Jump to content

Talk:Srđa Trifković/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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]

Generally unreliable 

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. [need quotation to verify] [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)

References

  1. ^ Book Review of “The Sword of the Prophet” by Serge Trifkovic - Habib Siddiqui via Bismika Allahuma. 10 October, 2005.

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Just a comment on this tragic development

I can not escape the impression that this article and discussion, made and maintained by a few editors who are among those who admire the character and work of Mr. T, who is among other things, known as a spokesman for the worst and cruelest regimes (Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia and the satellite regimes of at the time revolted part of neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina) in the modern history of Europe.

It might be better that you create a FAN page.--Umagli (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Trifkovic update regarding Chronicles

Dr. Trifkovic is once again listed on the banner headline of Chronicles magazine, and has been posting columns since 2 September 2010. Perhaps the last sentence of the biography section should be updated?

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/category/srdja-trifkovic/page/3/

Ivan the mad (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no article yet about the 'green corridor' (in the Balkans)

Please see my proposal at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Islamism#There_is_no_article_yet_about_the_.27green_corridor.27_.28in_the_Balkans.29 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.208.90.139 (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How real is Trifkovic's notion of a "Green Corridor" and how much is it simply a continuation of his relentless propagandising in the cause of ethnic purification in the Balkans? Trifkovic's theorising about "Jihad in the Balkans" may be a little more verbally coherent than similar efforts by Darko Trifunovic to pass off a ragbag of factoids as political analysis but its substance and motives need just as careful evaluation. Trifkovic is the man who as Radovan Karadzic's "unofficial advisor" was busy in the Bosnian Serb President's office in Pale polishing up Karadzic's press releases at the very moment the Bosnian Serb Army was carrying out its mass executions around Srebrenica. His status as a reliably objective source on Balkan issues is adequately indicated by his recent refusal of admission to Canada under the Canadian War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act.Opbeith (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have little else to add than express my conviction that Trifković is right, and that his theory deserves an article of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.33.163 (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Writings on Islam and Books section

The blurbs about Sword of Islam in the Books section were simply uninformative publisher's plugs. I have deleted them after creating a Writings on Islam section identifying the key theme of Trifkovic's work on the subject. The Olson comment may be worth moving to the Writings on Islam section. The ereference to the argument with Schwartz would be more appropriate in a section dealing with controversies relating to the former Yugoslavia. Opbeith (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Breikiv

Let me clarify: the consensus so far on WP:BLPN is unaninmous: it is 100% inappropriate, undue, and guilt-by-association to include information in Breivik in the article of any of the people he mentioned in his memoir. If you want to dispute that, go to WP:BLPN#Anders Behring Breivik (3) and discuss it there. Unless you can show with reliable source that Trifković had anything directly to do with Breivik, this cannot go in the article, so much so that removing it meets the exemption on revert warring for BLPs. Its patently and obviously inappropriate to say "Person X said something about Person Y in their memoirs" and then go to Person Y's article and mention there. It doesn't matter that this has been "reported" in mainstream news sources--that doesn't overcome either the undue problem or the BLP violation. Please do not re-add this material. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Qwyrxian 100%.Griswaldo (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at WP:BLPN appears concerned to disallow mention of public discussion in reliable sources of significant issues that can be interpreted as reflecting unfavourably on an article's subject. To give Trifkovic credit he hasn't hesitated to answer Dagbladet by stating that he does not believe that his ideas are linked to Breivik's actions. I specifically mentioned that in the article. Your comment "this is so 100% wrong" suggests that you are unable to see the substantive issue here.
The example Qwyxian gave at my talk page about reporting of celebrities' fashion likes and dislikes trivialises the issue but also distorts it. The newspapers base their reporting - published with the approval of their legal departments - on informed analysis of the background to a significant event. The New York Times article[15] reviews the activity and influence of blogs like Gates of Vienna and Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs which heavily promote an anti-Islamic viewpoint which they characterise as "counter-jihad". These blogs publicise Trifkovic's views and campaign on his behalf, as for example when he sought to encourage protests to the Canadian government earlier this year when he was refused admission to Canada under the Canadian Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
Trifkovic is a prominent promoter of very forceful anti-Islamic views. To quote a review of his "Sword of the Prophet" which he cites at his own website:
"What Muslims, multiculturalists, and the media hope you never find out about Islam. Since 9-11, dozens of books have been rushed to market purporting to “explain” the religion in whose name the terrorists acted. Most of them strike a common theme: “true” Islam – as opposed to the “fundamentalist” variety of the hijackers – is a “religion of peace” that promotes charity, tolerance, freedom, and culture… Such a viewpoint, argues Serge Trifkovic, is not only false but dangerous, since it blinds to the true nature of the enemy that threatens us. Moreover, it betrays a hidden agenda: to discredit Christianity and the West by comparison to a sanitized, idealized Islam that bears no resemblance to its actual teachings or history. – NATIONAL REVIEW Book Service"[16]
Dagbladet[17][18] and other newspapers have specifically questioned the influence of Trifkovic's writings on Breivik's views - those views are in many respects very close to Trifkovic's and he quotes Trifkovic in his "European Declaration" compendium/manifesto.Trifkovic is a prominent figure in the circles which Breivik refers to as the source views are expressed in vivid and even apocalyptic terms, which is one of the reasons why it has been suggested that Trifkovic's views have had an influence on Breivik's. Trifkovic acknowledges the influence of ideas in his reply to Dagbladet when he refers to the influence of Hegel on Marx and the actions of dictators who have alleged allegiance to Marxism, though he distances himself from any connection with Breivik's actions. Trifkovic is a public figure and his views are publicly expressed and disseminated. The issue of their influence on Breivik has been raised with him in a reliable source and he has given his answer in refutation which has been included in the mention in the article.
Although it's not relevant to the issue of principle, I'll remind you why Trifkovic is a public figure and why his anti-Islamic views are publicly discussed. Both during the Bosnian war and after it he was spokesman for the political leadership who organised the mass murder of over 8000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica and many others elsewhere across Bosnia, as evidenced by the findings of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. [19][20]
Trifkovic has admitted that he was present in the offices of the Bosnian Government at the time the executions at Srebrenica were being carried out[21]. Although he denies any knowledge of them, the Canadian Government refused him admission to Canada earlier this year under the Canadian Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act on the grounds, according to Trifkovic, of him having been a "prescribed senior official" in a government whose actions fell within the scope of the act - ie the commission of crimes under the act.[22] (In response Trifkovic orchestrated an unsuccessul campaign among his "counterjihad" blogging associates, some of whom Breivik also identifies as sources of political inspiration).
So this is not a subject who has an unblemished reputation to protect.
The Dagbladet article reports a public debate and the New York Times article provides the wider context of the debate. It is clear that their reporting is not equivalent to celebrity tittle-tattle. It's also clear that Trifkovic's views are being discussed publicly in relation to Breivik's political philosophy and it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to suppress mention of this on the grounds that it's protecting Trifkovic's interest. This is not a "drive by" attack on the subject, it's a legitimate reference to an issue in the public domain in which he is prominent.
I'm happy for the desire to suppress information to be discussed but I don't concede the point that this information should be includede in the article and I'm concerned at the reasons advanced for excluding it. Opbeith (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The Dagbladet article can be used in Breveik's entry but should not be used in those of his influences. It does not establish the fact that this incident is a notable part of those other individuals' biographies. When the dust settles and people writing about these individuals directly see it fit to discuss how they influenced Breveik then the matter changes. But, even then we need to use only top notch sources (no op-eds or other political punditry), and exercise the amount of caution that BLP mandates. There is no suppression of information going on here.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, do you read Norwegian or were you using the Google translated version of the article, because that is not OK by the way.Griswaldo (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly; if this is a critical part of the Manifesto, it belongs on the Manifesto's page (which doesn't currently exist, I believe, and has been redirected as non-notable, but might exist in the future) or on Brevik's page. Let me try another analogy: hundreds of thousands of academics discuss Karl Marx in their writing. Some of them even base a major portion of their on Marxist analysis, citing his work in hundreds or thousands of pages of analysis. Should the Karl Marx page contain reference to every person that xe has significantly influenced? No, such information belongs (in summary form) on the page of those who were influenced, not on the source of the influence. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, Trifkovic has discussed the issue with Dagbladet. If necessary I'm willing to go through the same process of linguistic analysis as below in reference to Trifkovic's exchange with the Dagbladet journalists, but Trifkovic's analogy accepts that his ideas may have influenced Breivik in the same way as Hegel's may have influenced eg Mao or Stalin, but that doesn't mean that he should be considered the agent responsible for Breivik's actions. I think I've communicated that in my wording. Feel free to challenge the wording but Trifkovic's willingness to discuss the situation with Dagbladet shows that he has a rather more robust attitude to public discussion than you do. Your alleged consensus at Anders Behring Breivik (3) is not a consensus - stating that there is a consensus does not establish one. You are simply asserting your own view that the information reported both specifically with reference to Trifkovic and more generally in relation ot the counterjihad movement of which he is a prominent member is potentially unfavourable to Trifkovic and should therefore be excluded from the article. It would be extremely difficult to squeeze reference to all the individuals Marx has influenced onto his page, instead there's a reference to wider categories - Maoism, etc. If Marx had influenced only a rather limited number of individuals whose prominent actions had had a highly dramatic impact on the international scene, it's hard to imagine that they'd be excluded from discussion on his page. Opbeith (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo's query about the linguistic validity of the Dagbladet content

Griswaldo, "that is not OK" is nothing more than your personal pronouncement. I have a multilingual background and I'm only too aware of the risks of relying on machine translation. My inclusion of the Google Translate reference was simply an aid. The Dagbladet reference is the support for the information included in the article. If you have any problems with that information please point to the wording you consider problematic and I'm certainly happy to look at the specific problem in relation to the Norwegian wording.

I'm not clear where you find a problem. "De var Breiviks helter" clearly identifies the subject of the article as Breivik's heroes. The first sentence states that Anders Behring Breivik cites "høyresideideologer som forbilder" - right-wing ideologists as his role models. The article goes on to refer first to Robert Spencer and then Serge Trifkovic. It doesn't reiterate the reference so as to state explicitly that Trifkovic was an idological role model but the structure of the text certainly doesn't refute the imputation and the reporters write that "Den serbiske forfatteren og historikeren Serge Trifkovic siteres en rekke steder i manuset til Behring Breivik." ie Trifkovic is cited at a number of places in Breivik's magnum opus. (They also mention that he's considered by critic as a Serb ultra-nationalist and is a Srebrenica [genocide] denier - "Trifkovic regnes av sine kritikere som en serbisk ultranasjonalist, han er også Srebenica-fornekter." The text refers to the fact that "He was refused admission to Canada because of having worked for Serb war criminals" - "Han nektet ble adgang til Canada da han har jobbet for serbiske krigsforbrytere." (This being a reference to his having been a spokesperson for Karadzic and the Bosnian Serbs during the period including the Srebrenica genocide).

The inset box has a heading describing the five individuals named as "BEHRING BRIVIKS HELTER" - these are Behring Br[e]ivik's heroes (presumably you're not quibbling about the typo in Breivik's name to suggest the reference is meant to be to someone else?) The five names are those of Robert Spencer; Serge Trifkovic (also described here as a writer critical of Islam and a consultant to the Bosnian Serb war criminal [Biljana] Plavsic and an advocate for a Western halt to all Muslim immigration and the deportation of all "jihadists" - in full, ST "er en islamkritisk skribent som blant annet var han rådgiver for den dømte krigsforbryteren Plavsic, tidligere president for Republika Srpska (den serbiske delen av Bosnia). Han har argumentert for at Vesten skal stoppe all innvandring av muslimer til Vesten og deportere alle «jihadister»."); Bat Ye'or - pseudonym of Gisèle Littman; Bruce Bawer; and Fjordmann (the Norwegian spelling).

Tell me what linguistic points in there you would like to discuss and I'm sure we can call in a competent third party who will resolve the inadequacies of my admittedly limited command of Norwegian. Feel free to check at WP:NONENG that what Wikipedia actually says about non-English sources is that "when citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." Opbeith (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Counterjihad authors and Breivik

In further support of my reversion back to the version which includes reference to the Breivik connection, here are some points made elsewhere in relation to the issue of the influence of the "counterjihad" movement authors, of which Trifkovic is one, on the views of Anders Behring Breivik, which expands the background to the Dagbladet article's specific inclusion of Trifkovic among "Breivik's heroes":

Prominent reliable sources discuss the issue of the influence of the Counterjihad movement's anti-Islamic views on Breivik :

New York Times - Scott Shane [23]

Dagbladet article [24]

Jostein Gaarder and Thomas Hylland Eriksen in the NYT[25].

Matthew Taylor's article in The Guardian reporting on Paul Ray of the Lionheart blog: Ray said "it appeared Breivik had drawn inspiration from some of his ideas and writings. "It's really pointing at us. All these things he's been talking about are linked to us," he said. "It's like he's created this whole thing around us." (adding that Ray said he condemned wholeheartedly what had happened and offered his deepest sympathies to Norway and the relatives of the dead, but that he did believe Islam was a threat to Europe)."[26]

Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post looks at the well-known anti-Muslim polemicists in the United States whom he describes as zealots who usually boast of their influence and how they now deny it in anti-Islamic terms.[27]

Jewish Daily Forward quotes the Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman as saying "Breivik was clearly influenced by an ideological movement both in the United States and Europe that is rousing public fear by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith," noting in his statement that the ADL has reported previously on Spencer and Geller’s anti-Muslim agitation.[28]

Doug Saunders's article in The Globe and Mail "‘Eurabia’ opponents scramble for distance from anti-Muslim murderer" notes that "None of these authors [frequently cited, quoted and praised in Breivik's manifesto] have advocated violence. But their warnings of impending Islamic takeover – a concept that is widely dismissed as implausible in conventional scholarly and political circles – sometimes carry an urgency that might seem to invite angry responses. ... she (Littman / Bat Ye'or) warned that her ideas, and those of fellow authors and leaders on the anti-Muslim right, could continue to have violent repercussions if Mr. Breivik proves influential. “I’m afraid that this is something that other people will imitate.”"[29]

The reliable sources refer to the influence on Breivik of what is described as a "subculture", "scene", etc. of right-wing/far right-wing commentators promoting an anti-Islamic ideology/agenda.

This group includes in particular Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch, Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs and "Baron Bodissey"'s and "Dymphna"'s Gates of Vienna (host for "Fjordman"), along with Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs, David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine, Srdja/Serge Trifkovic's Chronicles, Gisele Littman's "The Brussels Journal" and a number of others, all of them cited in Breivik's "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence". They share an ideology that is described as "anti-jihad" or "counter(-)jihad", positioning the arguments as a counter-balance to "jihad", which the coalition subscribing to the Counterjihad Manifesto interpret specifically as "holy war".

"Baron Bodissey" of Gates of Vienna, author of the Manifesto, argues that the target of what they depict as their defence of the Christian West has to be Islam and all Muslims because of the difficulty of identifying a small core of threatening extremists who susbscribe to the more violent aspects of "jihad".

The group refer to themselves as a coalition, others describe them as a network. Their publications frequently reference one another's views (for example in Fjordman's "tour d'horizon" syntheses, quoted verbatim in "2083"). They call on one another for support, as when Srja Trifkovic was challenging the Canada government over its decision to refuse him admission earlier this year or currently when individual members such as Fjordman and Spencer have found themselves accused of being an influence on Breivik. They also have very intense internal disputes on issues of basic principle, as in the dispute provoked by the English Defence League's split over Jewish involvement (and even Charles Johnson's initial accusation that Fjordman was Breivik).

Whatever the group's specific differences of detail the reliable sources see this ideological grouping as having a significant influence, directly or indirectly, on the ideas of Anders Behring Breivik. They note the extensive quoting in "2083" that has led to the discussion here and at other locations in Wikipedia. Frank Patalong at Spiegel Online notes that Breivik's "copy and paste" inclusion of material by Fjordman in "2083" runs to hundreds of pages in the 1500 page compendium.

Attempts elsewhere to portray inclusion of these mentions of influence as imputing guilt by association disregard the fact that what is being referred to is the fact that the group with which Trifkovic is associated is publicly seen as a significant influence on Breivik's anti-Islamic thinking. There's no implication that Trifkovic himself, despite some "apocalyptic" writings beforehand, was knowingly responsible for Breivik's murderous actions. Opbeith (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Claimed consensus

Truthsort, your consensus is a false consensus because you have disregarded evidence challenging it that has been brought to your attention. You know that. Rather than examine and resolve the issue, you are simply threatening to block me because I won't accept the arbitrary imposition of that "consensus". I'm unable to perceive good faith in your actions. Trifkovic is discussed by a reliable source as a hero and ideological role model of Breivik and his group likewise. You are insistent that information should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Without adequate justification, pseudo-consensus or not, that is unwarranted suppression of appropriate content. Opbeith (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, take it to WP:BLPN. You cannot override site-wide consensus and policy on a local level. Adding the info here is unambiguously a violation of WP:BLP; continuing to add it will result in you being blocked. I completely agree that a source explains that Trifkovic is a hero for Breivik. Put that on the Breivik page. It cannot go here. Even if Trifkovic responded directly and openly to Breivik's manifesto, putting it here would be highly questionable due to WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Article or political pamphlet ?

Article promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Next, article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by and/or directly taken from an advocacy or lobbying group, such as fringe Balkan Studies.org, Jihad Watch, extreme right-wing organisation The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies, etc. It appears as if contributor(s) have a really close connection with its subject or same view and ideological stand. Article rely too heavily on primary sources and references too close to the subject, or with tie or sources affiliated with the subject, except just one BBC Ref (in two places). Find references to be verifiable and neutral from independent authors and third-party publications, and citations from reliable sources, not from Google Groups and blogs, fringe lobbying and advocacy groups, etc ! Unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization remove or replace such interpretation. Discuss it and improve, do not delete templates, or may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view NPOV.--Santasa99 (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Srđa Trifković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Srđa Trifković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking at White Nationalist conference

Should this be included? I feel like it's somewhat relevant to his persona, but I also didn't see a source on the original page and don't have time to verify at the moment. Quote below: "Hart organized a conference held in Baltimore in 2009 with the title, Preserving Western Civilization. It was billed as addressing the need to defend "America's Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity." Invited speakers included: Lawrence Auster, Peter Brimelow, Steven Farron, Julia Gorin, Lino A. Graglia, Henry C. Harpending, Roger D. McGrath, Pat Richardson, J. Philippe Rushton, Srdja Trifković, and Brenda Walker." (link: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Michael_H._Hart#Racial_conferences)

Though it's billed as a conference on "preserving Western Civilization," that's just a pleasant way to describe their white nationalism; one can call an orange an apple, but that doesn't make it one. All the names I recognize are prominent white nationalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoscis (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Srđa_Trifković/Archive_1&oldid=1243054242"