Talk:Srđa Trifković

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Talk from 2005

To Lee: Once again, mention of Schwartz is made in the main body of the text. Reinserting him in the intro is illogical, especially in the view that "discredited" in this case has a very clear and specific, empirically verifiable meaning. In January 2003 Horowitz published the following on >Frontpagemag.com<: "Frontpage regrets characterizations of Serge Trifkovic, author of Sword of Islam, that were made in an article by Stephen Schwartz (CAIR's Axis of Evil) to the effect that Trifkovic, is an Islamophobe, is associated with Pravda or Antiwar.com, and "was the main advocate in the West for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic." Serge Trifkovic is not associated with either Pravda or Antiwar.com. He was not a supporter of Slobodan Milsoevic. He is not an Islamophobe nor would Frontpage have given extensive space to a summary of his book if he were. Frontpage regrets any pain or injury this may have caused to Mr. Trifkovic.-- David Horowitz"[1]

I don't see that Horowitz's statement necessarily discredits Schwartz. It's clearly a response that has been coerced by a threat of litigation and doesn't really settle things one way or the other. It's even a little humorous in that he says that T "is not an Islamophobe". From the little I've read of T's writings, "Islamophobe" is not entirely unfair. See, for example, this example (ironically from Pravda: )The West will pay dearly for the devastation of Christianity. Islam has a wild appetite. And here's a page from antiwar.com where T is one of the featured attractions of a package tour to Serbia [2] and another page with several links to articles by T [3]. I'd say the only person who has been discredited is Horowitz. --Lee Hunter 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "controversial" -- a value judgment with negative connotations -- from the opening paragraph, and will do so again because the term has zero information value and 100% ideological contents. And PLEASE enough already of Stephen Schwartz's villification of Trifkovic in the opening paragraph - for goodness' sake, Frontpage had to apologize to Dr T for Schwartz's vitriol, and later removed the discredited scribe from the list of their authors! His offhanded label ("Islamophobe") is already contained in the main body of the text. (Also: Replaced "Views" with "Allegedly Controversial Views" for reasons given at the bottom of this page.)

This entry has been subjected on several occasions to wanton hooliganism and barbarously inaccurate and misleading distortions by a clique of apologists for Jihad who hate Trifkovic because he is an effective critic of their ideology and world outlook. That they are trying to discredit an "infidel" ad hominem is neither surprising nor remarkable. It's been their modus operandi for almost 14 centuries.

Removed: Muslim sources allege that he said the figure is actually as low as 2,500. [1] Template:Questionable source because the source quoted does not provide verifiable reference. 8/26/06

I removed "*He also claims that the figure of 250,000 Bosnian Muslims dead in the entire conflict is actually as low as 2,500. Template:Quotation needed [citation needed]" for which no reference has been provided for over a year. Fletcher, 8/24/06

I added several reviews of his books, various links, and essential information on his only critic quoted by name, Stephen Schwartz (a.k.a. Suleyman Ahmad). I added "allegedly" to the list of his "controversial views" -- most of them are not controversial at all. I changed "controversial" (value judgment) to "prolific" (fact) in Para. 2.

I cut:

"He [is] considered an expert on Islamic culture and Islamic Terrorism by the Anti-terrorism community."

because his degrees are in political science, international relations, and modern history, which hardly qualifies him as an expert on these topics, and attribution is lacking: which members of the "anti-terrorism community" consider him an expert?

I also cut:

"Serge Trifkovic is a controversial author who does not pull any punches in his commentary on Terrorist related topics."

due to low information value.

I made various link corrections, copyedits, reorganizations, and additions; for the last I relied mainly on his testimony in Stakic's trial [4]. I moved the page to Srdja Trifkovic because that's how he usually spells his name, and it gets about twice as many hits: serge srdja. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't he a Muslim until a few years ago? When such a learned man also has experience, it counts for something in expertise. Triped 20:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I seriously doubt so. Trifkovic was born in Belgrade and identifies as a Serbian--an ethnic group that is overwhelmingly Serbian Orthodox or at least conscious of its Orthodox heritage.--TheMcManusBro 17:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] controversial views

there's a running revert war over whether one item should read thus:

*He is also a proponent of the idea that Muslims are secretly trying to take over the world via mass immigration. [5]

or thus:

*He is also a proponent of the idea that Muslims are secretly trying to take over the world via mass immigration and the Islamic institution of "dhimmitude," alarming evidence of which, he argues, can be seen in the already compliant and cowed attitudes of many Western nations vis a vis their Islamic minorities. [6]

however, the linked source supports neither of these versions. nowhere in the interview does he make the assertion that Muslims are trying to secretly take over the world by mass immigration (one could interpret some of what he said in that way, but it's not necessarily what was intended); nowhere at all does he mention "dhimmitude" or "the already compliant and cowed attitudes of many Western nations". I've removed the text until a source is found that actually supports the claims made here. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Allegedly" controversial

I removed the "allegedly". Either someone's views can be described as controversial (disputed by others) or they are not. In this case, most of his opinions are obviously controversial. --Lee Hunter 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed this again. Perhaps the person who put it back could explain why they did so. I've also removed, for the second time, the "Phd" in front of his name. This is poor English and does not conform to WP style. --Lee Hunter 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzling edits

"Raphael" could you please explain the following edits:

The rest of the polishing and primping (insisting on the Phd after his name) I can live with, but this seems remarkably like a whitewash. Unless you respond here with some kind of reasonable explanation, I'll have no choice but to revert. --Lee Hunter 14:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Lee Hunter: Yes, I'll gladly respond:
1. I've never seen any other Wiki entry in which an American of a given ethnic or religious background referred to as a "Jew" or a "Pole" etc. How about "Henry (in German Heinrich) Kissinger, a German-Jewish academic and political advisor who is now a naturalized American citizen"? How about insisting on " האתר של מתי שמואלוף " for Perle, Wurmser, or Feith?
2. I've exchanged e-mails with Trifkovic (>trifkovic@rockfordinstitute.org<) who is uninterested in getting involved in this, but who has confirmed that his status as a Bosnian-Serb "spokesman" (Feb. 1994-Aug. 1995) had been explicitly informal, described as such in the media outlets carrying his interviews (such as the BBC & ITN), that it was ad-hoc, unpaid & ungazetted in the Bosnian Serb state. Insisting on this particular element of T's bio in the introductory paragraph, in preference to his other work -- such as the authorship of a best-selling book (check "The Sword's" ranking on Amazon.com!) -- reflects an attempt to set up an "angle," especially in conjunction with the racist insistence on his alleged core ethnicity.
3. It reflects bad faith to insist on describing Stakic's indictment ad nauseam, and thus suggesting that T. was guilty by association -- even by virtue of appearing as an EXPERT WITNESS at that trial. By that token the bios of countless doctors, forensic scientists etc should list all the heinous crimes of all murderers, rapists etc at whose trials they had provided expert testimony for the defense!
3a And whoever inserted Biljana Plavsic's indictment should have added that T. was her advisor in March-July 1998, in connection with her tour of the United States and Canada at a time when she was a well-received VIP in DC and a darling of the International Community. As it stood before I removed it, that entry clearly suggests that T. advised her in connection with the war crimes, which is simply not true.
4. Re. "Politically incorrect guide" -- if you want to have the subtitle of one book, you should insert them all for consistency's sake, e.g. "Defeating Jihad: How the war on terror may yet be won in spite of ourselves."
5. And BTW, why do you think someone keeps removing snippets of reviews of T's book which are far more relevant and informative, and come from more authoritative sources, while reinstating a snide ad-hominem comment from the long-discredited Muslim convert Stephen Schwartz? Is it not relevant to note that FrontPage had to apalogize to T for Schwartz's attacks?
6. If you want to list T's "Views" you cannot focus merely on those that some people pick and choose as objectionable, and which are peripheral to his overall output, with which I and thousands of other "Chronicles" readers have been familiar for years.
On balance, "allegedly controversial views" describes the selection far more accurately and fairly. It is noteworthy that most of those views are now eminently mainstream: notably his views of the number of Bosnia's dead, the misuse of the UN-created safe zones and the facts concerning the Markale explosion have been confirmed by The Hague Tribunal, Gen. Lews McKenzie, and Lord David Owen respectively.
7. Aykol's article is neither scholarly nor "critical" in the time-honored Western sense of that term. Anyway... by all means let's have some reference to articles critical of T, Aykol included, but those reinserting Aykol should stop removing the comments on T. with which they disagree, - Raphael Levy
1. I'm baffled by your response. We're simply discussing the accurate spelling of his name in the script of his native language. If you click the Naturalized Americans category link at the bottom of the article and browse some of the articles, you'll find that many articles actually do use this approach. It's simply a useful bit of information for people who are familiar with the language and writing system of the subject. Your reference to Perle, Wurmser and Feith is particularly perplexing since they were all (as far as I'm aware) born in the US and don't have alternative forms of their names.
2. I think this is reasonable to move this information out of the introductory paragraph.
3. There was one brief and succinct sentence about Stakic. How is that going on "ad nauseum". Again, why cut this paragraph?
4. I can see your point about Biljana Plavšić, however the sentence could be fixed by simply removing the phrase "who was found guilty of war crimes ..."
5. I don't know anything about the snippets of reviews you refer to and it's really tangential to what we're discussing here. I don't know Schwartz but I do know that when people use the word "discredited" it almost always means that some people dispute his facts or arguments. Odd that you see Schwartz's religion as germane given your earlier remarks. Unless you can provide a specific reason why it should be removed, the link to this article should be restored.
6. Feel free to improve the article by expanding on his views. The "Allegedly controversial" title is awkward and misleading.
7. I think we're in agreement here that the article should contain references to both critics and supporters. --Lee Hunter 23:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errr...

Do we have any reviews of this book that aren't from non-historians of conservative political bent? Relata refero (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biography and columns at FrontPageMag.com

  • This external link has been removed multiple times by blocked user Koov [8] and socks[9] of Koov [10] [11]. It was initially removed by Koov from Defeating Jihad [12] at the same time, because frontpagemag is a "neoconservative website". The reason it's being removed is from here is because Srđa Trifković apparently no longer works for them [13]. I don't really care who he works for, what his politics are or what frontpagemag's politics are. It belongs here because it's a link to Srđa Trifković's previous colomnist page with a short biography and more than 20 of his articles. If you want to know about this guy, 20 of his articles seem relevant. Ha! (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's been removed again [[14]] (by another IP in the same New York Verizon IP range that blocked user Koov edits with) with no additional reasons for it's removal in the edit summary and no attempt to discuss on this talk page so I'm reverting again. I can't see why this external link doesn't comply with Wikipedia:External_links. It's a link to 20 of the guy's articles, surely it's a useful resource. Ha! (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)