced article. You need to show notability derived from reliable third-party sources - for example, a magazine article about DT's work as a counter-terrorism expert. A list of published papers or conference speeches is not sufficient for this purpose. And for instance, the link you give to a PDF of a letter from the Shanghai institute doesn't help us the way it is, as we can't determine why it is on that site, thus we can't determine how reliable, verifiable or notable it is. Also the sources we examined which criticized DT were also found to not be reliable, that is they were heavily-biased websites. Can you provide us English-language (or machine translatable) sources from magazines, books or newspapers? If so, we may be able to constrauct an article. Until then, DT's primary demonstrated notability is as the author of Report on Case Srebrenica, and since we can't justify a separate article we have to leave just the redirect. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

On this web site dr Darko Trifunovic is criticized together with one Muslim Mr.Dzevad Galijasevic, another Croatian Mr.Domagoj Margetic to work for Mr.Dodig current Prime Minister of Republic of Srpska. ref [ http://hiseta.com/index.php/vijesti/politika/1-nevladini-nacisti-dodikovi-pomahnitali-vojnici-galijaevi-margeti-trifunovi].

Here is news that dr Darko Trifunovic established Multinational and multiethnic Expets Team for Counter Terrorism and Organize Crimes ref. [ http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/bosnia-jihadists-bomb-police-station-analysts-state-the-obvious-and-warn-of-more-to-come.html]. This team was also criticizes from the side of some radical Muslim organization in Bosnia.

Dr Darko Trifunovi is in the member of Advisory Board - Institute of Transnational Studies ref [ http://www.transnationalstudies.org/advisory.html].

Dr Darko Trifunovic is guest lecturer and speaker at Institute of Counter Terrorism ref [8].

Dr Darko Trifunovic is full members of International Counter Terrorism Academic Community ref [9].

Dr Darko Trifunovic is contributing writer and member of International Analyst Network [10].

Dr Darko Trifunovic is Senior Advisor at the Research Institute for European and American Studies ref [11].

Dr Darko Trifunovic is Contributing Expert at The Terror Finance Bloge ref [ http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/darko-trifunovic-contribu.html].

Beside all above mentioned....there is strong criticism from side of opponent. All criticism varies from Srebrenica Genocide denial,Wanted Child Molester,a man with “many faces,”darko-trifunovic-expert-on-nothing, A week ago, his E-mail response to Haris Djapic and Alen Jusufovic was exposed publicly at Srebrenica Genocide Blog, quote: “Are you sure you are Serb? Why do you care about Muslims? I wish Mladic killed them all.” etc....DusanTR (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Writer

This redirect should be diffused from {{R from person}} to {{R from writer}}j --a perfect fit as the author of the publication that is the subject of the target article. --P64 (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)