Talk:Slobodan Milošević/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Death of Political Opponents

The killing of Ivan Stambolic happened in 2000, so I don't think it belongs in the section of the article describing Milosevic's rise to power.

However, a significant allegation against Milosevic was that he had his political opponents killed. The death of Ivan Stambolic is part of a larger allegation against Milosevic that includes, assassination attempts against Vuk Draskovic, the murder of Slavko Curuvija, the killing of Ivan Stambolic, and some even allege that Milosevic was behind the assassination of Zoran Djindjic.

I have removed the part about Stambolic's death from the rise to power section and added it to a new section called "death of political opponents", which admittedly needs a lot of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Polje 1987

The article erroniously stated that the crowd attacked the police on April 24, 1987. In fact the police attacked the crowd and were scolded for their conduct by the SFRY Interior Ministry. (FYI: Dobroslav Culafic from Montenegro was SFRY Interior Minister at the time).

I thought about adding the fact that the crowd retaliated by throwing stones from a nearby road construction project at the police, but don't know if that's relevant since the incident is only used by the article to highlight Milosevic's response to the complaints from the crowd that the police were beating them.

Nedic's Serbia

Milosevic's birthplace is now listed as Serbia, not Nedic's Serbia. Milosevic was born 9 days before Nedic's Serbia even existed. Milosevic was born on August 20, 1941 and Nedic was appointed by the German occupation authorities on August 29, 1941.

Selling Arms to Bosnian-Serbs

I deleted the following text: "He has admitted that he sold weapons to the Bosnian Serbs[1] although he claims that he cut off all links once it became clear that some of them were engaged in massacres."

Although there is a citation in the text, the assertion that "he sold weapons to the Bosnian Serbs" does not follow from it. No where in the source does he say that he sold weapons or otherwise armed the Bosnian Serbs.

Formulation of Serbian desires

This article is poorly written and painful to follow.

It is not true that Serbs wanted to join Serbia - their claim was that they want to remain part of Yugoslavia, and the question was whether nations or republics have a right to self-determination. This was an important issue, and presenting their view in this way is highly biased.

A chopped up Yugoslavia with Serbs as the supermajority, ruled by Serb nationalists the likes of Milosevic. Yeah, I really can't see how someone could so blatantly misinterpret that as "Serbia"! Pfft. --Shallot 17:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Serbs were only the majority after the other countries left. Look at the Slovenian war! Less than 15% of the army were Serbs. Epa101 09:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, when someone kills teenagers in a pub in Pec, that is terrorism, in my opinion. And Robert Gelbardt called these actions terrorism as well.

So, please stop reverting what to is not true.

Hate speech quote

rmhermen,

The Guys at Emperor's Clothes posted a financial reward for anyone that can get a Milosevic hate speach quote... so I guess that nobody has found one so far, otherwise, you should go for the reward, or put back the 'controversial' paragraph

Igor

Reversions regarding the nature of the trial

Zocky, please try to work out NPOV issues about the article here on the talk pages, instead of just reverting the changes. Edit wars don't really help. I believe it's fair to present Serbian views in the article and I have no trouble believing that many Serbs actually do support Milosevic, although a survey or poll would be nice to go from the "hypothetical" to the "factual. --Eloquence

---

It's not a NPOV issue. It's an applicability issue. If anyone wants to discuss the trial of Slobodan Milosevic (and it's a controversial issue), they should create a separate article on it. This should, IMHO, contain primarily biographical information and provable facts. Zocky 00:29 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

Usually we try to avoid splitting stuff up too much until articles get too long. The trial of Slobo definitely deserves a separate article, but until someone is willing to write it, I think we should stick a summary into this one. --Eloquence

---

The trial of Slobodan Milosevic has very serious consequences in Serbian politics today - the views of serbs and consequences of it are PART of milosevic legacy - he is still active there by appearing in court. Many of the happenings in Serbia today (elections for instance) are very much influenced by this trial, so it is not irelevant

Tinulim

---

Clutch, please do not revert our carefully agreed on NPOV compromise without good reason. "Most observers agree that the trial is a travesty of justice" is certainly not true. Almost all media reports I've seen on the trial so far have rather accused Milosevic of being evil, misleading, using fake evidence etc. I'm not saying that this is true, just that we must attribute views properly. --Eloquence

Did you read BBC reports?

Read pages 151-152 in Waging Modern War by General Wesley K. Clark. Incriminating hate speech against Albanians, and some manipulatory actions.

---

Please do not read anything by Wesley K. Clark, this man is a lobbyist for Albanian affairs and is also not to be trusted. There is not one single article which was published by the media which is not bias. The West had to place blame on someone for the Yugoslav wars and Milosevic was it. Why doesn’t anyone sympathies with the Serbs in which over 200,000 have been cleansed from Croatia during the wars or the exodus of Serbs from Kosovo. People do not focus on those numbers which are shocking as everything else was during the Yugoslav conflicts. Why did people forget that Mujahedeen were in Bosnia helping the Muslims or Ustasa helping the Croats, two extreme groups which manipulated the media to win the war, which they ultimately did. Now the world is terrified of extremist Muslims and has handled it in a sub-par manner, look at the prison camps, abuses, killings by Allied forces, yet this has been a problem in Serbia which on one at the time understood.

MJ ---

Ditto, this is my understanding 20-20 hindsight - the Serbs were ethnically cleansed after years of accusing them of being the cleansers. The western media-citizens got bamboolzed again.

Nationalist?

Milošević never said anything which could be classified as hate speech, and the fear of him in former Yugoslavia during the rise of Serbian nationalism was more a reaction to the actions of his followers than to any of his explicitly expressed views. He is not considered to a be nationalist himself, and had a bitter dispute with the Bosnian Serb government from 1993 to 1995— during this period the boundary on the Drina river, separating Bosnia from Serbia, was closed, and support for Bosnian Serbs was severely restricted.

I removed this as it is not true. Most people consider him a nationalist. Anyone have specific quotes from him? --rmhermen

First of all, Milošević is a first class demagogue. In the event that no one finds a shred of hate speech in what he publically said, that is simply the confirmation of the former statement. His rhetoric is almost flawless -- it takes such a man to persuade millions of Serbs to do what they have done in the 1990s. There are countless analyses of his rhetoric written in Serbian and Croatian media, it's a real pity that so little is translated to English.

Secondly, it is entirely possible that he is not a Serb nationalist, and that he did it all to make a profit and to secure his family's financial well being for the next several generations. For all we know, he may have done it all for kicks -- it is not inconceivable that a villain of this magnitude perpetrated the whole thing just to satisfy some perverted desire to commandeer the lives of millions. --Shallot 19:17, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A demagog who never said anything to persuade people of hisviews is an obvious contradiction in terms. Milosevic is the only leader who consistently supported peace & a man to whom any from of racism is "anathema" according to Lord Owen under oath at the trial. Owen is hardly acting from an anti-western viewpoint so unless Milosevic's demagogic powers include hyponotism anyone putting the Nazi view has to explain this testimony.

Secondly it is entirely possible that Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightingale & Jesus were all in it for the money too but anybody reasonable would insist on a little evidence or at least to see some of the money. Despite all such lies by Clinton (who clearly is making money) & co not one cent of these billions alleged has ever been found.

Neil

S

Hate speech

Igor says "any evidence of implicit hate-speech?"

All of his "Niko ne sme da vas bije!" rhetoric ("No one is allowed to beat you!", for the non-native speakers -- his historic exclamation in a rally before Kosovo Serbs in late 1980s) is implicitely hateful towards Albanians, Croats, Bosnian Muslims and whatever other non-Serbs that got in his way.

***The statement above is an attempt to convey an outright lie!***

Comment on the above: The statement that "nobody should (or is allowed to) beat you" was made by Milosevic in response to Kosovo policemen beating Serbian petitioners who were trying to get Milosevic's ear when he went to Kosovo in 1987 to hear the grievances of Serbs who complained they were being terrorized by Albanian secessionists. Obviously such a remark - made to people who were in fact being beaten with billy clubs - could only be interpreted as hostile to Albanians, Croats or anybody else *if those others wished to physically beat Serbs.* That somebody could actually claim that the statement "nobody should be permitted to beat you" - meaning hit you with a club! - is ethnically hostile shows the extent of the demonization of Serbs. Obviously the liar who wrote the above was trying to fool ignorant readers by conveying the false impression Milosevic was saying "Nobody should be permitted to *do better* than you." In case anybody doubts my recounting of what happened that day, here is the relevant part of a dispatch from the Associated Press, 4/25/87:

"Police detained about 20 people in Kosovo in clashes involving up to 20,000 Serbs and Montenegrins protesting alleged harassment by the province's majority Albanian population, witnesses said Saturday.Authorities said seven policemen were slightly injured in the melees late Friday at a conference hall in Kosovo Polje, near Kosovo province's capital, Pristina, which is about 220 miles south of Belgrade....The 12-hour meeting [in Kosovo Polje] started at 6 p.m. Friday. Violence broke out a half-hour later as people seeking access to the hall were pushed away by police. Belgrade's daily newspaper Politika said Saturday up to 20,000 Serbs and Montenegrins assembled in front of the hall. On Friday night, Belgrade Television showed a hail of stones being hurled at police. At one point Milosevic emerged from the building to appease the crowd and criticized police for using truncheons."

That is what REALLY happened.

Jared Israel

It must be that you can't read, or that you're a simple troll, because you've conveniently ignored the meaning of the whole sentence, and those sentences that followed. I guess one can't expect much more from the editor of a site such as emperors-clothes.com... --Shallot 12:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here's a quote of his from his current ICTY trial([2]):

"Sa osloncem na unutrašnje saveznike, nacionalističko-separatistička jezgra uz dominantno prisustvo onih snaga koje su poražene u Drugom svetskom ratu. Taj rat je vođen svim sredstvima, medijskim, političkim, ekonomskim, vojnim. Taj rat je najpre vođen decenijskom medijskom kampanjom u kojoj je zloupotrebljen monopol na globalnim sredstvima informisanja, zatim spoljno-političkom intervencijom usmerenom na stvaranje nezavisnih država od jugoslovenskih republika, a zatim najsvirepijom višegodišnjom ekonomskom kampanjom i sankcijama protiv SR Jugoslavije, koje se jedino mogu kvalifikovati kao genocid i konačno vojnom agresijom."

Translation:

"Relying on the internal allies, nationalist-separatist core with the dominant presence of those forces that were defeated in the Second world war. This was was pursued with all means, media, political, economic, military. This war was first pursued with a decade of media campaign in which the monopoly over the global means of informing was abused, then a foreign-political intervention directed at the creation of independent states out of Yugoslav republics, and then the most cruel economic campaign lasting several years and sanctions against FR Yugoslavia, which can only be qualified as genocide and finally a military aggresion."

This litany is just one in a long line of "inspirational" speeches of his where he fabricated a worldwide conspiracy against his people that was designed to inspire all that hate necessary for Serbs to get out there and wage wars against almost every other nation of the foreign Yugoslavia. "THEY are ALL out to get US!" may not be explicit hate speech, but it sure sends out a very hateful message against "THEM".

--Shallot 15:34, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[What nonsense! 1) Milosevic is simply telling the truth about the forces which NATO mobilized against the Serbs - secessionists in Kosovo whose predecessors were sponsored by Mussolini and Hitler; Bosnian Islamists who supplied the manpower for the Bosnian Waffen SS; and Croatian fascists, whom Hitler called "Our Nazis." 2) As for Milosevic's claims about economic sanctions, media lies and interventions - he's just recounting what happened. ]

So what you're saying is that the Albanians, Bosniaks and Croatians were rightfully raped and slaughter because their ancestors were supported by the Nazis in some way or another? Nil Einne 17:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you know nothing, don't comment. Look at the flag of the Independent State of Croatia that was created during WWII by the nazis. Look at the flag of Croatia now. Look similar? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... the flags are similar. That's clear-cut evidence. Yeah... I mean, just look at the damn flags... they are ALL out to get you, why can't anybody else see that... Frankly, I will never understand you nationalists, "Govori bre srpski da te ceo svet razume!"... (trns. "Man, speak Serbian so the whole world can understand you!") --Xompanthy

What I don´t understand is, why is everyone putting a sighn "equal" between Milosevic and Serbs??? There was so many demonstrations against him in Belgrade and other parts od Serbia. People walked the streets of Belgrade for three months in the winter of 1996/97. They have been beatten and threatened to. People died! By Milosevic. His crimes were mostly towards his own people!!! There was supposed to be a trial in Belgrade, not Hague! His supporters are so few! Marijica 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording

I have only the vaguest smattering of knowledge about this topic, but I'm pretty sure that "Bosnian civil war" is neutral, while "Serbian aggression on Bosnia" is not. Hence, I revert to original wording. Cyan 06:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The following seem like POV uses of language as well (feel free to add to justify changes):

• "in the wake...", Supporters section: the first section starts out with a statements that Milošević's 'actions' have been exaggerated 'in the wake' of Nato's bombing. This language sides with his supporters. Since it is not connected to the rest of the sentence, I removed it. Antonrojo 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• "even more notedly", supporters section: Implies that both studies are 'noted' implying they are of special interest or great renown. See Wetman's discussion on 'twaddle'. Antonrojo 16:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• "action": Supporters section referred to Milošević's 'actions' during the war, which is vauge if not supportive. Changed to 'alleged war crimes'. Antonrojo 16:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• "this comment was ... distorted", Supporters section: language sides with Chomsky Antonrojo 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• "alleged war crimes", Anywhere: I had added 'alleged war crimes' in the supporters section where the vauge term 'actions' was used instead. After thinking about it, I realized that I probably fell into the trap of Giving Equal Validity and changed the wording back. The difficulty is that since he died before the trial, he can only be convicted in the courts of public opinion. Personally, I would avoid calling them 'war crimes' leaving only vauge phrases like 'his actions during the war' or detailed accounts of what actually happened. Antonrojo 00:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatrist?

What about his training as a psychiatrist - can anyone add a few words on this?212.112.96.46 11:51, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wasn't it Radovan Karadic who was a psychiatrist before? andy 11:54, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's Karadzic, and yes, Milošević has a law degree, it's Karadžić who was a psychiatrist. --Shallot 17:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Pronounciation?

How do you pronounce his last name?

Something like slo-BO-dahn me-LO-sheh-vitch. --Shallot 17:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

actually i think it's SLO-bo-dahn me-LO-seh-vitch (this is an english-ified pronunciation, of course Serbs would pronounce it differently)

No, you're both wrong, it's Sloh-Boh-Dahn Mee-Loh-Sheh-Veety --Boris Malagurski ₪ 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

isn't it fun to see people label one as a worlds most horrible man and can't even pronounce his name.?.. psycho_NIX 12:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Murder of Ivan Stambolić

The addition of some substantiation or at least a reference to the agency or entity, or literature which proves the allegation that Milosevic' had Stambolic' murdered would improve the article. Can anyone add to this aspect of the history/biography? I think it's probably true, but what I'm asking is for some more rigorous historical writing.

Substantiation would be difficult - as with all the other NATO/ICTY allegations. If we put in everything NATO said we will accuse him of being a follower of Hitler, suicidal, stealing $10s of billions, forcing Bosnian women to give birth to dogs & having hypnotic/magic powers. Neil Craig 10/11/4

Election

He's stood for a couple of elections while trussed up in The Hague ... and done pretty well IIRC. That oughta get a mention... 142.177.168.90 17:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No he didn't. His party did, though. Nikola 05:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The statement that he fell by "losing in" elections should be removed. He fell between the 1st & 2nd rounds of the election because the Nato funded opposition worried that they were going to lose organised spontaneous demonstrations/a coup/Nato funded rent-a-mob (according to preference). The election was not completed.

Milošević's politics

Various comments on Slobodan Milošević's ideology and politics are currently scattered throughout the main article. The result seems to me to be overly simplistic and insufficiently coherent. I think it would make more sense if they were grouped together in a separate paragraph. Or maybe it's just me. What do people think? --BertD 18:55, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

I don't think that the two could be successfuly separated. But a separate paragraph about his politics would make sense without removing (most of) the politics from the biography. OTOH, who knows enough to write it? Nikola 05:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC) BALLS

Milosevic connected with drug lord?

I came across this article that briefly mentioned Milosevic connnection with Yugoslavian mafia gang. There is nothing related with drugs in Slobodan Milosevic article, but i felt it may not help to add it without other wikipedia having a say as the article looks likely to be controversial. The article is available from here [3], but you need to register first. This is why i have felt necessary to do the copy and paste below.

Why Akasha had to bite the bullet in Amsterdam

Story by DOMINIC WABALA Publication Date: 02/06/2005

In better times: Everybody else had to be out of the picture when Moi and Biwott talked.

As he blissfully walked hand-in-hand with his wife of many years that fateful day in Amsterdam in May, 2000, Mombasa drug baron Ibrahim Abdalla Akasha may have felt safe and secure far away from home.

Back in Kenya he was a wanted man facing drug trafficking charges. But, unknown to him, he faced far more deadly foes in Amsterdam due to a long-standing feud over non-payment for a Sh200 million consignment of heroin he delivered to the Netherlands in 1999. The festering dispute was getting worse each day and even an Egyptian mediator had failed to reconcile Akasha, his accomplices in the Netherlands and a Yugoslavian mafia hitman over payment for the heroin pack.

As he walked hand-in-hand with second wife Gazi Hayat, a gunman riding a motorcycle trailed Akasha and struck just as the couple stepped onto Bloedstraat (Blood Street). It is in the same street that Magdi Barsoum, the man whom Dutch police suspect killed Akasha, was shot two years later.

The hitman on a bike fired five bullets hitting Akasha at point-blank range and shattered his face right between the eyes; the sixth bullet ruptured his heart and the seventh punctured his abdomen.

Akasha died in the hands of his wife as two other people who had accompanied the couple, Ms Zainabu Hassan and Mr Mohammed Ali Musa, watched in horror.

What followed was a vicious gang war that claimed the lives of most of the key players in the Netherlands-based drug trafficking syndicate Akasha was a part of.

Akasha’s downfall in earnest began when he was charged with drug trafficking in a Nairobi court back in 1996. Adverse publicity and an altercation with journalists – when he was photographed at the law courts – alarmed the international drug syndicate in which he operated, and many of his accomplices now perceived him as a liability.

The situation was aggravated by the arrest of his brother, Yusuf Abdallah Ibrahim Abdi, who was charged with possessing white heroin worth Sh13 million in 1998.

Akasha now had to use a Yugoslavian conduit, which was then based in Kenya, to deliver huge consignments of drugs around the world while waiting for the furore created by the Kenyan media to wear off.

The arrangement worked well until sometime in 1999 when the Yugoslavian agent failed to pay for a hashish consignment delivered to the Dutch network led by kingpin Sam Klepper.

Desperate to maintain the trickle of money from his deals, Akasha insisted on being paid by the Dutch network.

What followed was a vicious gang feud in which Akasha abducted the Yugoslavian broker who had delivered the consignment to the Dutch and held him hostage in Kenya for more than two months.

Using his hostage and dirty tricks, Akasha extorted US$2.5 (Sh195 million) from the Dutch syndicate.

Two Egyptian brothers based in Amsterdam, Mounir and Magdi Barsoum, tried in vain to resolve the dispute between Akasha's network on one side and that of Dutch baron Sam Klepper, who was said to have refused to pay for Akasha's consignment.

The feud was complicated by the entry of an influential Yugoslavian mafia gang led by Streten 'Jotcha' Jocic, who had ties with a Yugoslavian warlord only identified as Arkan and then President Slobodan Milosevic.

Aggrieved by the abduction of their trusted lieutenant by Akasha, Klepper's operatives invited the Mombasa tycoon to Amsterdam, saying this would be an opportunity for them to settle amicably the Sh200 million dispute.

Magdi allegedly called Akasha and invited him to travel to Amsterdam and collect the money from his cafe in the city's Oudezijds Archterburgwal Street.

Ironically, the invitation could not have come at a more opportune moment. Akasha obtained visas at the Netherlands Embassy in Nairobi for himself and his wife only days before the discovery of 4.7 tonnes of heroin worth Sh940 million in the up-market Nyali Estate, Mombasa. Security agents said this was made possible by a split in Akasha's polygamous family; aggrieved members of the family must have spilled the beans.

Akasha was already in the Netherlands by the time police in Kenya announced he was wanted for questioning and possible detention over the 4.7 tonnes of heroin.

In the Netherlands he sought medical attention for a a number of ailments, including hypertension and diabetes. Dutch police were monitoring his movements.

A perfect scenario had now been set for the Mombasa drug baron's fall. For a hideout, Akasha and his wife Hayat chose the seedy red-light district whose streets are lined with skimpily dressed prostitutes in romantically-lit window displays.

Unknown to Akasha, he was already in a death trap. He was staying in an apartment belonging to his Egyptian associate who was later implicated in his murder.

The hitman on a bike struck in broad daylight as Akasha walked gaily hand-in-hand with his wife Hayat in May, 2000.

Then followed a vicious gang war that claimed the lives of most of the key players in the Netherlands drug trafficking syndicate.

The well-connected Dutch gang, rivalled by the influential Yugoslavian network, battled it out for the turf with the Egyptian and Middle East barons in a series of executions that claimed the lives of some of the world's most notorious and dreaded drug barons.

Akasha's nemesis, Sam Klepper, who controlled a larger part of the international drug trade was assassinated in October 2000, four months after the Kenyan baron was executed.

It is widely believed these and several other gangland killings were connected to a feud between Dutch and Yugoslavian criminals.

In May, 2004 real estate tycoon Willem Endstra – said to be a banker to the drug underworld – was gunned down outside his office on Apollolaan Street in the south of Amsterdam.

Mounir Barsoum, the notorious drug dealer linked to Akasha's killing, himself fell victim to a gangland execution in Amsterdam.

Mounir, 55, was shot dead at midday from the wheel of his car in the west of Amsterdam by a helmet-wearing gunman who was sitting on the back of a man riding a scooter.

Mounir's 12-year-old daughter, who was in the car with him at the time of the shooting, was airlifted to hospital in a critical condition.

Father and daughter were in a dark blue car at the traffic lights in the junction of Amsterdam’s Jan van Galenstraat and Willem de Zwijgerlaan streets.

An eyewitness told police that the pillion passenger dismounted from the scooter and fired 10 shots into the front and side of the Mounir's car before jumping back onto the scooter which sped away.

Mournir was dead by the time police arrived at the scene. Dutch police revealed that Mounir was the victim of a spate of gang warfare executions.

Egyptians Mounir and his brother Magdi ran the coffee shop christened 'Bar Red Light' located in Oudezijds Achterburgwal Street.

In 2002, Magdi was murdered in the same Bloedstraat area where Akasha fell, in what police described as "yet another gang warfare execution".

Magdi and his brother Mounir did business with Dutch drug dealer Klaas Bruinsma, who had been gunned down outside the Hilton Hotel in Amsterdam in 1991.

The Dutch police have never arrested anyone over the killings but have always suspected the involvement of Yugoslavian mafia either directly or for hiring the hitmen.

which he thinks is illegal?

in the section about his currently standing trial in The Hague, the Internationaal Strafhof is referred to as something "he thinks is illegal". Isn't this wording POV? Surely, the use of "thinks" implements that he's wrong in thinking the Court is illegal. Wouldn't "which he believes to be illegal" be more non-POV wording in this case?

Milošević-Holbrooke-Tudjman Agreement

Can somebody please provide references for citeing the points of this agreement? --Dejan Čabrilo 22:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder if he will die of old age before they reach a verdict? This trial just seems to go on and on.... Maybe we'll all die of old age before they come to a verdict. Talk about beuracracy.

POV?

User:129.240.145.93 has been making changes to this and other related articles recently. I do not know enough about the subject to know, but they look like potential POV pushing. Could somebody please have a look? TigerShark 21:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Trial

The article and specifically the 'Trial' section are not POV. The autor(s) seems to want to defend Milošević. There is very few information about accusations against Milošević and a lot about Milošević beeing (a) moderate (nationalist). The article should state the accusations but also say that some people don't believe the accusations (and that some do), that Milošević is /was seen as a moderate person by some people and that some people hold him responsible for the wars in Yugoslavia --Scafloc 14:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the most interesting part of the trial was Milosevic's crossexamination of witnesses. He had them and most of the world squirming in their seats. I was surprised that he wasn't killed sooner, or I guess I should say treated for leprosy.

Serbian-Greek state

If the first paragraph of the following article is not enough to confirm to others that Milosevic infact DID come forward to the greek government, in order to seek the creation of a Serbian Greek State, then I don't know what is! The paragraph goes as follows: " For the second time in the last two years, Serbian political leaders came forth with a proposal to the Greeks for their unification into a confederation. The first time, at the end of 1992 the proposal was made, suddenly and informally by Slobodan Milosevic himself, during an interview given to a private Greek TV station. Official Greek political circles, if we remember correctly, had absolutely nothing to say in that connection."

Still don't believe it? Here's the url: http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/199402/40227-006-trae-beo.htm

And as for him supporting a greater Serbian state...well I think that's just plain obvious

A couple of edits for the sake of precision

Slobodan Milosevic considers himself to be a Serb, rather than Montneegrin, and has always done so. The same is true for his immediate family. Therefore, the only uncontroversial thing to do is to state he is a Serb FROM Montenegro, rather than a person of Montenegrin ethnicity, just as, say, Nikola Tesla was a Serb FROM Croatia (then part of Austria-Hungary).

Slobodan Jovanovic was not a philosopher, nor did he ever receive a formal training in philosophy. He never wrote a piece of philosophical work per se, either.

wtf? NPOV alert

In private, Milošević is patriarchal and conservative, devoted to his family and wife, Mirjana Marković, who was his high-school sweetheart. His personality is marked by stubbornness (of which he is proud) and rigid adherence to personal moral beliefs. Modest and unassuming during his years in power, he was often opposed to appearing on state TV, and his presence in the media was consequently rare and discreet. His most devoted followers are older people, pensioners who spent most of their lives in another era, whose moral code Milošević followed flawlessly. His stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise or betray his principles is at least partly to be credited for the political problems and wars which marked his years in power. His unrelenting defence in the trial has also to do with this stubborn personality.

Seems like we've got someone from the milosevic fan club...i was worried about deleting this, but it seems like original research and a definite case of someone inserting their own opinions. I don't know if the stuff about him being worried about appearing on tv is true. Should I try and rewrite this or just delete it? XYaAsehShalomX 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No need,thats true,read Wesley Clarks book on it,I think its part of it194.106.189.130 12:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This does not represent a Neutral Point of View

This is pro-Serbian propaganda. The bibliography cites only three sources that this article was derived from as academic reference points yet there remains thousands of academic articles on Milosevic.

Moreover the use of the word "supposed" and "alleged" should NOT be used when referencing Milosevic's war crimes.

I had added 'alleged war crimes' in the supporters section where the vauge term 'actions' was used instead. After thinking about it, I realized that I probably fell into the trap of Giving Equal Validity and changed the wording back. The difficulty is that since he died before the trial, he can only be convicted in the courts of public opinion. Personally, I would avoid calling them 'war crimes' leaving only vauge phrases like 'his actions during the war' or detailed accounts of what actually happened. Antonrojo 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased and is a shame on Wikipedia.

I second this sentiment. Added NPOV tag to page. The biases are too numerous to list, but in general, the article needs less discussion of whether or not he is a criminal or a patriot (such a discussion will always be biased), and more discussion of historical facts. RK 65.213.77.129 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time I read this article, I was appalled by the pro Milosevic bias, it should more closely resemble the point of view taken here. Simon Beavis

Parents names

I've added the names of Slobodan Milošević's parents.

Gardenworker 07:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't understand why there is a NPOV tag on this article. First of all, just so noone thinks I am a Milosevic sympathiser, I was in Belgrade on October 5th 2000., protesting against Milosevic, and helped bring down his government. But this article is not biased at all. Just turn on any american News channel, like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and you will see what "biased" means.

Slobodan Milosevic is an alleged war criminal. Alleged. Nothing has been proven yet. So far, he is 100% INNOCENT. Listen to ANY of the above news channels when they talk about Serbian politics. "Serbian war criminal Slobodan Milosevic...", and not to mention when they talk about general Mladic or maybe Radovan Karadzic. And you are calling THIS article biased? Please...

He is no hero. It is true that many Serbian people consider him a defender of Serbian pride and justice, simply because the Serbian people were "demonised" by Western media outlets. Remember turning on a News channel in the 90's? "Bosnian refugees fled from Serbian militia...", "Albanian refugees have no where to go". Have you ever heard anything about Serbian refugees? Of course not, thats not what they wanted you to focus on. And don't think there wasn't Serbian refugees, as well as a genocide of the Serbian people, just read the article Kravica. See how short the article is? Now go to Srebrenica massacre. Notice how long it is. Also, there is an article on Bosnian Genocide, but no article on Serbian genocide (read what the Croats did to the Serbs in this article).

So, people that have almost NO knowledge what REALLY happened in Yugoslavia in the 1990s can't stick the tag on and claim it's biased. You have to look at it from all sides. Yes, he may be a war criminal. Some might claim that he is responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia. That would be hard to prove, since the EU offered 5,5 billion denmarks to the Ante Markovic government, and they offered EU membership to Yugoslavia granted that it doesn't split-up. The only man that objected was Croatian president Franjo Tudjman. Well, I've said too much, the FBI is probably going to knock on my door after I post this ;-) I think the NPOV tag should be removed. If someone has a solid reason why they still think it should be there, feel free to challange my facts and knowledge about Milosevic. --Bormalagurski 02:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read a lot of books regarding the history of the Balkans. Can you substantiate your claims regarding Jugoslavia was offered EU-membership if it didn't split up? And Where does the 5,5 billion D-marks come from? I've never read nor heard about it before. Gardenworker 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The name of a very detailed article about this is "Tudjmana je spasila smrt", but it's in Serbian. It has all the information about the offers of the EU during the Ante Markovic government. I'll try to find it and post it.

Also, I want to explain why Yugoslavia didn't accept the offer. If the "throw money at the problem" theorem were right - and it never was, not even once in human history - the Yugoslav wars of secession and succession would have never erupted. Former Yugoslavia was economically independent and prosperous. It constituted an effective and dynamic free trade zone between its six constituent republics. Resources were allocated within it with reasonable efficiency. Still, the most important trade partner was the EU, and Ante Markovic knew that. But, good ol' Franjo, thought that it was more important to focus on an indipendent Croatia, so he said "no". But the situation is way too complexed, and cannot be explained in a few paragraphs, it can hardly be explained in a book or two. All I'm saying is that people who put the NPOV tag did it for the wrong reason. Why? Because there is no good reason. --Bormalagurski 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can read Serbian, with some help from serbian - english dictionary :) Studiram Srpski :) I agree with you that the NPOV tag is uncalled for. But if it were removed, someone would defintely put it up there again, without any kind of discussion about the disputed parts in the article. --Gardenworker 05:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Who removed the NPOV tag? This article is nothing but propaganda for Milosevic. It doesn't even mention the genocide he inspired, the rape of Bosnian women, etc. The Wikipedia is not here to let Serbs try to convince themselves that what happened in the 1990's was good and justifiable, its here as an information resource. This article is obscenely NPOV. --soto 18:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a pov tag on the pres. section but it says article' maybe it could be replaced by a section tag but don`t know the code. --Isolani 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The pov tag has unexplainedly disappeared, am restoring it, entire article might benefit from a rewrite. No longer consider just a section to be biased. --Isolani 15:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sooo, what's that got to do with Milosevic's wikipedia article? --Dijxtra 15:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I so agree, War Criminals are united! Whilst former Turkish leaders walk freely following years of mass murders against Kurds - every US leader having declared war on one country, having killed millions over the decades, it seems we only need war Crime chambers for show trials. I think we call it "victors justice" here, whereby the weak pay the price for losing their respective battle. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians destroyed during their war. By the way, when is the first trial due for the Chatila massacres in Lebanon 1982? I guess that wasn't a war crime because only women and children refugees were killed. Still havn't heard the "international community" comdemn this one either... Celtmist

Congratulations. You're a moron. Milosevic was one of the biggest mass-murderers of the 20th century. The world is a better place without him.--24.60.107.154 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What is it with certain types of people who claim that offending their leader should result in the death penalty? We know you luves you some Milosevic, but get over yourself, pointing out (correctly) that he was a mini-Hitler, even if such a statement were factually false, does not merit the death penalty. Sheesh, even most of the Bushites in the USA don't call for the death of people who insult Bush. Until people like you stop issueing death threats to people who offend your delicate sensibilities I really doubt you'll be taken seriously.

However, your insanity does offer an explantion for some things. Maybe all those women Milosevic's followers raped to death insulted Milosevic, so they "should suffer and die" right? --soto 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes the world is better without Milosevic. All AIDS victims have been cured, a remedy has been discovered which helps us live forever, no more pollution, but whilst he was alive, people in Africa were starving - and it was his fault. Not anymore though! Hey Pal, 24.60.107 etc. - every world leader has the right to defend his territory. How many people you kill depends upon how resistent your opponent is over how much time...if they give don't start on you in the first place, then you don't kill a single person. Of 192 countries, about 35 are all right, the rest are below the poverty line and US troops are in 124 that I know of. Not exactly making Haiti a good place are they? How about Iraq? Suppose that's good too. It's all right for Israel to invade whoeevr it wants, kill however many peope it needs to achieve its goals without labelling their prime minister of the time a mass-murderer, but be honest, you don't see their vicitms out and about walking and being free do you? Or was everyone in Golan Heights a potential suicide bomber? You've got a lot to learn 24.60.107 - go and start reading a bit... Celtmist

It was up to the court to rule out whether he was a mass-murderer or not. As they have failed to do so, it is God who is to judge. Insulting the dead is a wrong thing to do.

How exactly did the Bosnians and Albanians invade their own land? Nil Einne 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is good comedy. How the heck was he winning any sort of arguements when he'd come to trial, say he was sick, and then go back to his most likely cosy little prison? --ArrEmmDee 17:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That bastard is finally dead. I personally want to piss on his grave for killing my people.

did he kill your people? I'm so sorry. I'm sure your people were just innocent civilians getting on with their daily lives with no plans to split with any other country they were in, and that monster Milosevic sent in his army to kill them. I've heard a rumour that Germany is going to invade Bavaria. That way, when the Germans have destroyed the Bavarians, Germany gets to control Bavaria. But is Bavaria not already in Germany? Is it not already a political zone adherent to Berlins Parliament? mmm...so why might Germans attack it? Simple, they won't, any more than the U.S will try to take Ohio. Celtmist

Bull paddies. You specifically called for a person who dared to call Milosevic what he was to "suffer and die". Congrats, your are now at the same moral level as the mullahs calling for the Dutch cartoonists to die for "offending The Prophet". Don't go all "oooh, I'm trying to maintain a high tone here" on us. You, personally, endorsed the death penlty for someone who stated, factually, that Milosevic was a monster.

More generally, I routinely say not nice things about the dead if those things are factually true. Adolph Hitler was pure evil, Oda Nobunaga was a brutal thug, and Hong Xiuquan was a nut responsible for the deaths of 30 million. Just because a person is dead doesn't give them an exemption from reality. Slobodan Milosevic started and/or continued/expanded an ultranationalist, racist, movement that resulted in attempted genocide and the mass rape of countless women. You cannot whitewash this. He may have had good intentions, but intentions don't matter, actions do.

The fact that the body count of Milosivec's attempted genocide is not higher is not because he was not attempting genocide, but because the world stopped him before his insanity could be completed. You'll notice that the world has not responded to Darfur in such a timely fashion.

I do not attempt to paint the US as some sort of angelic force, under both Republicans and Democrats the US has sold, or simply given, weapons to many evil governments, movements, and people. But the failure of the US to act rightly in other areas does not mean that its action against Milosevic was wrong.

Milosevic committed mass murder and raped both Bosnia and Kosova. The Croats weren't exactly saints, either, but that does not nullify the monstrosities of Slobo's reign of terror. Yes, the West did drop the ball. Instead of the Dayton Accords, which gave audience to Serbia and Croatia, but not Bosnia-Hercegovnia, even though they were the country being carved up by outsiders, we should have offered to assist the Bosnians and the Kosovars in their quest for independence. In my mind, our reluctance was manipulated by the warlords, just as Hitler and Stalin manipulated the reluctance of the West to carve up Central Europe between the two of them. What happened to Bosnia-Hercegovnia was little different than what happened to Poland and Czechoslovakia. What happened to Kosova is shameful. The fact is that we, in our cozy western haven, with all our wealth and militairy might, failed to act humanely and offer support to a people who ought to enjoy the right of self-determination. Were there any angels in the Fall of Yugoslavia? No. But there were devils,and there were victims. Slobo was the devil who tried to eat Kosava and Bosnia-Hercegovnia alive. Thankfully, there is still life in these nations. Maybe someday they will forgive my country for our negligence. Perhaps someday, we will deserve their forgiveness. Wandering Star 02:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I love how in the previous post Boris M. mentions that he was in Beograd "protesting" Milosevic (according to his own Wikipedia bio, he would have been all but TWELVE at the time), yet in the very next thread, he's referring to Slobo as a peacemaker! So what exactly were you protesting about, Boris?

You better be careful, brat moj, because just like the Bush administration, your previous lies come back to haunt you.....

I never dreamt I'd live to see the day, in the 21st century, when people would unabashedly defend a coward mass-murdering dictator. Only the internet can give you this kind of freaky surprise.... Mr Malagurski and his thugs make me feel as sorry and hopeless for our poor mankind as Mr Milosevic and his thugs did.Lenineleal 21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

...a coward mass-murderer? A statesman in a crisis, with war already declared on those he defended and sought to relieve, who never came out with his hands on his head nor did his people. I can tell you abaout cowards, how do you feel about 1999 war in Yugoslavia, whereby over a dozen of the worlds most "powerful" nations, set out to appease Albanians, (so that they could continue the atrocities against non-Albanian Kossovars which they started long before Yugosav security force intervention and 7 years after having to have given up their arms), and could only find courage like RATS...and hunt in packs, bomb from a cozy little distance from where they cannot be hit back...destroy civilians and their property, so that they could in turn see the appointment of new governments who would at all times work closely with the CIA - who cares whether life under the new regimes are worse than before 15 years ago...it's the fact that they are US/UK puppets that counts. Milosevic must have been quite a coward, not regocnizing the Hague authority in front of armed security guards and seperated from safety in Serbia by the whole outside world. Celtmist 12 March 2006

The above posting ought to be part of a different article. Specifically, one entitled "Examples of Racism". Wandering Star 01:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it comical a 12 year old would have any comprehension of politics, especially with concepts that would be very confusing to them, such as the rigging of elections or the supposed innocence of a man. I mean, most 12 year olds don't even care for politics, or at least pretend to do so. Also, there's no such thing as complete innocence if you've been on the earth long enough, especially not for a politician who led a country into war. Never mind you're contradicting yourself, first admitting guilt, and then saying he's completely innocent.

More than likely you're just a parrot of your parents and their opinions. --ArrEmmDee 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your very lucky your ALIVE alot of people are DEAD because of that butcher Milosevic, he was a mass-murderer and alot of Serbs helped that's the TRUTH can you handle the TRUTH. I saw them as very bad people. There was never to be concentration camps in Europe again but it happened. - Culnacréann 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel I have anything to prove to you. If you think anyone holds any innocence at all, whether it's Serbia or any other country-- I would be just as appalled if a Croatian claimed the country did nothing to Serbia --you're ridiculous. And your constant disproving of your incapacity to type anything NPOV or even feign such an action-- I dunno. You're a colorful characters, I can tell you that.

You think my grandmother and other family members, also systematically forced from their homes, didn't endure the same actions? No, only you and your friends and family were wronged, of course, I understand now. Never mind anyone else's trials and tribulations. Anyway. I think I'm done on this talk page, it's for discussing appropriate article edits, not arguing with those who cannot be persuaded to think from another perspective. --ArrEmmDee 04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How come Milošević is for Great Serbia? He didn't have support nor in Krajina, or in Bosnia. If Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Krajina were ever united, Milošević would have no chance to win the elections. --Milan Tešović 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't convicted because there were no evidence (which doesn't mean he is not quilty). The trial was strarted over at the verry end with a new judge so he they would not have to set him free. p.s. i'll sign more times so the text would be read easier --Milan Tešović 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Celmist sad it seems we only need war Crime chambers for show trials.. Seems? You doubt? --Milan Tešović 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The world is a better place without him someone sad. Oooh, even locked up behind big bad bars he was a denger for all nations of the world? --Milan Tešović 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Slobodan's biggest crime is that he died? Heh

---

I'm sorry, I can't read thisanymore. I read a half of it but I can't go on. This is no talk about article. This is a over-frustrated people forum. I'll now go write some free content. Peace brothers --Milan Tešović 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please write more clearly

In the first paragraph, I can't make sense of this sentence: " He was one of the key figures in the Yugoslav wars and became the first sitting head of state to be indicted for alleged war crimes and the majority population, the Serbs, and thereby to Milošević himself."

In the second paragraph under early career, we read: "His critics have said that his remarks in Kosovo in 1987 "nobody must beat you" - which he was heard to make whilst amid pressing crowds saying they were suffering police brutality". - This and the rest of the paragraph make no sense at all to me. What was he saying and why was this so important? Could someone who knows rewrite this?

End

"However, according to the B92 the Socialist Party leader Zoran Anđelković has released a following statement:

“ Slobodan Milošević, the president of the Socialist Party of Serbia and a former president of Serbia and Yugoslavia was murdered today at the Tribunal in Hague. The decision of the Tribunal to disallow Milošević's medical treatment at the Bakunin Institute in Moscow represents a prescribed death sentence against Milošević. Truth and justice were on his side and this is why they have used a strategy of gradual killing of Slobodan Milošević. The responsibility for his death is clearly with the Hague Tribunal. ”

"

Making this the end of the article is NPOV and gives undue prominence to the views of a single pro-Milosevic politician. I don't beleive that the quote is necessary to the article at all. The fact that he was denied the right to visit the clinic is already mentioned. A single NPOV line about this school of feeling might be added. Rmhermen 18:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Its showing up on the news, that is why its included.

Of course that is a rather hilarious statement since everyone knows Russia is Servia biggest ally and if he ever got there he would be just set free by the russians as they would apologize over him escaping.

I would not change it just yet, its a part of the article that is over current events and so its likely be heavy edited as news develop, in a week or so the article sould suffer a clean up.

Drakron 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Only Russia could have offered him such medical treatment? Even better than the The Netherlands? He was on to meet his wife in Russia, who's hiding from justice there, a fact that in itself makes the claim of the prosecution that he would not have returned very strong. Arianit 22:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What would have happened if Sl Mi had died in Moscow? What would Putin's response have been?

But if you then offer the thirsty man a bottle of Evian and he smacks it away demanding Perrier instead, then he gets what he deserves when he dies of thirst... What special medical treatment could he have gotten in Russia that he couldn't get in the Netherlands?

But the physicians offered by the ICTY obviously didn't do their job very well. Every patient has a right to a second opinion. According to James Bissett: "...He [Milošević ] told me that although his blood pressure was under control he had this constant ringing and echoing sounds in his head. This was caused, he said, by a problem with an artery in his ear. He complained about it before to the Dutch doctors who simply said it was psychological. But after increasing demands they gave him a MRI test and found that indeed he was right there was a problem with the artery in his ear. Artery had a "loop" in it and to correct it surgery would be necessary. That is why he wanted to go to Moscow to a clinic that specializes in this type of operation. But, as you probably know, the Tribunal refused to allow that." The ICTY can hardly complain about his death being an injustice when they didn't allow him to go to Moscow. His death also shows the prosecution's claims that he was faking or exaggerating his illness to be malicious and false. -- phildav76 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote should be left in. It's the official response of his political party, and it's quoted and attributed as such. It's not presented as the factual viewpoint of Wikipedia, so it does not violate NPOV. NEMT 02:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

About SlMi's visit to Moscow - there would have been all sorts of arguements and recriminations etc.

The Hague as a place does not have a reputation for bad medical treatment: and it would be in the interest of the Court to ensure that those that were being tried would be given the best medical treatment possible.

How difficult would it have been to bring the Russian medical staff and equipment over (and provide the local medical staff with useful knowledge/experience)?

Current event

Should the current event tag be taken down? Andjam 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should wait till the autopsy is completed on March 12th. Flying Canuck 06:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, marking diseased people as "current" is both wrong and distasteful. He isn't current. Quite the opposite, he is dead. Shanes 12:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

True. And he is not an event either. Taking tag down. Kirils 15:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should stay up until the autopsy has been complete and on the other hand Shanes makes a good point (at some point the tag gets stale if nothing is happening on the news front, even if there have been no findings). Since findings on the cause of his death could have major political implications and/or change the article substantially, I think keeping it up there until them makes sense to tell readers to watch for the possiblity of important changes to the article. Antonrojo 15:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Current events" is simply the mean of identifying articles at Wikipedia which are dealing with issues which currently are in the news, and as such may be subject to frequent changes.

The template needs improvement in that case. I'll do that later. Kirils 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lock Article / Block IP

Emotions are running awfully high over this controversial figure. It might be prudent for the time being to either lock this article or to at least block the IP that's been repeatedly posting the vandalism. 68.116.186.29

I've put in a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. NEMT 05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gazimestan Speech Missing

The programatic meaning of Slobodam Milošević at 28 June 1989 at Gazimestan, on the occasion of the 600th Anniversary of Battle of Kosovo, terribly missing.

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Kosovo/NATO-attack/Milosevic-speech.html

"Six centuries later, now, we are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles, although such things cannot be excluded yet. However, regardless of what kind of battles they are, they cannot be won without resolve, bravery, and sacrifice, without the noble qualities that were present here in the field of Kosovo in the days past."

Also, shame that there is not a reference in Wikipedia for Gazimestan

English name?

What's with the "English" version of the name? It's just his name without diacritics, I don't think it warrants a special mention since it is normal for any language to omit diacritics of a foreign language, especially if the diacritics cannot be shown for technical reasons. edolen1 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, it merits mention because otherwise, this infomation can be hidden from some search engine searches.

This is, after all, an encyclopedia, and we should want our information to be found. Gene Nygaard 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since as you admit, it is normal to omit them, and since this is the English Wikipedia, I suggest omitting them except for one mention with diacritics. Gene Nygaard 21:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• about 32,600 English pages for "Slobodan Milošević" -"Slobodan Milosevic" -wikipedia
• about 2,370,000 English pages for -"Slobodan Milošević" "Slobodan Milosevic" -wikipedia

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy says "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.". Clearly the name without accent marks is far more widely used in English. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"English mispronunciation" IPA removed

I removed the botched IPA [ˈslɒbɒˌdæn·mɪˈloʊsəviʧ], which is "how not to pronounce his name". – Kaihsu 09:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean-Up

This article, especially the introduction, needs a little clean-up. Captain Jackson 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is incomprehensible: He was one of the key figures in the Yugoslav wars and became the first sitting head of state to be indicted for alleged war crimes and the majority population, the Serbs, and thereby to Milošević himself. laddiebuck 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the curious ending of that sentence. -- ChrisO 00:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What else needs cleaning up? Hyacinth 10:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing glitch

Ok, hopefully, editing glitch in Slobo's death section is resolved Occuserpens 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Why are you calling him Slobo,his name was Slobodan,and he wasnt called Slobo,his nickname was Sloba,not Slobo........and he was a greatest politician of 20 centuryDzoni 01:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not whitewash, 'he did not let Slovenia go peacefully. According to wikipediam, On December 23, 1990, 88% of Slovenia's population voted for independence in a referendum, and on June 25, 1991, the Republic of Slovenia declared its independence. A nearly bloodless (no Srebrenica there) 10-day war with Yugoslavia followed (June 27, 1991 - July 6, 1991); Yugoslav People's Army forces withdrew after Slovenia demonstrated stiff resistance to Belgrade. --Constanz - Talk 16:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, is it really possible that someone still can write such bullshit? Is it possible that people have completely missed all the genocides, ethnic cleansing and mass rapes committed by the Serbs who wanted a "Greater Serbia" on Croatian land? Thank God for people like Franjo Tuđman who said no to the Serb butcher from the beginning! I am apalled by the ugly pro-Milošević propaganda we've seen here. Milošević was the worst war criminal in European history since WWII, and this is the opinion of the entire international community. Johnny English 14:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Alabanians (?) in Kosovo formed the KLA - a terrorist organization similar to Al-Qaeda. Well, Milosevic sent the army to destroy the terrorist organization, and you know what, the US didn't like that (for some reason).

Had it been akin to Al Qaida, hardly would the Americans have sided with the Albanians. And a question -- why was a 'terrorist organisation' needed for the Albanians, if they formed a majority of population in Kosovo anyway? That's the reason -- the majority was oppressed by the (well-supported, compared to ethnic Albanians at the time) minority, and only this could explain why the majority of the province could not use democratic measures. Had the late Milosevic and his henchmen allowed democracy there, no KLO ('a terrorist organization similar to Al-Qaeda.') would have been necessary. --Constanz - Talk 16:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Milosević' subordinates organized public demonstrations – the so-called "anti-bureaucratic revolution" – which led to the elected leaderships of Vojvodina (October 6, 1988), Montenegro (January 10, 1989) and finally Kosovo itself (in February-March 1989) being removed. Azem Vllasi, leader of the Kosovo Albanian majority, was arrested and a strike by Kosovar miners was violently crushed by the Serbian police, killing 32 people. --Bloody oppression of Serbians, presume?--Constanz - Talk 07:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're born in 1988. I suggest you watch the new film Grbavica about the suffering the Serbs were responsible for. The Serbs should be ashamed and ask their neighbours for forgiveness for their terrible crimes against humanity. Johnny English 14:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

While you may be older than this user, your apparent assertion of the blame for the conflicts in the Balkans resting solely on Serb leadership shows a profound lack of maturity and knowledge on your part. Please be respectful of other users on Wikipedia, even (and especially) those who disagree with you. NEMT 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A distasteful and ridiculous comparison. Are you denying the fact that Serbian soldiers raped large numbers of Bosnian women? This was one of the war crimes Milosevic and other Serb leaders were charged with at the International War Crimes Tribunal. I also find the Milosevic apologetic edits very disturbing.

It is very bad form to confuse indictment and conviction, yet it seems all too common on Wikipedia these days. It's also very bad form to leave completely anonymous unsigned comments, especially when trying to counter the comments of another user. Please keep both of these points in mind before your next edit on Wikipedia. NEMT 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

'SERBIA is not the one that's celebrating war crimes and ethic cleansing, they have always condemned the massacre at Srebrenica. Celebrated or not, but 'thanks' to Yugoslavia's military assistance. While the Bosniaks suffered from the international imposed embargo on the whole region, Milosevic supplied Mladic' butchers with necessary weapons and ammunition. --Constanz - Talk 16:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Operation Storm was a large-scale military offensive carried out by Croatia to recapture areas of central Croatia held by rebel Croatian Serb forces. Thus preventing the Serbian attempt to seize parts of the internationally recognized state of Croatia to create Greater Serbia. It did not make Croatia bigger, only defended the internationally recognized borders of Croatia and prevented making Serbia bigger at the cost of Croatia. Slobodan Milosevic was staging the aggression against Croatia, which the rebel leaders stated themselves, and was charged with war crimes related to the war against Croatia.

I don't think California will ever turn into a land of racial minorities tearing each other apart over land. You'll note it was rebel forces that were occupying a city. A city that wasn't entirely theirs as much as it necessarily wasn't entirely Serbia's, if you're going to be like that. Just because Croatia was in the wrong at points doesn't make Serbia entitled to everything.

What this has to do with Milosevic anymore and is not being discussed in other, more appropriate articles, is puzzling. --ArrEmmDee 15:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dovish Milosevic and peaceful nationalists-separatists! But let us remind that even Slovenia had do undergo a ten-day War of independence 1991, fumed by the extremists-nationalists there. Was this country also oppressing the minority Serbs? (Slovenia is the richest amongst the new EU member states, and presumably a country of liberal democratic transition par excellence.)

Or was it rather a war provoked by nationalists, who just couldn't stand living in a free republic as a national minority, couldn't approve the disintegration of an empire and the loss of 'big brother' role? --Constanz - Talk 16:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stay on topic

I think everyone should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a public forum were you can share you thoughts. Only post comment relative to the article. Do not come here to voice your opinion. Also, don’t respond to comments that are irrelevant. – Zntrip 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Boris, your posts aren't NPOV at all. By postinga heavily biased POV, you did not counteract any other biased posts. You just made it worse. Wandering Star 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"I know you are, but what am I?" --Polyhymnia 05:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Americans probably couldn't. But then again, most Americans aren't genocidal maniacs hell bent on "ethnic cleansing", either. I suppose if I were a power mad racist dictator, maybe I would have a good reason to bone up on my geography. Or if I were an apologist for a power mad racist dictator. You know something, people have rightly said that George Bush is a lunatic. But Milosevic and his cronies were so far over the edge, they make George W Bush look like the Dalai Lama. Wandering Star 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And I guess because Slobodan Milošević thought it to be a good idea, I am also to blame for his deeds, just because I lived (and still do) in Serbia, although I never voted for him?! If you take it that way, than everybody in entire world are genocidal maniacs, because everybody`s antcestors at some time in history commited a genocide? Please stop talking rubbish and stay on topic! --Branislav Jovanovic 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right, Americans have killed more people than Serbs could ever, even if the wars continued for centuries. Jovanvb

I wish Serbia would disappear from the map. Then it would be no Greater Serbia again and no Serbian genocides, ethnic cleansing and mass rapes. Serbs must stop being murderers and rapists like Milošević.

Oh this is democratic --Jovanvb 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I regret that your parents have raised you in such a rasist, xenophobic (even nazi) manner. I am sad that you're calling for destruction of one nation. I don't want to preach you, (that isn't my job, and you don't seem interested) so I would only like to tell you that in every dispute there are two sides, and if you want to have clear insight you must listen to the arguments of both sides. Simply think about it.. is it possible that Serbs are that bad - isn't it possible that you had access to even a little bit biased sources (ever heard of war propaganda and dehumanization of enemy?) -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We aren't genocidal maniacs who murder and rape our neighbours. Such beviour indicates a niveau that isn't even animal.

Your comments are extremely inappropriate in addition to being off topic. This behavior can get you blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia. As I said on your talk page: Please refrain from the use of ad-hominem attacks and broad, sweeping offensive generalizations, it is incredibly bad form. Also, if you wish to actively engage in discussion on Wikipedia, I suggest registering an account. It's free, and it makes discussions much easier to follow for all involved. Additionally, please sign all comments with ~~~~ so as to not appear totally anonymous. Thanks. NEMT 22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since a lot of words of hatred and misunderstanding have been spilled on this page, I'd like to give a different angle to the topic. Different characterization of Milosevic. I define myself as a Serbian nationalist - that means that I love Serbian culture, tradition, and heritage, and by no means that I hate any other nation, or people (or anything of the sort). I hate Milosevic very much - I have not much love for him in my hart :) (if you like it in Tolkinish ;). Now why? I hate Milosevic because he is a common traitor - he betrayed Serbia in numerous occasions. First, he had beaten the crap out of Serbian youth and inteligence on the streets of Belgrade for 10 years! Second, he sent tanks on his own people to stop demonstrations. Then, he killed opponents, terorized his nation, stole all the money, sold the territories (in the wars). In the end, he gave the orders for the army to use the full leathal force against the citizens of Serbia (we're talking about 100s of thousands of people). Milosevic never declared himself as a Serb - actualy in several occasions, he spoke badly about Serbs. Yes, Milosevic did a lot of bad things to other people, but people he hurt the most are Serbs, and it is wrong to blame Serbian people for his deeds (not only wrong... it is called rasism!), we never gave him the mandate to do what he did... actually, we are those that stopped him eventually. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably true. The wars were prepared even before his time. Ustase terrorists were trained for decades, and weapons were piled in Croatia and Bosnia. I know for sure that certain Croatian groups used churches to hide large amounts of weapons years before anyone even knew who Milosevic is. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Categories

i don't understand how he can be classified objectively as a war ciminal when his trial (for waht it's worth) hasn't even reached finished and reached a verdict yet. surely we should stick to the facts, and the fact that someone is accused odf something doesn't make them guilty of it until a final verdict to that effect is pronounced. by the same toke, surely Ariel Sharon should be listed under crimes against humanity in the grounds that he has be accused of it reagrdless of whether he was actually tried and found guilty of not. if i can i shall remove this categorisation as not being factual

Poisoning?

I'm surprised no one has touched on the subject here, if they did, I missed it skim reading. I truly believe that he will be found to have -not- been poisoned. Whether he was or not is irrelivant to the way history will be written, he is in the eyes of the populace a 'war criminal' and therefore the masses cry out for blood, even those totally unaffected by his actions.

Does anyone here truly believe if he was poisoned it will be said as such? For the record, I have no affiliation with any Serbian body, I'm actually on the other side of the globe and .. well, the whole Bosnian crisis didn't really effect me nor was it something I read much into. I'm just always amused at how the masses will immediately cry out for blood the second the media point a finger and say 'war criminal' / 'racist' / 'sexist' / 'communist' / 'witch' / et al. 211.30.80.121 12:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it were found out that Milosevic was poisoned... by himself. He presumed that he would be sentenced and there's no way out, and decided to go (unfortunately, regarding the death of the late Babic, security measures are not high enough in the Hague...) And thus he wrote a letter before descending down the earth, blaming doctors for miscuring, a letter meant to cause trouble for the justice and to allege as if they had poisoned it. :) --Constanz - Talk 18:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Read what I have put in the "End" section about the exact reason why wanted to go to Moscow. --Phildav76 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe suicide would be highly unlikely given the mans moral and religious backgrounds, orthodox religions have hardline angles when it comes to such things. Even if the mens rhea was present in a guise to cause harm to the international judicial process I just have a feeling it wouldn't have been an option for him, he seemed very pig headed.

Let me doubt about his high religious and moral beliefs. Once he was a communist leader, wasn't he, and the religion was persecuted or publicly condemned in communist dictatorships, probably in YFSR as well. And as a marxist, he used to condemn nationalism as well. And then as communism's-marxism's debacle became imminent, he turned a nationalist, and was reborn an ardent orthodox believer. Very convincing, hey? --Constanz - Talk 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That being said, it doesn't surprise me that the TB drug he was on was the cause of his death, so the 'heart attack' excuse in the opening paragraph not outlining the fact it was brought on by him being given the wrong drugs is a piss weak way of touching on the subject. The question of whether the wrong drugs were given intentionally or not is a valid one and the grounds for intentional poisoning.

So, we can deduce that the highest probability in this situation was that he -was- poisoned, by being given the wrong medication which escalated his blood pressure and brought on his heart attack. My only question is now, how are they going to do away with Saddam next? 211.30.80.121 14:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On poisoning and source links

-- It is quite clear that "poisoning" is a wrong, actually deliberately wrong language. M. was not given any poison like cyanide, ricin, CO, etc. This is out of question!

What happened pretty much for certain is that M. was given wrong drugs. These drugs had absolutely nothing to do with his medical condition, usually they are given for TB or leprosy. As a result, his blood pressure got worse.

-- IMO, it is very important to keep proper links to news sources. I am doing this in Death section. Please, don't edit them out, OK? :-)

-- Usually, I avoid Yahoo and CNN links because they use to remove these articles shortly and the links break.

Actually, "poison" and "poisoning" would be the correct terms if a drug (in this case, rifampicin) was being used to cause ill effects--whether the drug was being given against Milosevic's will (as he claims), or that Milosevic was somehow sneaking the drug into his cell and taking it himself to cause ill effects (as the U.N. Tribunal minions claim). So either way, Milosevic was poisoned--whether he poisoned himself (as the U.N. Tribunal is absurdly trying to claim), or the U.N. Tribunal poisoned him (as Milosevic claims). 209.208.77.233 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

too much death

in a typical case of Wikipedia:Recentism, the man's death takes up more than 15% of the article now, that seems a little bit much. dab (ᛏ) 14:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hague or Scheveningen?

The tribunal is in The Hague, but the prison in which Milosovic stayed the moment he died was in Scheveningen!

Location / split

-- Scheveningen appears to be part of the Hague. IMHO, nobody really cares.

-- Since Death section grows, it can be made a separate entry linked to the main one Occuserpens 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Death location

Scheveningen and The Hague are really two seperate cities. In the last couple of years they both have grown a lot. Therefore lots of people think they are one city =)

Category

Whoever keeps adding the "war criminals" category to the page, please stop. He was not convicted of anything. I know many of you don't like that, but that's just the way the cookie crumbled in this case. Lets try to be adult about it. 207.6.31.119 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Milosevic was never convicted of war crimes, thus he cannot be called a "war criminal" without a POV violation. This article has numerous negative references with little corroboration or evidence linking Milosevic to statements and actions. Until this article is fixed up by some veteran users (who fully understand Wiki policy) I suggest leaving the NPOV tag. NEMT 19:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Hitler convicted of any war crimes? Midgley 21:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just like the world is not flat, there is overwhelming evidence for the war crimes of Slobodan Milosevic, including genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass rapes, for which he was formally indicted at the UN War Crimes Tribunal and spent his last 5 years in prison. Only historical revisionists deny the war crimes. His cowardly suicide (he first refused to take his medications and then took drugs against the medications in an attempt to be given permission to travel to Russia so he could escape justice) doesn't change anything.

Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place for opinions and conjecture. Especially not in article depicting relatively contemporary figures and events. NEMT 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Obvious solution is to use language like "X accused Mislosevic of being a war criminal" with proper link. Also, separate Accusations section can be introduced.

He was certainly charged of war crimes and then died before a verdict was reached. We can say that instead... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was never convicted of war crimes as well. Are you going to tell us that he cannot be called a "war criminal"?

Hitler died before World War II even ended. Plus, there was not a United Nations at the time, preventing the possibility of indicting Hitler for war crimes. Those of you that slander the likes of Milosevic, Hugo Chavez, and other genuine politicians resisting domination from the imperialist world are nothing but unidignified stooges of the bourgeoisie. Zvesda

I hardly think a man like Milosevic was resisting imperialism. It was his army oppressing the countries trying to separate from Milosevic's Yugoslavian 'empire' that caused all the problems. There was no inteference except to prevent the mass slaughter of people. 137.138.46.155 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

People can compare Milosevic to Hitler for many reasons. He was a dictator, under his command the Serbian army slaughtered thousands of people. It's not on the same scale as the Holocaust obviously, but still particular ethnic groups were deliberately targeted. Mass graves including women and children were found. He didn't conquer other countries as such, but kept states wanting separation part of Yugoslavia using his army. So definite similarities if not on the scale of a Hitler or Stalin.137.138.46.155 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Context search does not show Milosevic being called a war criminal in this article. What is the point??? Why NPOV flag? Occuserpens 00:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time, he was in Category: War Criminals, I believe this has since been corrected. NEMT 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Burial

Please provide source links for the quotes and information provided in this section. NEMT 19:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Coolio! totally agree!

Religion

His father Svetozar Milošević was never deacon or other member of clergy. He was a high school teacher with a degree in theology. However, he was an atheist and communist like his wife.

It is also not true that Slobodan Milošević have ever studied for the Orthodox priesthood.

I've never read that his father was a high school teacher, only that his father was an orthodox clergyman. And it never said anything about him being a communist. According to the Milosevic's biography written by Adam Lebor, his father kills himself due to WW2 and the system afterwards. Someone please check this information for me. I havn't got the book on me atm. -- Gardenworker 13:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing NPOV flag

Apparently, calling M. a war criminal is a non-issue since this entry does not explicitly do this. So, IMO the flag needs to be removed Occuserpens 12:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It still lists him under Category:War criminals. IMO, this is quite improper. Unlike during WW2, the world now has an established mechanism for trying such matters. Where it fails to do so, for whatever reason, it is not forWikipedia to decide to exact its own justice—we should stick to unambiguous facts, until it can be said that there is a definitive judgement of history (and it's far too early to say we've reached that point yet). Including him in this category goes beyond facts into the realm of interpretation. Vilcxjo 16:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, categorization is OK, M. was certainly tried for military crimes and the entry clarifies the rest. Also, I cleaned Vilcxjo post from inflammatory language. No, I don't think we have any NPOV! Occuserpens 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally think he is a war criminal. However I have to agree given that he was never fund guilty, it's difficult for us to list him in the war criminal category. People often bring up the analogy of Hitler but there is the point above and more importantly, Adolf Hitler is not in fact listed in the war criminal category... As such, I have removed him from the category. Perhaps in the balance of time, as it becomes generally accepted that he was a war criminal, we can relist him but given the current tensions, I feel it is unfair. Of course, there is nothign wrong with discussing him as a war criminal in the article itself. Nil Einne 16:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for denying leave to go to Russia

Does anyone know if the tribunal gave any reason for denying him leave to go to Russia for medical treatment? Don't get me wrong, I think they made the right decision here. But what I'm wondering is whether a official reason was given since it isn't explaiend very well in at the moment? Nil Einne 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The tribunal denied M leave for Russia. Officially, they did not believe he will return. Occuserpens 16:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what I would expect and I say right on them but if it's true this is the official reason we should mention it... Nil Einne 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV flag removed

Since the flag was put based on accusations of military crimes, it is now removed. This entry does not explicitly call M a military criminal and "military crimes" categorization is removed.

Those who want to clarify the issue, can add section like "Accusations of military crimes" and put all info from the sources there. Occuserpens 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rifampin

I will stay out of the rest of this, but did want to point out a few bits about rifampin (the more common name for "rifampicin").

Drug interactions

Rifampin DOES induce an enzyme in the liver which in turn metabolizes other drugs. In plain English, this means that it can cause the body to remove certain drugs from circulation faster. Many drugs are affected, including beta-blockers, which can treat hypertension and is prescribed to many people who are at risk for heart disease, or have heart disease. What this means is that it would take a higher dosage of beta-blocker to be effective. How high of a dose is necessary? That's patient specific and depends on genetics and the condition a person is in. By the way, it is probably less far-fetched to consider the possibility of liver damage caused by the drug, especially if there is a history of liver disease. Rifampin causes liver dysfunction, and is not prescribed as often as it should be because of this toxicity.

Usage

The 2004 PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) lists the organisms that Rifampin is indicated for are neisseria menigitidis and mycobacterium tuberculosis.

• mycobacterium tuberculosis causes tuberculosis of course.
• n. menigitidis causes meningitis

Other organisms the drug is effective against include staphycoccus aureus, s. epidermidis, haemophilus influenzae, and m. leprae. Drugs by the way are used "off-label" quite frequently. This just means they are found effective in a setting besides their "official" indication, and are used in these settings. Often these "off-label" uses are approved at a later point in time. In fact, the treatment for leprosy is an "off-label" use of rifampin.

• s. aureus is an incredibly common bacteria responsible for "staph" infections. Rifampin can be, and is, used to treat s. aureus infections that are resistant to other antibiotics.
• m. leprae leads to leprosy.
• rifampin is used as a prophylactic agent against h. influenzae in people who are at risk for a full-blown infection, say living with someone who is infected with h. influenzae meningitis.
• rifampin is used in other (atypical) mycobacterial infections, such as Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC)

Closing comments

I wrote this to provide a perspective on what Rifampin is used for. It is NOT just used for TB and leprosy. I have seen it used more often for resistant s. aureus infections. It does effect the metabolism of other drugs in various complicated ways. These would be patient dependent, as a person's genetics with regard to specific liver enzymes are going to determine what, if any, effect rifampin would have on the levels of other drugs. I do not know the medical history, so I will leave the rest well enough alone.

I believe you are competent. Can you please comment on possible effect of Rifampin on a diabetic (we don't know if he was insulin-dependent) Milosevic was known as?

Thanks. According to the PDR rifampin should be "used with caution in a diabetic". Apparently it can make the diabetes itself can be more difficult to control, but it does not give a mechanism for this. Rifampin does increase the metabolism of sulfonylureas, a specific type of oral drug used in the treatment of diabetes, but I am not sure if this is the only way can affect diabetes treatment.

Why Milosevic Was Murdered

Below is a good article on why Slobodan Milosevic was assassinated by the globalist elite:

"Why Milosevic Was Murdered: Tinpot dictator blew the whistle on the New World Order," Paul Joseph Watson, PrisonPlanet.com, March 13, 2006:

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/130306milosevicmurdered.htm

The above article has a number of mainstream major media article references concerning the fact that Milosevic was saying he was being poisoned and the fact that toxicology analysis shows that Milosevic had been given the drug rifampicin, which shouldn't be in Milosevic's system since he didn't have leprosy or turberculosis, and since it has ill effects with the medicines he was on for his heart condition. The spin being put on this by the U.N. Tribunal minions is that Milosevic was poisoning himself with this drug--which of course is utterly absurd because Milosevic was under exceedingly close surveillance.

Below is an excerpt from the article "Milosevic's blood 'bore traces of drug'," Guardian (U.K.), March 13, 2006 ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,,1729960,00.html ):

Donald Uges, a toxicologist from Groningen University, told Reuters that tests he conducted two weeks ago on Milosevic's blood showed traces of rifampicin, a drug used in treating leprosy and turberculosis that would have made other medicines ineffective.

He suggested Milosevic had taken the drug in the hope the UN war crimes tribunal would agree to his requests to go to Moscow for treatment if his condition did not improve.

"I don't think he took his medicines for suicide - only for his trip to Moscow. When he was in Moscow he would be free. That is where his friends and family are. I think that was his last possibility to escape the Hague," Dr Uges told Reuters.

Milosevic, who had a heart condition and high blood pressure, was found dead in his cell on Saturday, months before a verdict was due in his trial on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.

Dr Uges told the Associated Press he had been asked to examine the sample after Milosevic's blood pressure failed to respond to medication.

The former Serbian leader was required to take his drugs under surveillance when UN-appointed doctors concluded he was not taking them. Yet still his blood pressure failed to fall.

The toxicologist said he had found traces of rifampicin, which can break down other medicines in the liver, when he examined Milosevic's blood. "[It] makes the liver extremely active. If you're taking something it breaks down very quickly," he told the Associated Press.

The Russian government today confirmed it received a letter on Sunday from Milosevic, dated Friday, which alleged he was being deliberately given the wrong drugs for his illness.

"Persons that are giving me the drug for the treatment of leprosy surely cannot be treating me," he wrote to the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. "Especially those persons against whom I have defended my country in the war and who also have an interest in silencing me can likewise not be treating me."

209.208.77.233 17:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments to the bottom please

It would be helpful if people make sure they add comments to the bottom rather then the top as some are doing (see the Rifampicin and others that are now 1, 2 etc). Is there any standard template used to remind people to add comments to the bottom? I tried adding a hidden comment but it didn't seem to work (disappeared) Nil Einne 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Serbia die with Šłobodań Mįłoševįć?

Interesting article [4]

Also: Slovene daily Dnevnik Monday perhaps best sums up the banality of Šłobodań Mįłoševįć's demise: "The man who dreamed of a Greater Serbia met his death in a cell no larger than 15 square meters."

Also interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4801750.stm

Please add to burial section

Reuters has reported Milosevic WILl be buried in Belgrade: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060314/ts_nm/warcrimes_milosevic_dc_44;_ylt=Akx25L4v_M1t5Y6_GPWVI03kfskC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl NEMT 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) - already there Occuserpens 04:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Current news reports have it that it's more likely that he is to be buried in his home town, possibly in the front lawn of his birthhouse. His political party still holds power in the town, so objections are less likely. (I saw the mayor of the town proclaim this on TV on the news today)

Greater Serbia

An anon changed the introduction so as to speak of '[h]is attempt to create a "Greater Serbia" ...' Anyone who has been following the discussion so far should know that that is a disputed statement. The relationship between Milošević's actions and the "Greater Serbia" philosophy is rather more complex than that. Later in the article, it speaks of his policy as "characterised by critics as a "Greater Serbia" in all but name" (my italics). The Greater Serbia article explains much more fully the relationship between Milošević and "Greater Serbia" thinking, and should be read by anyone inclined to put back simplistic statements about M's "attempt to create a Greater Serbia". Vilcxjo 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is a good online source which says that M. promoted "Greater Serbia", bring it in Occuserpens 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And what if there's an equally good online source which says that he didn't? Vilcxjo 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Stating he was simply one of the "key figures" is very unprecise and is underplaying his role, and avoids to address the reason of the Balkan wars. During the trial, it became clearly evident that Milosevic' policy of creating a Greater Serbia was the reason of the armed conflicts on the Balkans. I've thus reinstated the previous sentence.

Whose evidence at the trial are you refering to in particular? phildav76 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The BBC cited leading Slovene newspaper Dnevnik: "The man who dreamed of a Greater Serbia met his death in a cell no larger than 15 square meters.

As suggested, please read the Greater Serbia article. It really is not as simple as you make out. A throwaway remark by one Slovene newspaper hardly constitutes compelling evidence. If you want to increase the significance of his rôle, e.g. by saying that he was "the key figure", that's another matter, but the Greater Serbia allegations are going well beyond the evidence.

PS. It would also help if you signed your posts. Vilcxjo 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Slobo the rigid moralist

One or more editors keep inserting a paragraph on M's character and perceived moral code. I have no problems with this in principle, but its tone borders on the hagiographic, and readers have no way of judging its accuracy due to the lack of citations. Some of the material, if properly supported, may well be relevant and useful; but we really can't keep the paragraph as it stands. I have had a shot at NPOVing it, but am still less than happy at the lack of any documentary support. Does anyone think they can improve it—or does it just need to be wiped entirely? Vilcxjo 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this issue can be resolved by introducing a section like "Personal characterizations" with 2 parts - positive and negative.

Also, there is a subsection "Reaction" in "Death". There one can itroduce language like "X says that M was a rigid moralist" or whatever. Occuserpens 23:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Milosevic je bio heroj i jos jednom pozivam sve koji su u mogucnosti da prisustvuju njegovoj sahrani 18.marta 2006 u Pozarevcu od 12 sati pocinje velicanstveni narodni ispracaj,a sahrana pocinje od 15 casova.Dodjite da bismo pokazali celom svetu da je srpski narod neunistivDzoni 13:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why links to sources are removed?

IMO, links to news sites are important and removing them from the body of the entry is very unhelpful. Occuserpens 14:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Three dead leaders

• Tudjman dies in 1999
• Izetbegović dies in 2003

These deaths end the risk of a war-crimes trial for these pro-Western leaders. The accusations are never tested.

• Milosevic dies in 2006

A conviction might have been attacked in detail. But he too dies, and it will soon drop out of world news. --GwydionM 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If Tudjman's "pro-west", then does Hungary, Austria, Vatican, Germany and later USA under Cliton speaks for the entire west? I don't think so! Or for that matter Izetbegovic who received support from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab world with their imported anti-west Mujahedin fighters? I personally don't count Britian, France, supposedly Catholic Italy and the Netherlands as Croatia's "allies", just solely because they are a part of the west.

Burial - brief info

IMO, details of the burial are of no particular importance. What matters is that M is buried in Serbia after certain confusion. No state honors, no family presence. Occuserpens 23:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of coverup

Regarding the recent addition of this section, I think it is partly valid because there have been claims by supporters that he was poisoned, but I have not been able to discern any credible citation that details about his death and/or treatment have been "covered up". As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, for citation, such a section should not rely on conspiracy blogs (www.prisonplanet.com PrisonPlanet.com]), and certainly not quote editorial content/speculation from them. Rather, the material should rely on reputable journalists and scholars. These BBC and CNN articles are good examples. Material supporitng allegations of cover-up should come from similarly reliable sources. I personally believe these sources probably exist. I have not yet found any, but I have not conducted an exhaustive search.--AladdinSE 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree and have taken out that section.--Jersey Devil 11:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no poisoning as such and there was no coverup of it. What happened was gross medical mistreatment. Occuserpens 13:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you moved the above addition to a "Trivia and Conspiracy Theories" section. It seems reasonable, any objections or thoughts (particularly by Aladdin who originally brought up his objections to the addition)?--Jersey Devil 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he has made these recent changes to the article [5]--Jersey Devil 17:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that a problem? --Striver 13:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Aladin reverted and wrote:

→Conspiracy theories - copyedit, removal of editorial comment from non-credible sources.)

Thatc could be arguement if the conspiracy was stated as factual, using prisionplanet as source. But that is not the case, it does not do that, it claim that prisonplanet made that statment, and for that purpose is prisonplanet 100% accurate as a source for itself.--Striver 13:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently, this is "Trivia, accusations, speculations" section. Yes, it includes info from prisonplanet which, IMO, is not a reputable source. Occuserpens 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver, you prove my point. PrisonPlanet is used as a source for itself. Unfortunately, PrisonPlanet is a conspiracy blog and in no way qualifies as a reliable source. You can use it to link to Rush Limbaugh's quote, but you may NOT use PrisonPlanet's actual editorialization or speculation itself. --AladdinSE 00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Charged with crimes he had no involvement in, kept issolated in a purpose built prison with no media contact, then murdered when they couldnt prove a case against him. How is this not a conspiracy to undermine both international law and the sanctity of his life. Milosovich was the greatest president Serbia and Yugoslavia has seen. He was a true statesman. Those involved in his death are but animals. Even the former attorney general of the united states said the evidence the tribunal had against him was unreliable and he believed SM to be innocent of all charges. Plus SM's lawyer had said days prior to his death in the press he was being poisoned.. then he dies and drugs he has no medical need for but with contradict his proscribed blood pressure and heart drugs are found in his blood stream. Also SM had been refusing food for three days claiming it was poisoned and the autopsy showed that the drugs in his system which conflicted with his proper medication had stopped being ingested three days prior etc.. He was clearly murdered. The reason why he was killed are debatable but I wouldnt be surprised if it was due to the fact that SM wanted to call and cross examine Blair. And we know he has a track record of having those he doesnt like bumped off... just look at David Kelly.

Nationalism

I've just spent a few minutes scanning the comments on this article, very informative. I can't help but wonder what Mazzini, Garibaldi and other 19th Century nationalists would have made of this world of Nations States we have created. Who could have guessed the right to self determination for oppressed peoples, many of whom were in the Balkans oppressed either by the Hapsburg’s or the Ottomans, would have been so skilfully circumvented by criminals, demagogue, politicians with weak ego and generally those whom nationalism was meant to free us from. Nations do not exist by natural right or by the grace of God. They are creations of man and thus a filled by his flaws. Nor are the boundaries ever correct, almost every nation has it tales of wrongs suffered on them by their neighbours, my country less than some but only because our wars were long ago and before Mazzini opened Pandora’s box. I know of a story of a women who lives near Rijeka who has lived in six different countries but has never moved house. Remember this when you claim your champions and call for justice, their is not a single country on this earth were the nation state is not contended. Even the gentle slopes of Butane are claimed by China as part of the will of the people, or is it the Mandate of Heaven, I forget. I know this isn't really the place for this sort of thing but had to get it out of my head--62.6.139.11 15:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fantaaaastic, I havn't read modern philosophy like this for many years 62.6.139.etc, it's a pity you don't identify yourself because I'd be proud to make such remarks and use that kind of language. The only message I've ever tried to send out is that ALL nationality is totally manufactured, so much so that few people realise that most of the modern European nations (Serbs and Croats deeply included) are not based on descent in people using the same titles a thousand years ago, but the routes are in mid 19th century national arrangements which swept accross Europe (ie. right or wrong is not an issue). This includes Germany and Italy too even if some may trace their names back earlier. The problem I find with both Serbs AND Croats (even though I admire their culture/s) is that Serbs (pro and anti-Milosevic) think that the universe starts and ends in Serbia and Serbs are the only people, Croats just the same. On our 2011 census, I'll probably declare my nationality something absurd! Celt 8 Apr 2006

Down with nations! But that really isn't the place for it. Try the article on nation. -- 85.187.44.128 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• True but there was so much nonsense going on felt the need inflict others with my opinion. --62.6.139.11 14:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that it hasn't got much to do with the Milosevic debate. The Yugoslav story was basically about the desire of people to determine which state they were going to live in - illegally and by use of force. None of the populations involved wanted to secede/join another country solely on the basis of the principle of the nation state per se: the non-Serb wave of secessions (Slovenia, Croatia etc.) was motivated by fears of Serbian dominance, and the Serb wave of secessions (Krajina, Republika Srpska) was motivated by fears of discrimination.

I'm not sure how such tragedies can be avoided in the future. I guess one should adopt the rule that nobody should ever secede illegally from any country, except if one is really oppressed and that is confirmed by truly independent observers. --85.187.44.128 16:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

When did Owen say that?

"the statement by Lord Owen (author of the Vance Owen Plan) that Milošević was the only leader who had consistently supported peace and that any form of racism was personally "anathema" to him."

If Owen is supposed to have said that at the trial, I must say I don't find any such statement when searching in the trial transcripts [6]. In particular, the word "anathema" does not occur in this context.

If anybody has a source, do provide it. Otherwise, that part should be modified. The closest quote that I do find ([7]) is: "It is my view that President Milosevic -- no doubt Mr. Milosevic you see now is not fundamentally racist. I think he is a nationalist, but even that he wears very lightly. I think he's a pragmatist. ... I do not think that he was one of those who wanted all Muslims out of Republika Srpska any more than he wanted all Muslims out of Serbia. I don't think he was an ethnic purist." --85.187.44.128 21:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I modified the text. --85.187.44.128 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

War Criminal?

I propose that Slobodan be readded to the category of War Criminals and removed from the category "People charged with war crimes by a UN tribunal" of which he is the only member. There is no wiki-consensus for the idea that an individual must be convicted of a war crime for that term to be used. See Allied war crimes and all the subarticles which are listed there. All of those events are described as war crimes, despite the fact that they were never even tried. This is not a category for "Bad people" which would be subjective, but for people who committed a specific act, which all mainstream historians agree that he did. I think that the category should have a description which notes this, but, for the record, it's not titled "convicted war criminals". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote above (under "Removing NPOV flag"): Unlike during WW2, the world now has an established mechanism for trying such matters. Where it fails to do so, for whatever reason, it is not for Wikipedia to decide to exact its own justice—we should stick to unambiguous facts, until it can be said that there is a definitive judgement of history (and it's far too early to say we've reached that point yet) (emphasis added). Two points arise: (1) Analogy with Allied war crimes fails, as there was then no established, internationally applicable trial mechanism as there is now. The existence of that mechanism must be taken into account in determining the applicability of terms such as "war criminal", whose usage in present circumstances necessarily implies a judgement by the body specifically charged with making such judgements; (2) It is (still) far too close to the events, and far too much is constantly being unearthed about the events of the Yugoslav wars, for it to be claimed that there has been a definitive judgement of history. I think your definition of "all mainstream historians" is unduly narrow for you to reach the conclusions you do: it is not only Slobo apologists and Serb nationalist extremists who believe that the prosecution at the Hague trial was failing (to a quite embarrassing extent) to prove the substantive accusations as to SM's "specific acts". (BTW, just as you say that the War Criminals category "is not a category for Bad people", so omission from it does not of course imply membership of a category of Good people; it doesn't stop one from holding, and arguing, that SM was a thoroughly nasty piece of work, who bore a heavy responsibility for the Balkan wars.) Vilĉjo 23:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. We tried the Nazis at Nuremberg but never tried allied war criminals. By your logic, Wikipedia should not list them as war criminals because the world "chose" not to try them at Nuremberg as well, the "established mechanism". I think that all major media outlets and mainstream historians considered Milosovich guilty of the crimes that he was being tried for in front of the UN tribunal. As you concede my point about the category name, conviction should not be a prerequisite. Standing trial for war crimes is sufficient for the category, and more useful for informational purposes. Those doing research on War criminials will no doubt want to find articles for people who were not convicted for whatever reason. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tricky question. I would say that at the very least we should avoid being seen as taking sides in current or pending trials of living persons. Therefore it would be wrong to put Saddam in the category. I'm less sure about Uday or Qusay (or Slobo). But it would be weird to have Uday listed as a war criminal, and Saddam not. And I'm not sanguine about being able to get consensus for this sort of categorization in any case. --Trovatore 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

… conviction should not be a prerequisite. Standing trial for war crimes is sufficient for the category … Wow! Irrespective of the pros and cons regarding SM himself, one should (apparently) automatically and in principle regard being charged with war crimes as equivalent, for Wikipedia purposes, to being legitimately categorised as a war criminal. I can only say, thank God we have the good fortune to live under a justice system which doesn't work on such a cavalier, "no-smoke-without-fire" basis! Vilĉjo 23:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia categorization is not to pass judgement but to help the end-user find information and articles of interest. Someone doing research on the subject of war criminals would undoubtedly want to look at the case of Milosovic even though he died before the trial concluded. I could care less whether he actually was guilty or innocent. Perhaps the difficulty is how we define the category. Would you agree to a category for those who stood trial for war crimes but were not convicted? We could add that as a subcategory of the war criminals category so that people viewing that category would be able to find it, while avoiding what you might consider an inaccurate category label for Milosovic himself. The trouble would be in what to name it. "People charged with war crimes" would be a start, albeit not very parsimonious. Off the top of my head I cannot think of anyone else who has been acquited or otherwise charged but not convicted of war crimes, but I feel that this would be a populatable category. In short I am suggesting removing "at UN tribunals" from the category name to make it less hyperspecific. Would this be an acceptable compromise to anyone? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with having a category of "People charged with war crimes", "War crimes indictees" or something equivalent, and there could then be no ambiguity about the correctness of including SM in such a category. It is precisely because categorisation is not about passing judgement that it is wrong for WP to apply a category which does imply a judgement. Just one point: I would recommend making such a category a sub-category of "War crimes" rather than of "War criminals" (which is itself a sub-cat of "War crimes", so the two would be in parallel, so to speak.) Vilĉjo 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree if you put Tudjman,Iztbegovic and Rugova in the same list.

I also hope that Clinton,Bler,Shreder and other that are responsible for killing OF MORE THEN 1000 CIVILIANS IN ANTO BOMBING OF SERBIA WILL BE IN LIST OF "WAR CRIMINALS"---------LET ME REMIND YOU THAT SERBIAN COURT SENTENCED CLINTON,SOLANA,BLER,SHIRAK,SHREDER AND LORD ROBINSON ON 20 YEARS OF PRISON FOR THEIR CRIMES ON CIVILIANS.........

OOOO,YOU THINK THEY DIDNT ORDERED PILOTS TO SHOT SERBIAN CIVILIANS?????? THEN MILOSEVIC NEVER PERSONALY ORDERED ANYONE TO BE KILLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF HE IS GUILTY IN CHAIN OF COMMAND,THEN CLINTON IS GUILTY AS WELL............

SO,WHY DONT U JUST DROP THIS RIDCULUES PROPOSITIONDzoni 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

HE WAS A GREATEST POLITICIAN THAT WE HAD IN LAST 200 YEARS.And he have nothing to do with war:

He accepted Vens-Owens plan,he acepted Cutileros plan,and Owen-Stolenbergs peace plan.....It was Alija Izetbegovic that rejected it.

He also accepted z-4 peace plan in Croatia,but Tudjman rejected it....So he bares no responsibility for any of wars ,only things he bares responsibility for is not winning war in Croatia.Dzoni 01:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

--This sentence does not make any sense: "At the 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in January 1990, Milošević's Serbian delegation campaigned for major constitutional changes which would give greater political power too."

death section too long

This article is 54 KB long, probably justifiable for such a complex topic but on the high side. Approximately a third of that is the section on his death. That seems excessive to me. Time in prison is not really recommended for health reasons for anyone, and his death was not much of what made him an important figure to know about. Can't it be tightened up, a lot? --Trovatore 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

He was killed after all,so its important how he died,he was killed in cold blood,murduredDzoni 06:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Cause of death" section is disproportionately long (though it doesn't look like one third to me), but it's a very complex issue, too, and there are too many important details suggesting foul play. You can't just rule it all out with the observation that "Time in prison is not really recommended for health reasons for anyone". I don't think these details should simply be lost. So - yes, I think it can be tightened and I hope I can find time to do it at some point - but no, not a lot. --85.187.44.131 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether there was foul play or not does not really matter that much; he was already irrelevant by that time. Most of the article should be about his life and actions prior to his arrest. The trial section should be cut down as well. --Trovatore 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

He was very relevant,as a matter of fact,the latest poll prior to his death POLL FROM 9 MARCH 2006 SHOWED MILOSEVIC TO BE THE MOST RESPECTED SERBIAN POLITICAN WITH 46 PRECENT OF PEOPLE LOOKING AT HIM POSITIVLY!!!!!!!

People were watchin trial on daily basis and everyone was talkin of how godd he was doing in front of the Tribunal and how week prosecution is.HE WAS EVEN MORE RELEVANT IN HAGUE,SINCE HE FINALY SHOWED THE WORLD THAT SERBS WANTED PEACE ALL ALONG AND THAT CROATIAN AND ALBANIANS STARTED WARS.

p.s.LET ME REMIND YOU,HIS PARTY IS NOW PART OF RULING COALITION IN SERBIA RIGHT NOW,SO MILOSEVIC WAS very relevant,thats why they killed him,in order to destroy SErbian pride and Serbian nationDzoni 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It "does not matter that much"?! Now, how well Milosevic was doing at the trial and whether he was killed can be debated upon (personally, I'm not so impressed by his defense, and I think that "gross medical mistreatment" is the most likely version of the events surrounding his death), but cutting exactly the Trial and Cause of death sections, that is those parts of the story that are most troubling and inconvenient for the "West", would be unacceptable. --85.187.44.131 09:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100 precent,but I need to tell you,if you had a chance to watch the trial day by day,as we in SErbia did,you would have been impressed too.Anyways,I agree with the rest of things that you saidDzoni 11:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've read some of the transcripts of the trial. I guess the way you see it depends on your attitude, convictions, and nationality. But I don't want to engage in heated discussions on such a sensitive topic. The main thing is that the existing information is important, and it should be there so that everyone can judge for him/herself. --85.187.44.131 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the "trial" and "death" sections could be moved to separate articles, with short summaries left here. Compare Adolf Hitler#Defeat and death, which points the reader to the main article, Hitler's death. Or if you prefer, John F. Kennedy#Assassination and aftermath, which points to John F. Kennedy assassination. --Trovatore 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about that, too. I'm not sure that Trial needs that so much, but I think it's the optimal solution for Death. --85.187.44.131 21:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I just did it as best I could. --85.187.44.131 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Yep, I am the same guy. --Anonymous44 13:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I think maybe the part left in the main Slobo article could be cut down still further, but I'm not going to quibble it anymore; it's a huge improvement. --Trovatore 22:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be different articles for his death and for his trial

Too Long? Surely its not long enough, there needs to be continued investigation here. He was clearly murdered at the bequest of someone like Blair or Clinton because they didnt want to be cross examined by Milosovich. Milosovich is a Serbian Hero and he was murdered by savages. He was protecting Serbia from the hordes of islamic filth flooding in, something Britain is going to soon experience itself. I hope you enjoy it.

Indictment charges

The lead reads: "He was indicted in May 1999 […] for crimes against humanity in Kosovo, charges of genocide in Bosnia, crimes against humanity, and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Croatia were added a year and a half after that." The actual final charges were: (a) Crimes against humanity and (b) Violations of the laws or customs of war in all three territories, plus (c) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions in Croatia and Bosnia and (d) Genocide in Bosnia, so the current version of the lead is inaccurate (quite apart from saying "crimes against humanity" twice). However, I don't know the exact chronology of what charges were added when, so I've tried to alter it to be accurate but non-specific. If anyone has specific info, please add it. Vilĉjo 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Slobodone Might be a Red Croatian

It saids that his orgin is Montenagro. But back in the 7 centuary was a part of the country Red Croatia. Many years later the Red Croats in Montenagro changed their nationality to Serbs because the introduction of the orthodox religion to the area after the collaspe of the country. So you might say that Slobodone great great great Grandparents were Red Croat's. --Marbus2 5 10:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

A new user has changed the image on this page from a professional looking portrait of Milosevic to one in which he is being held by gaurds. This strikes me as a POV edit which is not in keeping with other political leaders' pages on Wikipedia, since the ones I've seen so far always have the official portrait in the lead of the article, no matter how controversial. I'm going to change it back to the official portrait for now, but welcome comments. Mak (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right to revert that edit. The alternative image may belong in the "Trial" section, but not in the lead. It's just a POV warrior who is trying to subvert standard WP practice. Vilĉjo 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Indictment as a Source

This article cites the indictment as a source. An indictment is merely a set of allegations that the prosecution will seek to prove over the course of a trial. By its very nature an indictment is an UNPROVEN document until the judges make their findings at the conclusion of the trial.

In the case of the Milosevic trial there will never be a conclusion, and the indictment can never be seen as proven or unproven. For this reason I do not think that it is appropriate to treat the indictment as proof of a fact.

This article cited the indictment as its source to claim that Milosevic said, "Yugoslavia was finished and that Serbia would no longer be bound by decisions of the Federal Presidency". It turned out that evidence revealed during the trial (Defense exhibit 333; January 25, 2006; trial transcript page 47671) refuted that allegation. The transcript of the speech in question showed that Milosevic never said any such thing.

This is a prime example of why the indictment can not be treated as proof of a fact. All citing the indictment can do is prove that the accusation was made, not that the accusation was true.

Inaccurate quote corrected

The article misquoted Milosevic as saying "No one has the right to beat you! No one will ever beat you again!” in April 1987. Milosevic’s actual words were recorded on videotape and played at his trial in The Hage. The actual quote is “You will not be beaten.”

The article also claimed that he broke Communist taboos by publicly criticizing the police. This passage was removed because evidence presented at the Hague Tribunal shows that he simply responding to a small group of people -- not addressing the public when he made the remark. Eyewitness testimony as well as videotape of the event clearly shows that he was not addressing the crowd when he said, “You will not be beaten.”

The sentence "With the statement, Milošević tried to insure this policy with the message that Albanians of Kosovo can not use police to oppress and abuse local Serbs." was also removed. The writer of that sentence is not a mind reader and can not possibly know what was going on inside of Milosevic's mind when he made the statement. Milosevic was more than likely just trying to calm these people down -- not make a policy statement, the whole point of him even going out to see those people in the first place was to stop rioting from breaking out.

Wesley Clark's Testimony

The article asserted that Wesley Clark testified that Milošević had come to him privately at a conference to admit to prior knowledge of the Srebrenica massacre. Clark's testimony was that he went to Milosevic, not that Milosevic came to him.

It is also debatable whether or not Milosevic's alleged statement to clark admits foreknowledge. I changed the article so that Clark's testimony was that Milošević had told Gen. Mladic not to attack Srebrenica, and I added a footnote so that readers can look at the trial transcript and draw their own conclusion.

Wesley Clark's testimony was as follows, he recollected having the following exchange with Milosevic:

CLARK: You say you've had so much influence on these people. If you had so much influence, how did you permit General Mladic to kill all those people at Srebrenica?

MILOSEVIC: General Clark, I told him not to do it, but he didn't listen to me.

I wouldn't say that such a statement constitutes an admission of foreknowledge. It's best to let readers see the transcript and draw their own conclusion rather than interprate "the hidden meaning behind it" for them.

At the end of the day the testimony isn't that substantial. It boils down to Clark's word against Milosevic's word. Milosevic denied that he discussed the subject of Srebrenica with Clark at all. He called Clark's assertion "a blatant lie".

There are no other witness who can offer corroborating testimony. Clark said that Joseph Kruzel and Richard Holbrooke were also in attendance at the conference. Unfortunately Kruzel is dead, and Clark said that Holbrooke was using the toilet when the contested exchange with Milosevic occoured.

1989 Constitutional Ammendments

The article has been updated to read:

Milošević spent most of 1988/1989 focusing his politics on the "Kosovo problem". His supporters organized public demonstrations – the so-called "anti-bureaucratic revolution" – which led to the leaders of Vojvodina (6 October, 1988), and Montenegro (10 January, 1989) resigning. Azem Vllasi, the ethnic-Albanian leader of the Kosovo Communist party, was arrested for inciting rioting when a group of Kosovo-Albanian miners blockaded themselves in the Trepcia mine.

On 28 March 1989 the National Assembly of Serbia amended the Serbian constitution. Although the ammendments had already been approved by the governments of Kosovo and Vojovodina, critics claimed that the ammendments limited the autonomy of the two provinces.

The ammendments were particularly controversial among Kosovo's Albanian population. Following the passage of the ammendments many Kosovo-Albanians began accusing the Serbian Government of abuses in the province.

---

The old article read:

"Milošević spent most of 1988/1989 focusing his politics on the "Kosovo problem". His subordinates organized public demonstrations – the so-called "anti-bureaucratic revolution" – which led to the elected leaderships of Vojvodina (6 October, 1988), Montenegro (10 January, 1989), and finally Kosovo itself (in February-March 1989) being removed. Azem Vllasi, leader of the Kosovo Albanian majority, was arrested and a strike by Kosovar miners was violently crushed by the Serbian police, killing 32 people."

This was changed because: The "anti-bureaucratic revolution" took place in Montenegro and Vojovodina, not in Kosovo and the demonstrators were Milosevic's supporters, not his subordinates.

Secondly, nobody was killed at the mines. Some 25 people were killed in rioting that erupted in Kosovo during the miners strike, and that was why Azem Vllasi was arrested. He was accused of inciting the riots.

---

The old article read:

"On 28 March 1989, the National Assembly of Serbia, under Milošević's leadership, amended the Serbian constitution to greatly reduce the autonomy of its two provinces. The decision was hugely controversial, especially in Kosovo, where many Albanians had never accepted the legitimacy of Serbia's annexation of the province in 1912. A harsh regime was imposed which attracted widespread criticism from international human rights organisations, transnational bodies such as the European Community and other foreign governments. This caused great alarm in the other republics of Yugoslavia, where concerns were expressed that their own autonomous status could come under threat."

The paragraph was changed because: Slobodan Milosevic was the President of Serbia, not the Prime Minister. The Assembly of Serbia is under the leadership of the Prime Minister, so the term "under Milosevic's leadership" was struck.

The article also led readers to believe that the 1989 constitutional ammendments were a unilateral act by the Serbian Assembly. It must be noted that the governments of Kosovo and Vojovodina both voted to approve the ammendments prior to their adoption by the Serbian assembly. 175 out of 190 deputies in the Kosovo assembly voted in favor of the ammendments on March 23, 1989 [the vote broke-down as follows 175 in favor, 10 against, 2 abstained, and 3 not present]. The Vojovodina assembly approved the ammendments on March 10, 1989.

The thesis that the ammendments "caused great alarm in the other republics of Yugoslavia, where concerns were expressed that their own autonomous status could come under threat" was struck. Nobody expressed concern that the Serbian Assembly could pass a law that was binding on another republic.

---

The old article read:

As nationalism grew within Yugoslavia, Milošević sought major constitutional changes. The 1974 Yugoslav Constitution had organised the country so that Serbia's status as the largest and most populous republic was counterbalanced by the way that the other republics were represented. The socialist Yugoslavia was at the time governed by an eight-member Presidency, representing the six republics plus Kosovo and Vojvodina. By ousting the government of Montenegro and replacing it with a more compliant one, Milošević effectively secured that republic's vote for himself; likewise the abolition of the autonomous governments of Vojvodina and Kosovo ensured that he controlled those votes as well. The Presidency was thus divided down the middle between Milošević's supporters and his opponents in the other republics, with four votes for each side. The result was stalemate and an increasing paralysis of Yugoslavia's federal government.

This entire paragraph has been struck because: The Constitutional changes were being drafted prior to Milosevic's election as president in response to Albanian abuses in Kosovo. It is not accurate to say that "Milošević sought major constitutional changes". Milosevic supported the changes that were already in the works.

This entire paragraph was based on the premise that Slobodan Milosevic was somehow able to magically replace the presidents of Kosovo, Vojovodina, and Montenegro. This is simply not true. The presidents of Kosovo, Vojovodina, and Montenegro were elected by the assemblies of Kosovo, Vojovodina, and Montenegro -- not chosen by Slobodan Milosevic.

The alleged killing of Kosovo-Albanian miners

The allegation that Serb police "brutally" killed 32 Kosovo Albanian miners was removed. There is no evidence that any of the miners were killed during the strike. There is not a single contemporaneous report in Lexis-Nexis or the FBIS of any killings happening during the strike.

Secondly, the miners' strike took place in February 1989, which is BEFORE the Serbian Interior Ministry took-over law enforcement in Kosovo. So even if some of the miners were killed by the police, they wouldn't have been killed by the "Serbian police".

Since Azem Vllasi's arrest was mentioned I added the fact that he was charged with inciting rioting amid the miners' strike.

The same paragraph asserted that Slobodan Milosevic's "subordinates" carried out the anti-bureaucratic revolution. The correct term would be "supporters". It is clear that the demonstrators supported him, but there is no evidence that Milosevic was issuing orders to them. Therefore the term "subordinate" is not justified.

It is also claimed that the anti-bureaucratic revolution took place in Kosovo. This is just not true. The anti-bureaucratic revolution was limited to Montenegro and Vojovodina. Not even Milosevic's most ardent accuers claim that there was an anti-bureaucratic revolution in Kosovo. Even the ICTY indictment only mentions Vojovodina and Montenegro. AWilcoxson 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

These "supporters" of Miloŝevic were also in turn supported by Miloŝevic. So we could have a line some thing like this in the article

• "His supporters, backed by Miloŝevic himself organized public demonstrations – the so-called "anti-bureaucratic revolution"

instead of--

• " His supporters organized public demonstrations – the so-called "anti-bureaucratic revolution" --Obvious 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Obvious

I wouldn't say that the organizers of the anti-bureaucratic revolution were "backed by Milosevic himself". You are trying to claim that Milosevic was the driving force behind these anti-bureaucratic revolutions in Vojovodina and Montenegro, but there isn't any evidence of that.

A Serb-Montenegrin resistance organization from Kosovo organized the demonstrations that are called "the anti-bureaucratic revolution". This group was an organized and functioning entity since 1981 -- 8 years before Milosevic came to power.

A man named Kosta Bulatovic founded the movement, and he testified during the Milosevic trial that it was a grass-roots movement formed in response to abuses by the Albanian majority in Kosovo.

On page 38649 of the trial transcript the Prosecution puts the thesis of this article to Bulatovic, and he denies it:

PROSECUTOR: [Milosevic] then used your group to achieve his own objectives, in particular the centralisation of Serbia through bringing about the downfall of Montenegro and Vojvodina's leadership, didn't he?

BULATOVIC: No.

The whole thesis of the Prosecution was that Bulatovic's group supported Milosevic because he was a leader who espoused their political views. Not even the prosecution adopted the thesis that Milosevic created Bulatovic's group, and Bulatovic himself denied that Milosevic controlled the group.

So based on the evidence that is avaliable, namely the sworn testimony of Kosta Bulatovic, the article should read: "His supporters organized public demonstrations – the so-called "anti-bureaucratic revolution" AWilcoxson 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if the group was functioning since 1981, it did have Milosevic's support during their little 'activities' in Vojvodina and Montenegro, Momir Bulatovic led the anti-bureaucratic revolution in Montenegro with blessings from Milosevic, that is why when he later became the president of montenegro, he had full support from Belgrade, also Milosevic could have called off this anti-bureaucratic revolution or at least condemned if he really opposed it.--Obvious 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Obvious

Nobody disputes that these people supported Milosevic. What is in dispute is the claim that Milosevic was directing their activities. You are going to have to cite hard evidence if you want to claim that he was controlling them, especially since they deny being controlled by him. You claim that Milosevic could have called them off or condemned them. Certainly he could have condemned them, but that just would have caused them to withdraw their support from him -- not cease their activities. They were active for 8 years before Milosevic came along. Milosevic needed them more than they needed him.

Momir Bulatovic was ELECTED president of Montenegro through direct multi-party elections held in December 1990. In the second round of voting Bulatovic got 204,038 votes, or just above 76% of those cast. His rival, Ljubisa Stankovic from the Alliance of Reformist Forces for Montenegro, received 57,396 votes, i.e. 21.4%.

This discussion drew my attention to the fact that the article says that the anti-bureaucratic revolution led to the resignation of the "elected" leaderships of Vojovodina and Montenegro. Use of the word "elected" in that context leads to an insinuation that the government that took their place was not elected, for this reason the term "elected" was struck from the article. AWilcoxson 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Greater Serbia

Can somebody please provide a reference for when Milosevic either: i endorsed a "Greater Serbia" ii used the phrase "all Serbs in one state"

I have studied him and the old Yugoslavia a lot, and I must say that I've never once come across him saying either. Number ii wouldn't surprise me too much, but I think that i may have been a myth. His policy of self-determination for peoples and not nations is what the old Communist Yugoslav constitution said; he was not a nationalist but was an old-fashioned communist.

>>> hey idiot.. he doesnt have to say it to want it. actions speak louder than words

Hey, dickhead who can't talk civilly. A more appropriate phrasing would be to enlarge Serbia's territory to include others of Serbian descent rather than inventing cliches that he never said. Seeing as this was posted ages ago and no-one replied, I shall amend the article. Epa101 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Is there any other page that has two whole sections defending a person tried for war crimes and no sections criticizing? 65.185.190.240 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Picked the wrong side?

In this discussion, about nine paragraphs in under the header The alleged killing of Kosovo-Albanian miners it says:

A man named Kosta Bulatovic founded the movement, and he testified during the Milosevic trial that it was a grass-roots movement formed in response to abuses by the Albanian majority in Kosovo.

This seems to come about the closest I've seen anywhere in this discussion to the allegation I heard bandied about on American talk radio in the late 1990s or so that we had "...picked the wrong side" in this war in Kosovo. It was stated at the time by at least one major conservative talk-show host that we really should have come into this thing on Milosevic's side, against the Albanians, instead of defending the Albanians against Milosevic. Or even that we should have stayed completely out of the conflict. There is not even a hint of this angle anywhere in the article, though. Is there anything to this interpretation? It sure is a stickler to some people to this day! In the very least, it should be refuted if it isn't true.

I'd support a section in the article stating "Some people believe NATO and the USA came in on the wrong side on this war..." or even "There are a few people who believe..." and then describe some of the reasons why some people think that way, and describe why others dispute the idea.

-- Nomad Of Norad 06:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Within Article

There's discussion and minor areas that are being debated within the article, which makes it look more like an argument than a report on what has happened. It's unproffesional and amateurish, I strongly suggest that someone (I've not got the time) attempt to re-write, or remove the bits that are being argued (most of the end of the Rationale section) instead of simply explained/reported.

A public article is not the place for people to be expressing complaint about the article itself.--PublicSecrecy 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I made few minor changes concerning exact name of the communist party in yugoslavia and it's republics.So, it is Leage of Communists of Yugoslvia (Slovenia, Serbia...respectivly)

1997-2000

SPS-JUL-ND together didn't have enough votes to form a government. Whom did Milosevic invite to form a government in the Socialist Party of Serbia's last 1997-200 term? --PaxEquilibrium 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? and kinda long too

I just decided unilaterally to revert Younggunna272's edit, which was the replacement of the entire article with "==[^SATAN]==". Can someone take it from here? I understand in cases of vandalism (which I believe this was) there's other stuff to do after the restoration of the article itself.

On an entirely unrelated subject, does anyone else think this article is too long? I would like to see it broken up by someone more familiar than I with Serbian leaders. 0702034 06:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

while it may have been true, it is definetely vandalism. did you warn them? Dumboy 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I have done nothing but revert the edit. This is the first time I've ever seen vandalism. 0702034 09:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

International relations

I've begun translating and expanding the section from the Chinese Wikipedia Milosevic article and adding the material here. Please feel free to amend/expand. Anyone who has a suggestion on where to place this section within the article is welcome. Thanks --Dpr 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Other Side of the Story

Where's the evidence that tenc.net has permission to publish this item on its website? Given their frequent copyvios, I'm very disinclined to use them as a source for anything, particularly when the copyright status of their items is unclear as in this case. -- ChrisO 07:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

Actually, what is written here is intierly true. And i will tell you even more, america took false photos made by a British journalist that show how "Serbians treate bad bosnians" as evidence to atack Yugoslavia. M.V.E.i. 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Diana Johnston and Mirjana Markovic

The text currently includes a sentence claiming that Diana Johnstone is a long-time friend of Milosevic's wife, Mirjana Markovic. However, there is no source and a quick Google has not turned up any other reliable sources. If we can't find any reliable source, we should delete this statement.Osli73 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Neil Clark - defender of Milosevic

Hi! I found that (relatively) well-known journalist Neil Clark of The Guardian has published an article (partly) defending Milosevic (or at least what he calls the "demonization" of him). Here's a link to a 2002 article in the New Statesman. Should we include this in the article?Osli73 07:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And that article is not the only one. I have found a number of references to Clark's work even in Serbian media, so I guess it is notable enough. Nikola 14:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I have requested that this article be renamed Slobodan Milosevic, because that spelling is more familiar to readers and occurs in more verifiable sources. A past discussion: Talk:Slobodan_Milošević#English_name.3F -- Yano 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The diacritics add accuracy at essentially zero cost, especially since the English name is obtained by just leaving them off (this is different from, for example, Novak Đoković, where there's a reasonable argument that readers will be confused by the absence of the j in the usual English spelling Djokovic). --Trovatore 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The reason most English writers do not use the diacritic marks is that it is difficult to make their computers put them in. However the word has the same letters, with or without the diacritic marks. It is therefore instantly recognisable to all English users. There are no advantages in omitting them, providing there is a redirect page from the Slobodan Milosevic spelling.--Toddy1 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Trovatore. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Trovatore Reginmund 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, that's what redirects are for. Gazpacho 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Trovatore. Redirect will still exist. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Trovatore. Redirect exists. feydey 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Transliteration from Serbian into English is not needed, because Serbian language uses both Cyrillic and Latin script. --GOD OF JUSTICE 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

"Young Yugoslav People's Army soldiers were murdered by Slovenian secessionists, who were filmed but never convicted."

This sentence should be remowed from the article, because it is a complete fabrication. The article originally stated: "The Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) sought unsuccessfully to prevent Slovenia's secession by the use of force; however, Slovenia's Ten-Day War ended in a disastrous defeat for the federal forces." This statement was then changed on May 15th 2007.

Originally the claim of Slovene war crimes was made by Neva Miklavčič Predan, who seems to have a particular desire to descredit Slovenia, but is mainly succeeding to discredit herself. She is being sued for slander in Slovenia. This claim was investigated by Slovene Courts as well as by ICTY and it was discovered that no crime had occurred. The Austrian ORF TV station showed footage of Yugoslav Army soldiers surrendering to the Territorial Defence, before gunfire was heard and the troops were seen falling down. However, none were killed in the incident. Neva Miklavčič Predan later changed her story - according to her even without anyone being killed, it was still a war crime, as there was (supposedly) an intention to kill the surrendering soldiers. However from the position of Territorial Defence forces at the time of the incident it was physically impossible to shoot towards the surrendering soldiers, since bullets would have to 'travel' through the ground to actually hit any of the soldiers - who were standing on some hill while the TD forces were located bellow them in the valley. It is assumed these shots were actually fired by the Yogoslav Army at their own troops to prevent the surrendering.

But some people and Serbian yellow press simply don't seem to get it. There were no war crimes in Slovenia, because - unlike in Serbia - there was no psychopath in charge in Slovenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.158.65.193 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Vampire?

Should anything be said about the people who went into Milosovic's tomb and put a stake through his heart (either fearing he become a vampire, or politically motivated)? Mwv2 18:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it, with 2 refs. It seems (important, significant, weird: pick one) enough to be added to the opening of the article. Mmoyer 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Those references are a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.198.74 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the material because there is more than one reference. There are other refs available, though I suspect the best ones are not in English. There are also about 74K Ghits for "milosevic vampire". (My apologies about the "must discuss first" edit summary, btw - I added the summary before I saw the talk comment). Is it kosher to add foreign language refs? Mmoyer (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the bit about "vampire hunters" vandalizing his grave on the grounds that the information is trivial, and irrelevant since it happened a year after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored this material. The information is not trivial, but instead speaks deeply to the impact he had on peoples lives. Additionally, the performance of the staking on the one year anniversary was significant to its folklore aspect. Mmoyer (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about vampire hunters violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, because it attaches undue weight to the opinion of vampire hunters (an insignificant minority). Nobody cares what the vampire hunters think. The information doesn't belong in the article about Milosevic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph. It is a notable event; the fact that only a small number of people believe he was a vampire is irrelevant - this was covered by major news sources and, as stated above, is emblamatic of the feelings he engendered. Dchall1 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that only a small number of people believe he was a vampire is irrelevant -- this was covered by major news". The very fact that only a small number of people believe he was a vampire is what makes the paragraph a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

The fact that major news media covered the event is irrelevant. To borrow on the flat Earth example used in the Wikipedia NPOV policy, the major newsmedia have also covered small groups of people who still believe that the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean that the views of the flat earth crowd belong in the Wikipedia article about the Earth.

Likewise, the vampire hunters who vandalized Milosevic's grave said that they did it to stop Milosevic "returning from the dead". The incident is only emblamatic as far as people who believe in vampires returning from the dead are concerned. 216.162.196.155 (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Allen

To take your example, a violation of NPOV policy would be for us to declare that Milosevic was indeed a vampire. This is not what the article alleges, simply that certain people believe he was. The article on Earth also includes a mention of the Flat Earth Society. Please do not remove this information again. Dchall1 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the Wikipedia NPOV policy, specifically the provision on undue weight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

It says "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views".

The view that Milosevic is a vampire capable of returning from the dead is held only by a tiny minority.

Your assertion that NPOV policy only applies to declarations of fact (such as "Milosevic was a vampire") is false -- NPOV also applies to viewpoints (such as "some people think Milosevic was a vampire").

The viewpoint of the tiny minority who believe in vampires has no place in the article.

If you found a newspaper article about people who thought any other head of state was a vampire, a wearwolf, a demon, or any other mythological creature do you think that information would be permitted in the Wikipedia article about that national leader? I seriously doubt it.

There are people out there who think that Ronald Reagan was the antichrist. Why don't you try including that information in the Wikipedia article about him and see how far you get.

I suspect that you, like a lot of other people, personally dislike Milosevic. You get a kick out of seeing the his grave vandalized, which is why you insist on including this information in the article eventhough it clearly violates the NPOV policy.

It is pointless to ask me to stop removing the information. I will continue to delete material that violates NPOV as long as you keep posting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand the policy. If you continue to remove this information you will be blocked for violating the 3-Revert rule WP:3RR. Dchall1 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How many ways can you interpret a sentence that says: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". Is your position that there is more than a tiny minority who thinks Milosevic was a vampire, and that the information should be included because it is emblamatic of their opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not just that a minority of people think he was a vampire, but that those people acted on their beliefs and staked his corpse. This is a documented historical fact. NPOV policies relate to the discussion of opinions, and so are not applicable here. Dchall1 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as NPOV is concerned it doesn't matter if it's a proven fact or not, nor does it matter whether this small group, who apparently thought he was a vampire, acted on their beliefs. Any way you slice it you're breaking the NPOV policy which, contrary to your view that it's "not applicable" is "absolute and non-negotiable".

The NPOV policy states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

The key phrase here is "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". This article deals with serious issues of war and peace that effected hundreds of thousands of people. The acts and opinions of a few self-styled "vampire hunters" is not significant to the subject. Especially since the allegation that Milosevic was a vampire was almost surely made in jest. The paragraph in question even says, "it is not known whether those involved actually believed this could happen or if the crime was simply politically motivated".

The solution that's called for here is to move the paragraph about the vampire hunters to the article about vampire hunters. Where according to the NPOV policy "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them."

I have moved the paragraph to the appropriate article, and hopefully you two can go on to argue about something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWilcoxson (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to add this information to the vampire hunters article as well, be my guest. But including this information does not imply that Milosevic was indeed a vampire, simply that some people thought he was and, more importantly, took action based on this belief. Dchall1 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this does not imply in any nature that Milosevic was a vampire, but instead that a select group of people thought he might be. I have added another ref in regards to this topic and ultimalty think that it should stay. A simple google search proves that there are enough reliable sources. I do feel that the part about the vampire hunters motivation should be removed do to the fact that there is not enough evidence, i feel that it may also have a bit of POV. I hope that everyone can come to an agreement on this topic and that i have helped. Cheers! Tiptoety 19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the information can stay as long as the article makes it clear who the incident is emblematic of. As far as I can see this incident only represents the views of Milosevic's detractors in OTPOR and not the Serbian public at large. I have added data from a 2005 opinion poll showing how the country at large felt about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also be careful not to claim that the group was successful in driving the stake through his heart. The Ananova article referenced in the first footnote says "The vampire hunters told police the three-foot-long wooden stake had been driven into the ground and through the late president's heart." We should say that they CLAIM to have done this, not that they actually did it. A three foot stake wouldn't have even made it to the coffin (burried 6 feet deep) -- let alone pierced the coffin and gone into his heart.—Preceding

unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2007

If he is buried in a vault, then it would be possible. Let's stick with what the articles say, and not engage in speculation. Dchall1 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK lets go by what the articles say. The articles quote Miroslav's group and have him as the source of their assertion that a stake was driven through Milosevic's heart. So lets quote Miroslav's group saying they did it and leave it at that. We don't need to make our own assertions or engage in speculation about the success or failure of his endeavor.

My God. Now you're in a pissing match about whether they really could have staked him in the heart or not? For my part I still think its an NPOV violation to even include such nonsense. But the London Guardian, which is a more credible source than any of the no-name publications cited in the article, reported that the "Vampire Hunters" only poked the stake into the dirt next to the tomb -- in other words they missed. See: The Guardian, Final Edition, (London); "This Week: Slobodan Milosevic"; March 10, 2007 Saturday, GUARDIAN HOME PAGES; Pg. 2, By Tim Dowling; http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday/story/0,,2030837,00.html

Sources

To user Dchall1: There is no need for us to keep removing one another's material. These are controvercial issues where credible sources often contradict eachother.

We should both agree to clearly name our sources when editing this article. What really happened will probably never be established. The best we can do is repeat the assertions of others and name our source. (i.e. "the New York Times and the SFRY interior ministry say the police attacked the crowd in Kosovo Polje", but noted scholars such as Adam LeBor and Louis Sell say "the crowd attacked the police".)

I don't want to stop you from including the work of Adam LeBor and Louis Sell in the Article. I just don't want you to assert their conclusions in the article as if they were facts. And I promise not to assert my sources conclusions as though they were facts either.

Let's just name our sources and leave it to the readers to decide which one they believe. Do we have a deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. As far as I see it, there are two differences between our sources.

1. Yours say the police attacked the crowd at Kosovo Polje, mine say the the crowd attacked the police.
2. Yours say Stambolic was fired for abuse of office, mine say he was fired at Milosevic's bidding.

On 1, the majority of the sources (not just the two I used) say the crowd instigated the riot. They were organized, brought rocks with them, and were provoking a confrontation. But regardless of who started it, Milosevic's response was nationalistic and marked the beginning of his appeals to nationalism. Your version whitewashes that aspect of it.

On 2, its the same thing. I have two independent sources who agree with each other. Yes, you're right that sometimes on Wikipedia when sources conflict we discuss both. But the majority opinion backs up the version I wrote. These sources are more recent than the ones published right after the events, and have the benefits of time and reflection. Dchall1 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On 1: My sources include the videotape of Milosevic actually making the controvercial remark as well as eyewitness Hague testimony from people who were there in 1987 (who also posess the benefit of hindsight). My sources also include the official findings of the SFRY interior ministry which said the police attacked the crowd. Also included is a contemporaneous report from the New York Times that says the crowd started throwing rocks only after the police began beating them with clubs. The official explanation for what happened was that the police used excessive force to get the crowd away from the cultural center and that provoked stone throwing from the crowd. The information I have was that the rocks they threw came from a nearby road construction project.

On 2: There is an official explanation from the communist party in Belgrade for the removal of Pavlovic and Stambolic. Pavlovic was expelled by a vote in the central committee after he publicly disagreed with the party on Kosovo, and Stambolic resigned after he was accused of abusing his office for trying to use his position as Serbian President to save Pavlovic. That's the official explanation from Belgrade and the communist party for what happened.

On both counts there is an official explanation for what happened. I know that a lot of respected Western scholars and political figures (but not all of them) disagree with the official explanations that came out of Belgrade and they offer alternative interpretations of what happened, and I don't want to stop you from including their views in the article. Indeed their views inform the West's understanding of Milosevic and provide an explanation for the West's policies towards his government. However, the official contemporaneous explanations that came out of Belgrade deserve their place in the article.

You're free, as far as I'm concerned, to quote all the scholars and other respected sources you like who disagree with the official explanations coming from the party and the government, but I won't give you a free hand to disregard the official explanation of events in favor of the explanations offered by others.

I don't accept the premise that your view on Milosevic's rise to power is held by the majority. I can assure you that your view isn't held by the majority of people in Serbia -- I've spent a good deal of time in that country, and there are definitely people who dislike Milosevic (along with many others who do like him), but almost nobody I've talked to in Serbia, regardless of whether they like him or not, thinks he was a nationalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may step in here. I feel that 216.162.196.155's position makes sense. He has reputable sources and so does Dchall. The most honest way of presenting the two views is to agree to name sources when presenting information. I don't see why that should not work out nicely.Osli73 (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Slobodan Milošević/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Some things: More references! Fix POV issues. Definitely has potential, needs some dedicated editors to improve the current state of this article. Another peer review after these corrections are made, is needed. Nishkid64 01:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)