Talk:Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević

Article name

It strikes me that the article should be entitled something a bit more specific and WP:MOSNUM compliant. Perhaps it can be moved to Serbian revolution of 2000 or Serbian revolution of October 2000? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in Serbia it is best known under this name - 5th October, nothing more, so I think the article name should include the specific date, although the protest did last for about two weeks. Yet, I agree that the title should be a little bit more specific, even the former name of the article, 5th October overthrow, was better than this one.--Vitriden (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, my concern over the title is twofold. As this is the English Wikipedia, I'm not concerned about slavishly following what they use in Serbia because we have our own naming conventions. Actually, there's also the issue of the use of ordinal dates, which is not encouraged here on WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if there is not a commonly used English name of an event, and there is one in Serbian, why wouldn't we use and modify it, especially since it is in no way against the naming conventions. As for your suggestion, I have some doubt it should be called a "revolution", rather then "protests", "overthrow", or "Slobodan Milošević's regime downfall", since I am not sure it was a revolution as such. Also, as Serbia wasn't independent at the time, and the protests were over the election of the president of Yugoslavia, the term "Serbian" is also somehow inappropriate. Therefore, something like Serbian revolution of October 5, 2000 would be an acceptable, but not great solution...--Vitriden (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm also open to suggestions. How about the Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević, or simply Overthrow of Milošević? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević isn't the best solution, but is the best I can think of... If I get to think of a better title, I'll post it here. If there's no objections, and I can't see anyone else except for the two of us here, go for it.--Vitriden (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll give it a few more days, just in case someone wants to chip in. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Overthrow of the Socialist Regime of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia R.K the Dynamite (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That title is too long and is not one that is commonly used. Charles Essie (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Emotionally charged

Some parts of the articles are obviously biased and emotionally charged. For example "harassed the independent media" does not describe any historical event in particular, but rather gives an opinion about those events.

Also, "most of the world's news organizations missed the real story" sounds rather journalistic. "world's news organizations"? Which ones? How do we know they were missing it as opposed to the some of the events that were not covered being insignificant and not newsworthy? Further in the paragraph, "year-long battle" is again not an objective term. Formulation like "an organized movement that lasted for a year, culminating in..., lead by..." might be more appropriate.

"[S]trip the tyrant" probably needs no explanation – clearly has no place in an encyclopedia article.

And so on. The whole article is generally fairly biased in many parts, and would probably require a thorough review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxbunny (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, so by default the page is not moved. Despite concerns about the current title, no alternative gained consensus support. The most widely-supported option was Yugoslav Bulldozer Revolution, but I attach a lot of weight to the evidence that this is a neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević → Bulldozer Revolution – This is the most common name for this revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I support a move in theory because overthrow is frankly too strong of a word to describe what actually happened. But at the same time, I think revolution is still exaggerating the event. Something along the lines of 2000 October 5th demonstration would be more suitable. Buttons (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This was a popular uprising that led to the downfall of an authoritarian regime, how is that not a revolution? Charles Essie (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Substantially less recognizable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Substantially less recognizable" than what, what do you propose? Charles Essie (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Substantially less recognizable than the current title, obviously? What's wrong with the current title, the nomination doesn't say. I suggest Fall of the Milošević Yugoslav government. "Milošević" and "Yugoslav" make the title much more recognizable to a wider readership already aware of Slobodan Milošević or the history of Yugoslavia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I suggested "Bulldozer Revolution" because it's the name that is always used when it's discussed within the context of the colour revolutions, the Bullodozer Revolution was the first in this series of 21st-century revolutions (the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, the Tulip Revolution, the Arab Spring, ect.), and it should be described within that context. Charles Essie (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Informative titles are more recognizable, more helpful to readers interested in the topic. Nicknames are not appropriate for wide, non-expert audiences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• By that logic, the Orange Revolution should be tilted "Aftermath of the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004", or the October Revolution should titled the "Overthrow of the Russian Provisional Government". Charles Essie (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Orange Revolution should at least be titled Ukraine's Orange Revolution or Ukrainian Orange Revolution or similiar. Check the reliable sources, Wikipedia is near-unique in pushing the colorful nicknames without informative alongside. The absence of "Ukraine" obscures the topic being covered. The Orange Order and Irish Unionism compete for misrecognition of the Orange Revolution. Yugoslav Bulldozer Revolution might be OK, but the presidents' name still would make it much recognizable. Bulldozer Revolution is a nickname, an elevated bit of trivial, not even correct, and is not appropriate for a formal treatment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• At least the Orange Revolution began with an overt association with orange. This Yugoslav revolution did not have a bulldozer theme. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The name comes from the revolution's climax, when a bulldozer to storm the parliament, so it did have a bulldozer theme, that said, I'd accept Yugoslav Revolution as an alternative. Charles Essie (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• It was a bulldozer (like vehicle) "event", not "theme". Yugoslav Revolution but not Yugoslav Bulldozer Revolution? I still think that Fall of Milošević or similar is the way to go, and that "revolution" is perhaps an exaggeration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• How is "Revolution" an exaggeration, this was a popular uprising consisting of revolutionary slogans, student protests, labor strikes, a storming of parliament, and the overthrow of an authoritarian head of state, if that's not a revolution, than what is? Charles Essie (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that the events quite rise to the level described at revolution. Was there a fundamental change in the organizational structure of the government, or was it just a particularly tumultuous change of government with significant symbolism and international attention? Yes, it is listed at List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions. I guess "revolution" is used more freely than the revolution article would suggest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's exactly what happened, the Bulldozer Revolution resulted in the transformation of Yugoslavia from an authoritarian regime to a liberal democracy, there's your fundamental change. Charles Essie (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• So what's wrong with Yugoslav Bulldozer Revolution? Bulldozer Revolution is a proper name, but it is always mentioned first alongside context. Yugoslav or similar is needed for international recognizability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, that title works for me. Charles Essie (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yugoslav Bulldozer Revolution per above. Although Slobodan Milošević is central to the topic, I think the topic is improved by focusing on the revolution as a whole, which is largely the case already. "Bulldozer Revolution" is a bit of a cute title, but it is well used is reliable sources, and can be plausibly expected by readers to be in the title. However, it is not well used in isolation of context, and so "Yugoslav" is needed to improve recognizability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• SupportYugoslav Bulldozer Revolution too I think it sounds very good. --R.K the Dynamite (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — R.K the Dynamite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose Yugoslav Bulldozer Revolution, which would be a Wikipedia invention. No strong opinions on the move as proposed, but a slight preference for the current title due to recognizability. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Bulldozer Revolution and Yugoslav Bulldozer Revolution even more so. The (few) sources for the article do not support this name. Go with another descriptive like Fall of Milošević (suggested above) if you don't like the current title. —  AjaxSmack  18:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose See: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Telegraph, Pravda.ru — Maurice07 (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Causes

I heard that one of causes of the Anti-Milosevic Protest was because he not allowed National Symbols like the Serbian Eagle on the State flag and the Political lose of Kosovo but I don't know if this is were true and I heard also Patriarch Pavle and the Serbian Orthodox Church were against the Socialist/Milosevic Regime --R.K the Dynamite (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Masha Gessen on US involvement in overthrowing Milošević

I am reading a blog by Steve Sailer that puts these events in a new light.

• Gessen in Slate: "Bombing Moscow does not seem to be an option" – By Steve Sailer, March 22, 2014

That's pretty interesting. The Wikipedia article on the subject doesn't mention anything about American involvement in the overthrow of Milosevic, but I presume Ms. Gessen knows of what she speaks.

Then the original article by Masha Gessen:

• Crimea Is Putin’s Revenge – Slate

After the bombing campaign, which strengthened support for Milosevic and weakened his opponents, the U.S. poured cash into rebuilding the Serbian opposition. The funding was contingent on the disparate opposition groups agreeing to work together and attending regular coordination meetings held in Budapest, Hungary, and run by people whom participants understood to represent the State Department. The plan for the anti-Milosevic revolution was worked out in these meetings down to the smallest detail, including where the leaders of each of the 18 participating political organizations would be if mass protests broke out in Belgrade. They did, in October 2000, and Milosevic didn't seem to know what hit him.

I would consider the Gessen article in Slate a reliable source on this topic. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new here. The opposition meetings with Madeleine Albright were televised and Otpor called Madlen jugend by the regime.67.164.215.36 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2015

21st century

Last year of the 20th century is 2000 and the first year is 2001,so this technically wasn't anti-government protest of the 21st century but of the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade1302 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems right to me; category fixed. Klbrain (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fall, Downfall or Overthrow

Gbooks hits has:

• "Fall of Slobodan Milošević" (30)
• "Fall of Milošević" (30)
• "Downfall of Milošević" (30)
• "Overthrow of Milošević" (30)
• "Downfall of Slobodan Milošević" (21)
• "Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević" (20)

The following monographs also points to the word fall being proper in describing the event(s).--Zoupan 00:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• D. Bujosevic; I. Radovanovic (9 May 2003). The Fall of Milosevic: The October 5th Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-1-4039-7677-2.
• Lenard J. Cohen (2001). Serpent in the Bosom: The Rise and Fall of Slobodan Milošević. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-2902-4.

In Gbooks hits in Serbo-Croatian, "fall" is however found less than in English:

• pad Miloševića (18); пад Милошевића (4); Милошевићев пад (6); Miloševićev pad (2)
• pad Slobodana Miloševića (6); пад Слободана Милошевића (4)

Any thoughts?--Zoupan 00:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Relisted once already, no prospect of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević → Bulldozer Revolution – There's no reason to have a descriptive title when the subject of this article already has a common name. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 01:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose 'Bulldozer Revolution' is not the common name in Great Britain. It is sometimes used, but 'sometimes' is not sufficient. Carandol (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose clearly not common name. See Gbooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

• Serbian Radical Party flag.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2021 (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:

• Serbian Radical Party flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)