Talk:Slobodan Milošević/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Anti-bureaucratic revolution

The edits that R-41 made on the Anti-bureaucratic revolution did not contain a single refecence. They were totally unverifyable so they were deleted. If you want to include sources that say Milosevic engineered the anti-bureaucratic revolution that is fine, but you need to identify your source -- and because this is a matter of controversey you can not simply delete verifyable sources that contradict your opinion. It is a verifyable fact that the NY Times reported that there was "no evidence that he played an organizing role". The way to convince readers that he did in fact play an organizing is not to delete verifyable sources that contradict your opinion, but to find superior sources that support your view and quote them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are NPOV editor which is only interested in references why have you not deleted part of article:"Accusations against Milošević of supporting nationalism....." which is writen without verifyable sources--Rjecina (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done anything to the "Milosevic's Views" section of the article yet. But you're right that paragraph doesn't have a single reference and absolutely should be deleted because it is original research. The bottom line is that we won't get anywhere making assertions of fact on our own. There are credible sources on both sides of almost every issue, and those sources contradict eachother 180 degrees. All any of us can do is quote the two sides and leave it up to the reader to decide who they believe. With the Anti-bureaucratic revolution you can't say that Milosevic organized it and you can't say that he didn't. What you can do is quote the people who say he did and quote the people who say he didn't, but for any of us to make the claim that he did or he didn't would violate NPOV, and if this is done without references and sources it constitutes original research and must also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your idea is OK but we are not writing articles in this way. Editorial style on wikipedia is different and because of that I am sure that you will be reverted. If are you are interested in sources you need to look my Timeline of Yugoslavian breakup . Must of the sources are NYT because only this newspaper is having free, not paying archive so that everybody can look for confirmation. Please do not try to edit timeline on similar way because I will revert because your editorial style is different of wikipedia editorial style. --Rjecina (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is written needs to meet the criteria laid out by Wikipedia: (1) No original research (2) Neutral point of view and (3) Verifiability. Editorial style or not, those rules have to be respected. This article is a particular challenge because there are verifyable sources that contradict eachother on virtually every point. The only way to acheive neutrality is to quote the two sides and let the reader decide who they believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My small gift:"I have to admit that I consider Milosevic to be one of the wisest and brightest politicians not only in Yugoslavia, but in the entire Eastern Europe" (words of Gianni De Michelis Italian minister of foreign affairs [1] ). Like I have been saying earlier I will not edit this article. Bye --Rjecina (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Relations with Greece

I am very surprised that there is no section titled "Relations with Hellas [Greece]" given that the country and the people were the greatest supporters of the Serbs during the 1990s. Greek-Serbian relations were so strong that Milosevic himself proposed a confederation between Serbia (Yugoslavia) and Greece. Please see (the very well-sourced article) Serbian-Greek_friendship for in-depth information regarding this and other facts. Critias (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Figure

Almost everything about Slobodan Milosevic is a matter of dispute. There are credible people and sources on both sides of virtually every issue. We need to be careful not to make assertions of fact in this article unless there is concensus that it is a fact.

There are competing political agendas surrounding Milosevic's legacy. Some people have an interest in demonizing him and others have an interest in canonizing him. Both sides, unfortunately, seem to have their own set of "facts" which are 180 degrees opposite of one another and both sides flatly accuse the other side of lying.

The only way we're going to get through this is by quoting both sides and doing our best to identify whether the source is pro-Milosevic or anti-Milosevic.

To the pro-Milosevic faction, a statement or a finding issued by the Serbian government can be treated as a fact. To the anti-Milosevic faction, a finding issued by the Hague War Crimes Tribunal can be treated as a fact.

Normally statements by governments and courts can be treated as facts, but not in this case. The anti-Milosevic faction will dispute statements and findings by the Serbian government on the grounds that they were "manipulated by Milosevic". The pro-Milosevic faction will dispute the findings of the Tribunal on the grounds that "the Tribunal has no legal authority to make findings of fact". The Tribunal's legality and the Serbian Government's neutrality are matters of dispute.

When writing the article the best course is to say, "The Tribunal says, 'Milosevic did X', but The Serbian Government says 'Milosevic did Y'." The source should always be identified, and identified as pro or anti Milosevic whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So was the United Nations pro-Milosevic or anti-Milosevic? - anon

The UN enforced an embargo against his government, issued a war crimes indictment against him, arrested him and put him in jail. Obviously the UN was anti-Milosevic. That doesn't make them wrong, but the UN is clearly an anti-Milosevic source of information, which will likely tend to make statements justifying their actions against him and his government. The Wiesenthal Center is an anti-Nazi organization, but that doesn't the things they say about the Nazis are wrong. Likewise, a pro-Milosevic source can't be seen as wrong just because they support him.

Neutrality in this article is a particular challenge because everybody has opinions on the man. He is either seen as a butcher who started four wars, or a scapegoat who has been wrongfully blamed for the billigerent acts or others.

The only way to do this article right is to keep our personal views out of it and do our best to quote credible sources on both sides. That way it is up to the reader to decide who to believe.

Original Research

It seems to me that there is a lot of original research in this article. For example, the Yugoslav Wars section is 12 paragraphs long and contains only one citation. A great deal of this article needs to be re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to the material I deleted today except that none of it is verifyable. There was not a single citation or reference note in any of it. There are allegations of backroom deals (i.e. that the SFRY presidency supported the 1989 amendments to the Serbian constitution so that Serbia would support Ante Markovic's election as Premere). If this kind of thing is going to be alleged, then we need to know who is saying it and they need to be attributed. As far as I know Markovic was already the Premere when the amendments were adopted so I can't see how that would even be possible -- but I digress, there needs to be citation and attribution. If something is in the article that can not be verified it needs to be deleted until there is some documentation to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation for milosevic illegal tribunal icty

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020214IT.htm

Page 269

"I

7 consider that it is an illegal tribunal, and I have already stated that." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.171 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/010703IA.htm Initial Appearance:

3 THE ACCUSED: I consider this Tribunal a false Tribunal and the

4 indictment a false indictment. It is illegal being not appointed by the

5 UN General Assembly, so I have no need to appoint counsel to illegal

6 organ.

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/spch-icty.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.171 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

Both Encyclopedia Britannica (a pretty authoritative and researched source) and CNN report Milošević's as August 29, not August 20, as previously noted in the article.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9001502/Slobodan-Milosevic
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/profiles/milosevic/frameset.exclude.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/11/milosovic.obit/index.html
Does someone have concrete proof of his precise birthday? Poldy Bloom (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He was definitely born on the 20th of August. The SPS published his biography in 1991 and listed his birthday as the 20th of August, and the indictment at the Hague listed his birthday as August 20th. http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-2ai011029e.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.155 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath Section

The statment that Milosevic is cleared of Genocide and criminal activities because the ICJ ruled that Serbia only failed to prevent the Genocide commited by the Bosnian Serbs is false. A person(individual) is not the same as a state.If the state is cleared of involvment in Genocide that doesn't mean the president was. ICTY found Slobodan Milosevic guilty of a joint criminal enterprise in the case ICTY vs Milan Martic (Serbian leader in Croatia). So this statement in the Aftermath section is an attempt of cheap propaganda to mislead an impartial and uninformed reader.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Trial section

The whole trial section is written in a apologetic way.Rather then focusing on the facts and the core of the trial,some editors want to confuse people and white-wash attrocities,genocide and massacres. Carla Del Ponte,The chief prossecutor of the ICTY said that ALL 66 ACCOUNTS of GENOCIDE were supported by evidence. So some Serb apologis found few phrases that can be taken out of context(something they usualy do) and put that in the spot-lite instead the evidence and witness accounts. Strange isn't it?

First of all ,where the F are the refferences(NPOV) that describe the trial as contraversial. After Milosevic's death and his escape from justice,Serb nationalists try to white-wash everything he did simply because he died 40 hours before the end of the trial and was not convicted.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Downfall Section

This section appears to be pro Mr. Milosevic. It presents Mr. Milosevic as an innocent taken down by conspiracy and illegal coup with no references.

Unfortunatly that's how 60% of the Serbian population view the situation. It's all "a big conspiracy" against Serbs and Milosevic is "innocent".Sooner or later they will have to confront their past.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the articel needs to be rewritten to have an NPOV, something sorely lacking right now. Does somebody want to flag it? 4.178.69.21 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It may not be entirely NPOV, but I think that it is trying very hard to be. For instance, the section on his role in the Yugoslav wars is actually annoying in its "his critics say... but his supporters say..." My point being, flagging it as POV is more likely to escalate friction than not. On the other hand, as someone mentioned earlier, he will probably always be a controversial figure, and perhaps readers need to be informed of this from the outset. --Leviel (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wiki is STINKING like hell with so unbearably subjective writing for articles of political importance, that it has become perfectly USELESS to expect anything objective here. Maybe, the NATO bootlickers are in no small numbers out here! WIKI goes down the shit hole flushed!! Sad indeed.

---

Wikipedia: one of the few places in the Universe where the NATO bombing of Serbia is considered “a worse war crime” than the Srebrenica Massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.86.134 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

His role in the Yugoslav wars section

Seems to be just a bunch of people's opinions and not many facts 72.140.80.212 (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Milosevic supporters are not interrested in facts.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

neither others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.238.246 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Miloshevich

A recent addition says that the name is sometimes transliterated Miloshevich. No doubt this statement is literally true; since this is probably as close to a phonetic rendering as you can get in English, it seems almost certain that someone has written it that way.

However I personally have not come across it. I would suggest that, unless this spelling has some serious currency in respected writing, it's probably not advisable to mention it so prominently. Can someone give examples of authors or publications that spell it this way? --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem With Supporters Section

I made an edit to the section titled "Milosevic's role according to his supporters". The section begins with a list of quotations from different people whom the author claims to be supporters of Slobodan Milosevic. However, one of these quotations was from former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker. The inclusion of this quote is wrong for several reasons. First, the quote that was used wasn't even in support of Milosevic at all. Second, James Baker is not and never was a supporter of Slobodan Milosevic; therefore, he should not be used as a supporter of Milosevic. This misleads the reader and unfairly bloats the reputation of Slobodan Milosevic.

204.111.42.226 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)CassiarMemekio

Yes, I agree. If you don't believe that he was guilty of what he was accused of doing, that makes you his supporter? I don't support Rush Limbaugh, but if he were accused of murder or something and the accusers couldn't but should have been able to come up with some proof or something, I wouldn't believe he was guilty, but that wouldn't make me his "supporter". Is my point coming across? The word "supporter" is misleading in this article. Chrisrus (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

amazing

There isn't any real proof that he was guilty? No memo saying: "cleanse them from Serbia", no smoking gun?? If there is, why is it not in this article? This is bizzare, what accounts for this? Chrisrus (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No memo saying cleanse from Serbia???? Were you blind back in the 1990s??? Did you not watch the news in the democratic west?? The man murdered millions of non-Serbs through campaigns of terror, ethnic cleansing and genocide over 10 years and about 10 wars every one of which he lost. Human Rights Believer (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, where is this proof? All I remember from the 1990s was the accusation, not the proof. I know he fought wars to keep Yugoslavia together, but there is no proof in the article that he ordered the genocide or ethnic cleansing of anything. I know that there were massacres on all sides, but I also know that there were massacres committed by my countrymen in different cases. That doesn't mean my country (USA) ordered them. Proven that massacres happened is not the same as proving that the president ordered them, called for them, or what not. What you've provided would satisfy me if you could prove he said it. As it is, all we have is your sayso. Chrisrus (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Famous Kosova speech

I don't speak Serbian nor do I wish to. But I know the jist of his famous 1986 speech just before he invaded Kosova with his Serb (not Yugoslav) militia and started the Yugoslav Wars in the hope of changing Yugoslavia into Greater Serbia. I added it to the intro so that it is clear to everyone the way his mind worked. Human Rights Believer (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Milosevic could not "invade" Kosovo because Kosovo was an autonmous province of Serbia (the same way that Obama could not 'invade" Texas shoudl Texas decide to proclaim independence. I am pretty sure that you speak -or at least understand Serbian- as you are albanian (only albanians refer to Kosovo i Metohija as "Kosova". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.56.206 (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I will let that stand a few days, but you're going to have to either cite it or it'll be removed. Where did this quote come from? Is it a reliable source? How can you be so sure it's accurate? Besides, it's not worked into the article. just stuck out at the beginning. Chrisrus (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, for the reasons Chrisrus gave. If you can find a reliable source for it, and work it into an appropriate place in the article, without giving it too much weight, go ahead. Given the quality of your other edits, though, I'm not holding my breath. -- Zsero (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

quotes by Milosevic

Here is a list of quotes by Milosevic that will contradict much of what is written currently on this page about him. No doubt Milosevic in his speeches may be trying to present his leadership in the most favorable light. However those that criticize Milosevic often claim he whipped up the Serbs into a nationalist frenzy by inciting hatred in his speeches. If you read these quotes by him, I ask you how in the world he was able to do that as anyone can see he stresses equality among nationalities and ethnic tolerance.

http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/wise-words-of-slobodan-milosevic.html

Yugo91aesop (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this very convincing. How would you have the article changed? I think the first paragraph is biased against the evidence in that it says upfront that he was removed from office for corruption, and then later, further down, shows that he was innocent of corruption (if you believe in innocent until proven guilty) because of a lack of "hard" evidence, with a citation that presents no evidence at all, "hard" or otherwise.

We could also re-write sections that might say that he was accused or is believed to have ordered or been complicit in genocide, a fact that needs to be in the article, but emphasize that we have no citation of any evidence that he was guilty. If you believe in innocent until proven guilty not just in a court of law, but in any evidence-based way, the article should never imply any guilt on the part of Milosevic without citation of evidence. Unless someone can cite some evidence to refute such evidence as Yugo91aesop has presented today, which shows that Milo was against ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and genocide, we can't imply that there is any.

Anyone who feels shock reading these words, who and shares the common belief that he was guilty should use any emotion he or she is feeling to motivate him or her to go find any evidence that he was guilty of encouraging, ordering, or even standing by and not trying to stop any ethnic cleansing or massacring of peoples, and then add that to the article. The evidence we have so far shows not only no proof that he did these things, but instead shows that he was against them and tried to stop them. I know it's weird and begs the question why everyone believes the opposite, and that you or I don't know what to do with that information as it causes a lot of cognitive dissonance and strange emotions with regard to the significance of this fact; what therefore you or I might do with this information, but those cannot be considerations. Chrisrus (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a blog. It is not a reliable source, and should not be used in any way to edit the article. Please use reliable sources that discuss Milosevic's views and actions, not an unreliable quotefarm. Fences&Windows 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you. I didn't mean that this was a source for the article. These quotes, according to the article, are collected in his Milosevic's book. Original sources may be found. All I meant to say was that I find this convincing, personally. There are no quotes at all saying words to the effect of "We must cleanse Greater Serbia of non-Serbs" and we do have quotes of him saying words to the effect of "All ethnicities should live together in Yugoslavia in peace." If you've got something, we'd all like to see it. Chrisrus (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I used this blog's quotes to find the following, seeming reliable source. I Googled "By+the+force+of+social+circumstances+this+great+600th+anniversary+of+the+Battle+of+Kosovo", a quote I navigated to, supposedly the big speech at which Milosevic called for Serbs to commit genocide. The GoogleBooks text I chose was The Kosovo conflict and international law: an analytical documentation 1974-1999, By Heike Krieger, which, according to the overview, provides the material relating to Kosovo's pre-1999 situation. Here's a famous quote from it, quoted in many places on the web:

"Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today, more than in the past, members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it. This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is an advantage. National composition of almost all countries in the world today, particularly developed ones, has also been changing in this direction. Citizens of different nationalities, religions and races have been living together more and more frequently and more and more successfully....Socialism in particular, being a progressive and just democratic society, should not allow people to be divided in the national and religious respect....Yugoslavia is a multinational community and can only survive under conditions of full equality for all nations that live within it..."

And on and on it goes. Now, let's have a quote from such a source that says "All Serbs should go out and kill non-Serbs" or something. Surely he must have said such a thing, but there is nothing I can find. Maybe I just don't have the research skills, but I can't find anything.

So I think, well maybe he secretly believed in ethnic clensing and genocide and such but quietly ordered it. Well, where's the document? The chief justice from the Hague trials says on camera that such a thing was never found and likely never will.

So I think, maybe he ordered it without a document, or destroyed all the documents. Is there any reliable testimony that witnessed such an act? This maybe you can find. It depends on what you mean by "reliable testimony".

I'm not a Milosavic "supporter". I'm just some guy on the other side of the world who's trying to give the man the benefit of a doubt, to maintain innocent those who have not been proven guilty if not in the court of law at least in terms of evidence.

Well, we can't just go with what Milosevic says. If reliable sources mention his statements, we can use them, but his own book is really a self-published source. We need to be careful about using what people say about themselves, their beliefs and their actions. Fences&Windows 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, The Kosovo conflict and international law: an analytical documentation 1974-1999, is by By Heike Krieger, not Milosevic. It is a reliable source or documents from the era on this subject. Second, he was accused of murder by calling for it, but using words to urge his supporters to kill non-Serbs. So we look to this book to see what he actually said to those people on that day when he was supposed to have called for mass murder. Instead, we find that he had said things words to the effect of "we all are Yugoslavs and Ethnicity doesn't matter, we should all live in peace, ethnic animosity is bad". Look at it here: http://books.google.com/books?id=-OhPTJn8ZWoC&pg=PP1&dq=%27%27The+Kosovo+conflict+and+international+law:+an+analytical+documentation+1974-1999%27%27#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Go to page 10. Is this evidence that he called for genocide, or actually the opposite, that he called for NO genocide? You be the judge. Where is the evidence that Milosevic is guilty? This speech was supposed to have been evidence that he was guilty of calling for genocide. It was depicted as such by his accusers. Your response was not focused on what I was saying.

Doesn't the article already go into great depth on this topic? What edits are you proposing? Fences&Windows 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should organize a section of prominant people who have offered accusations that he was guilty or not, without any proof. Then we should organize sections of evidence that he was guilty and evidence that he was not.

As it is, you have copious accuations of guilt and claims of innocence mixed in with some evidence. The reader would be best served if it were clearly organized in such a way that they can decide for themselves if the common belief that he was guilty is true or not. Chrisrus (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Self-published or not, the book a reliable source for the quotes. Primary sources are valid for the fact that they say something; secondary sources are only required for analysis of what the primary source means. -- Zsero (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

By "the book", are you talking about "The Kosovo conflict and international law: an analytical documentation 1974-1999 By Heike Krieger? Chrisrus (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a secondary source, so no problem at all. I'm responding to the claim (by Fences and Windows) that a book by Milosevic himself, if self-published, would be invalid as a source. 'Tain't so. -- Zsero (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

quotes by milosevic 2

Sorry to create a new section but it wont let me edit the previous one. We could simply add a section to the article called "Quotes by Milosevic" This I think will allow readers to judge for themselves what kind of man Milosevic really was. If this angers those that are in the "anti-Milosevic crew" who believe he really wanted a greater serbia, let them by all means find those quotes that support their view and add it themselves. I'm pretty new to wikipedia and havn't edited any articles yet, but if someone can find reliable sources to back up these quotes http://yugoslavtruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/wise-words-of-slobodan-milosevic.html then I think some of them should be added to the article. I've emailed the writer of the blog to provide sources but he has not responded yet Yugo91aesop (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm like-minded. Thanks for trying and good luck with that. Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to list quotes of Milosevic. Try Wikiquote. If you can find sources that indicate that certain quotes of his are important, then it might be suitable to include a limited number of quotations in the article. See an essay, WP:QUOTE. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You should be here to improve the article, not Milosevic's reputation. Fences&Windows 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is not to list quotes of Milosevic. He is accused of having called for genocide. This is one of the most important things about him, as the article shows, he is widely believed to have called for genocide, and was arrested and tried for genocide or ethnic cleansing. He is not accused of actually taking a gun and carrying it out himself, he is accused of ording it or calling for it or standing up in front of crowds and agitating for it. In sum, he was accused of genocide by saying certain things to certain people, such as "go out and ethnically cleanse" or some such. We aren't just collecting quotes a la wikiquote. We are looking for evidence to support (or not) the accusations which the article is rife with. So we are trying to find documents where he ordered genocide or speeches where he called for genocide or people who testified that he told them to commit genocide, but all we're coming up with are speeches where he calls for people NOT to commit genocide. We are just looking for the facts and comparing them to the common wisdom. This is not soapboxing, this is just trying to get past the listing all the quotes listed in the article or prominent people that accuse him of something without providing any evidence and find some evidence to either back them up or not, let the chips fall where they may, no agenda or "soapboxing". What's wrong with that? Chrisrus (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong approach to editing. You need to rely entirely on what reliable sources say about Milosevic. If the reliable sources have all got it 'wrong', that's tough. If there are reliable sources that discuss the issue of Milosevic's speeches and beliefs that aren't already in the article, great, let's include them. If not, personal analysis of his words and writings would be original research. Fences&Windows 01:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's talking about not using only what reliable sources say about Milosevic? As to whether they've got it wrong or right, I say list'm all if they're notable. But separate the notable accusations from the evidence as distinguished from mere accusations. Chrisrus (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget that direct quotes from Milosevic are reliable sources, and if they give a different picture than what hostile sources say then they should be included, lest we paint a false picture by picking and choosing sources. -- Zsero (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you select the quotes to use? Just the ones that put Milosevic in a good light, like those the 'Yugoslavia Truth' blog presents? You can't just use quotes absent any analysis. An example of the issue of using Milosevic's quotes is nicely illustrated by a Time magazine article from 1995:[2]. It juxtaposes two quotes from 1991 and 1995 to demonstrate the change in Milosevic's approach. "We believe that Serbs have the legitimate right to live in one country. If we must fight, then, by God, we will fight" is nationalist, uncompromising, belligerent. In contrast, "Why think about national states and ethnic purity at the end of the 20th century? The main rule of the contemporary world is integration. Nationalism isolates people. It is crippling" is reasonable, conciliatory, internationalist. Fences&Windows 14:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those two quotes don't contradict each other at all. So they're not good examples of your point. But yes, the selection of quotes needs judgment, just as the selection of secondary or tertiary sources to quote does. One could selectively quote any number of respectable scholarly works to produce the effect one wanted, and one can do the same with quotes from the horse's mouth; but one shouldn't. The same good judgment that must be used with secondary and tertiary sources can just as easily be used with primary ones. The only way in which we are restricted from using primary sources is that we can't use them for more than they actually say — and exactly the same is true with secondary and tertiary sources. -- Zsero (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that quote is very interesting, more toward what I was thinking of to go in the "guilty" evidence column. Do you have the context for it? I want to see what when he said it, what he was talking about; what he meant by “one country”, etc. Chrisrus (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zsero, you have convinced me about the primary, secondary sources, etc. I'm not so sure I agree with you completely about the "by God, we will fight" comment just yet. Do you know what he was talking about? Chrisrus (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? What was the 1990s Balkan war about? It was about Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina declaring independence over the protests of their Serb minorities, and those minorities' subsequent attempt to declare their own independence in the areas in which they were majorities, presumably with a view to then get those areas annexed to Serbia (much as Anglos in Texas rebelled against Mexican rule, and eventually joined Texas to the USA). The two quotes are absolutely consistent with each other; together they say that Serbs want to live in a Serb-dominated country, and are willing to fight for that cause, but that that country should welcome any non-Serb minorities who choose to live there peacefully. -- Zsero (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"We believe that Serbs have the legitimate right to live in one country. If we must fight, then, by God, we will fight"

Please help Research this quote. So far, I've Googled up four sites that cite it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+believe+that+Serbs+have+the+legitimate+right+to+live+in+one+country.+If+we+must+fight%2C+then%2C+by+God%2C+we+will+fight%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBS_en Chrisrus (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That quote I believe was said in response to the Croatian and Slovenian declarations of independence in June, although I'm not completely sure. I will try to find the exact date. Here however is an interview by him with Sky Television dated August 7th 1991 which means it was 2 months after the declarations of independence. http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/milosevic080791.htm I suggest reading the whole thing, as I think he clears up, or tries to make clear how he views the conflict in Croatia. In particular he says

'[Van Linden] After the events of the last month, would you accept Croatia's independence?

[Milosevic] Well, this question needs to be explained better. We are living in the country of Yugoslavia. It is one country, one land. It is the only internationally recognised subject. We are not opposing the Croatian people's right to self-determination. If they want to establish their own independent, national state, there is no reason for us to oppose that. However, if they want to leave Yugoslavia, they cannot take a section of the Serbian people with them. This right to self- determination belongs to the Serbian people as well. I think that this is very logical.

We are living in this country. All people in Yugoslavia have equal rights to self-determination. The Serbian people do not want to leave Yugoslavia. They want to remain in Yugoslavia, to live together with all people who want to live in Yugoslavia and with Serbs, and that is all. I think that this is the only democratic and peaceful approach, respecting the will of the people. Let us check their will through a referendum and capacity to act in conformity with the will they express. Nothing will happen. There will be no conflicts, confrontations, bloodshed, or anything else, if no one wishes to hurt the interest of the other side.

He obviously makes clear that the right for Serbs to live in one state means them living IN YUGOSLAVIA and not in some greater Serbian state. Again, we cannot take Milosevic simply at his word, however I believe that we can learn a great deal about him by studying what he himself said.

Here is also a list of interviews and speeches by him which I think can assist. Most of the speeches are in Serbian however.

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/speech-interview.htm Yugo91aesop (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'll reply more later, but please, what if you I may/you can, how do you say "in one country" in the Serbian language? Outside of context, how many legit translation can there be? "all together the same without other group", "in a country, i.e.: in one, but any country", etc.? Chrisrus (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a Yugoslavia without the Croats, Slovenes, and Moslem Bosnia-Herzogovinians, would essentially be a Serbian state, so it's a distinction without that much of a difference. But what he's saying is much like what many Montrealers and Indians were saying during the last Quebec referendum on secession: that if Quebec voted to secede from Canada, then Montreal and the reservations should secede from Quebec and stay in Canada. I don't recall anyone thinking that an outrageous suggestion. -- Zsero (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Slobodan"

The English-language news material I've heard about Milošević is divided regarding the pronunciation of his given name. My impression is that most English speakers stress his name on the first syllable (SLO-bo-dan) — though a sizable minority stress it on the second syllable (slo-BO-dan), as currently described in this article.

After reading the "Accents" section of the Serbian language article, I wonder if the confusion might possibly be due to a mis-hearing of the Serbian "short rising" accent (the third of the four stress/pitch patterns discussed in that section). I suspect that an English speaker, unfamiliar with Serbian, hearing a word pronounced with this particular pattern would almost certainly focus his/her attention on the higher pitch of the second syllable and (mis)identity that as the location of the stress.

Can anyone find any sort of citable source (possibly a Serbian dictionary showing detailed stress/pitch accent information) to clarify this issue? Richwales (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Milošević’s role in the Yugoslav wars

"Milošević’s role in the Yugoslav wars" should be clean up and integrated into one chronological paragraph. It should be referenced by reliable and neutral sources, not by quotes of Milošević’s supporters.--Mladifilozof (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

historical image and its description

Territories of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia controlled by Serb forces 1992-1995. The War Crimes Tribual accused Milošević and other Serb leaders of "attempting to create a Greater Serbia, a Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia, and achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of crimes.

I noticed that some contributors remove images with referenced description without prior discussion on talk page. This dangerous and illegitimate practice leads us to edit warring and should not be used on Wikipedia. I repeat, please use talk page if you are disputing something. Edit summary is simply not enough for dispute resolution.

So, if someone thinks that this image is not appropriate, let's discuss it here.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

President of Serbia

here in the Infobox it is mentioned, that he was 1st President of Serbia, in office from 8.May 1989 - 23.July 1997. The ICTY says, he was President of Serbia from 26.Dec.1990 - 15.July 1997. Does ICTY's researcher were so wrong? please forgive me my bad english, I hope I could express what I mean. -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is wrong (obviously.) He became the President of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Serbia on 8 May 1989 (elected by the Presidency, I assume.) The Socialist Republic of Serbia ceased to exist when the new new controversial Serbian Constitution was promulgated on 28 September 1990, creating the Republic of Serbia, after which I guess he was acting President of Serbia. He was elected (by the electorate) President of Serbia on 26 December 1990, per the ICTY document. Int21h (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

Just found this statement in the introduction:

"He also had many acounts of homosexuality", apparently quotes Gall, #4, no such detail in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.31.93 (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation of the Life List - Ranking of the Worst Dictators

Article Quote:

In 2010, the Life magazine ranked Milosevic 19th in its list "The World's Worst Dictators".

He's just shown at the 19. picture, what impossible can be a ranking, because hitler is at picture 12. So please edit the sentence, that he's the 19. worst dictator ever... The only information is, that he is - listening to Life - one of the 29. worst dictators... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.92.162 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

the vampire thing again

Is there any particular reason that this old [diff] wasn't reverted? I strongly disagree with the edit summary. It's not irrelevant; it is quite notable in both the wikipolicy sense and in the sense of "how many times has this actually happened to important figures in the last century?!"

As for its relevance here, it's a notable biographical incident, and this is a biographical article. The "legacy" section details the subject's postmortem influence, and these self-styled "vampire hunters" were certainly influenced by something. In sum, I believe the IP who removed this section was well-intentioned but mistaken in doing so. Can we restore it? 174.252.165.21 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The "critics", "defenders" and in-between section should be revised to a single, factual section

The division between critical, defensive, and in-between sections on Milosevic's role in the Yugoslav Wars are unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. Moreover a number of the "defenses" are merely opinions of people unassociated with Milosevic. The head of Serbia's main TV section who worked for Milosevic confessed that Milosevic promoted war-mongering. Borislav Jovic, Milosevic's right-hand man in the 1980s and 1990s, admitted that he controlled Serbian state media, which includes Politika that released xenophobic nationalist and war-mongering propaganda. It is a known fact that the Bosnian Serb army was a detachment from the Yugoslav army run by Belgrade, Borislav Jovic admitted that Belgrade paid for their officers. The only real debate is whether Milosevic was personally involved in promoting ethnic cleansing and whether he personally held nationalist beliefs. He was involved in the wars and the nationalist propaganda around them.--R-41 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the section regarding the Milosevic and the Yugoslav wars should be revised to a single, factual and chronological section. I might be incorrect here but the current "critics", "defenders" etc seems to be unprecedented, especially with regards to articles about those involved in the Yugoslav wars. --Nirvana77 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Greater Serbia claims early 93.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Greater Serbia claims early 93.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you pronounce his name?

I personally pronounce it /slɔbəˈdaːn məlɔʃəvɪt͡ʃ/. In E. Peterbus Unum, Peter Griffin pronounces it /slɔʉbəˈdɑːn/ (his last name is not used). Is there a standard pronunciation? FokkerTISM 10:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"bo" is stressed, not "dan". Both of you are pronouncing it wrong. /sləˈbɔːdən məˈlɔːʃəvɪtʃ/ is the closest equivalent I can think of, as far as Received Pronunciation (and vowel reduction in it) is concerned. --89.79.88.96 (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is true. However, check the current (04.06.2016) pronunciation given, 'slɔbɔ̌dan milɔ̌ːʃɛʋit͡ɕ'. The 'ɔ̌' should be the character for the stressed BSC 'o'. The final sound in his last name, often transliterated 'ch' in Latin script English is actually 'ć', which has a slightly different sound than the (also Balkan sound) represented 'č', which is closer to English 'ch'. 'ć' is pronounced higher in the mouth than 'č'. Also, see the previous commentor for the stress marks before the stressed syllables in the given and surnames. There is also presently a 'listen' link available to click on, which will give one the precise idea of how the name should be pronounced. I see a lot of 'schwa' sounds in pronunciations given, which I have not so far seen in any Slavic language but perhaps 'о' sometimes in Russian.

File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about the Beobank robbery

Milosevic, along with his accomplices stole over USD20.000.000.000/GBP13.000.000.000 from peoples' savings in state owned banks such as Beobanka, Jugobanka. I wonder how come there is not a single thing about the heist on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.93.172 (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pointy and titles of sources

Re this edit and summary "fixing ref after over-exhuberant insertion of diacritics. The title of the article is spelled without diacritics. citations should be accurate"... in the context of having just launched an RM to strip the full fonts used on all Latin alphabet European bios on en.wp that is a WP:POINTY edit. There is no rule that says that a footnote label to a html website with a restricted font set such as www.cbc.ca has to follow the restricted font set of html source. We habitually conform CAPS crazy website sources to WP:CAPS in citing them, this is no different. And the contemptuous edit summary "over-exhuberant insertion of diacritics" is a WP:POINTY, dismissive, non-WP:AGF edit summary showing a complete lack of respect for the editors who have built this article to which you have not contributed a byte. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe this. Let's just say that despite your assumption to the contrary, my effort to fix a ref so that it had the correct title was an edit made in good faith. There's no rule that says I can't edit the article while we consider what it's title should be. I'm moving this, since it's not related to the move discussion - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Here I agree with metal -- if the ref didn't have the diacritics in its title, we shouldn't add them. Report the title as it is. That of course doesn't stop us from using the diacritics in text sourced to the ref, as long as it's not in a direct quote. --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's merely an issue of timing. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an issue in your head. Deal with it and leave others alone. Please. --В²C ☎ 16:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved The consensus is pretty clear on oppose. As the participants have shown, the name is spelled both ways in reliable English-language sources. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to prefer the version without diacritics. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Slobodan Milošević → Slobodan Milosevic – This person is known as Slobodan Milosevic in English. It is the policy of English Wikipedia to use the common name the person in English sources. There is no question that Milošević is not the common spelling in reliable English-language sources. There are dozens of whole books devoted to the subject which use the spelling without diacritics perhaps hundreds of times. In fact, you will have a hard time finding sources which use the spelling with diacritics despite the incredible popularity of the subject. see WP:AT. Whatever the correct spelling in some other language or transliteration scheme, it is the policy here to use English. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which states, "do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name". The New York Times, an actual authority on correct English, uses the non-marked spelling exclusively, maybe hundreds of times, just like every other English-language source except, bizarrely, Encyclopedia Britannica. I could make a list of sources using the spelling I propose, or you could just look at literally ANY source in English other than WP and Britannica. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 23:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose - per WP:SNOW result on Talk:Slobodan_Milošević/Archive_1#Requested_move, per WP:CONSISTENCY with every other Latin alphabet article title on en.wp, per hundreds of previous discussions related to WP:SERBIANNAMES, and per quality English sources Reliable for the statement being made, and per WP:COMMONNAME which above is the wrong section of the WP:AT guideline and includes non-basic-26 letter fonts in its Mitterand example. Not to mention per WP:AT "Søren Kierkegaard," WP:UE "German for German politicians", WP:EN "Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich" WP:MOSPN "Paul Erdős", WP:NCP "Antoni Gaudí," examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What sources? That other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Also that discussion was in 2007, and it looks like 9 people participated and only three of them actually give a reason for their opposition to the move. It's pretty reasonable that a new discussion could produce a different outcome. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SERBIANNAMES is not policy or guidelines or anything, it's a proposal. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also the title of that whole section is "When no commonly accepted form exists in English". Here there is no doubt as to what the commonly accepted form is. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

AMAZON.COM LOOK INSIDE. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you showing us, other than yet another book which uses the common English spelling without diacritics? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see, inside the book it uses diacritics, well, we know that some specialist sources, very, very few of them, do use the diacritics, thanks for sharing a link to one of them. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 14:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Let's not dumb down Wikipedia. The reader who didn't know that the dude's name had the diacritics in it is not going to have any trouble reading the title, nor finding the article. --Trovatore (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely you don't think that the NY times and every other source is "dumbed" down do you? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And who proclaimed NYT an "authority on correct English"? Also, Wikipedia has redirects for exactly this purpose. NYT does not. Besides, who says this title is not English? Are you saying professional writers compiling Britannica do not speak the language? This is absurd.Timbouctou (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Do not dumb down Wikipedia. There is no downside in keeping the diacritics (readers can just as easily reach the page via redirects), while removing them causes inaccuracy and inconsistency, for zero benefit. -Zanhe (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Mind you consistency cuts both ways. What I'm proposing is perfectly consistent with the overwhelming majority of English-language sources. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I'm not a fan of the argument "don't dumb down Wikipedia." We should use the common name, period, no matter how dumb (or pompous, or euphemistic) it may sound to us. However, Metal lunchbox, your argument basically boils down to: reliable sources so overwhelmingly omit diacritics that there's no point in you even marshalling much evidence. That's fine—if things are actually so overwhelming. But I did what you suggested, and I pretty quickly found counterexamples. To wit:
  • Aleksa Djilas (2004), "A Profile of Slobodan Milošević", Foreign Affairs
  • Lenard J. Cohen (2002), Serpent in the Bosom: The Rise and Fall of Slobodan Milošević, Westview Press
  • Chris Stephen (2005), Judgement day: the trial of Slobodan Milošević, Atlantic Monthly Press
  • Eric Gordy (2013), Guilt, Responsibility, and Denial: The Past at Stake in Post-Milošević Serbia, University of Pennsylvania Press
  • Nebojša Vladisavljević (2008), Serbia's antibureaucratic revolution: Milošević, the fall of communism and nationalist mobilization, Palgrave Macmillan
  • M. Spoerri (2010), "Crossing the line: partisan party assistance in post-Milošević Serbia", Democratisation

—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My point isn't that no counter-examples exist, but that the number of sources overall is so overwhelming that picking a few examples to show you would be meaningless. A Profile of Slobodan Milosevic doesn't use the diacritics, you must be looking at a different version. Cohen's book uses it in the title, but it's not clear that it's used in the body. Of course, I'm sure other counter examples exist, so even if all 6 you give here were some how invalid it wouldn't matter. A look at the search results should reveal an obvious pattern, especially the closer you get to common everyday sources, like the newspapers of note. Specialized, academic work, sometimes uses the diacritics, even there the pattern is clear. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Neil P. Quinn, these citations are suspiciously devoid of links. The following list is identical, except it includes links to actual English sources, none of which use the diacritics. There is no doubt that some sources use diacritics. But the issue for us, because we follow common English usage, is whether diacritic use is more common. It's clearly not.

• Aleksa Djilas (2004), "A Profile of Slobodan Milosevic", Foreign Affairs [3]
• Lenard J. Cohen (2002), Serpent In The Bosom: The Rise And Fall Of Slobodan Milosevic, Westview Press [4]
• Chris Stephen (2005), Judgement day: the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, Atlantic Monthly Press [5]
• Eric Gordy (2013), Guilt, Responsibility, and Denial: The Past at Stake in Post-Milošević Serbia [6]
• Nebojsa Vladisavljevic (2008), Serbia's antibureaucratic revolution: Milosevic, the fall of communism and nationalist mobilization, , Palgrave Macmillan [7]
• M. Spoerri (2010), "Crossing the line: partisan party assistance in post-Milošević Serbia", Democratisation [8]

--В²C ☎ 05:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Same answer as to Metal lunchbox above: AMAZON.COM LOOK INSIDE. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is AMAZON omits the useless dreck. If some poorly endowed egghead needs to include the foreign markings inside his specialty book as some kind of delusional compensation for his shortcomings, so be it. But WP is not for specialists. --В²C ☎ 07:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, В²C, for not linking those examples. I've fixed that now. I'll grant that in this case diacritics are relatively uncommon in journalistic and popular sources—that's why my oppose is weak. But it looks to me like diacritics have at least a slight majority in recent academic, scholarly, and encyclopedic sources (for example, see date-sorted searches for "Milosevic" at Taylor & Francis Journals and JSTOR), and that tips me towards supporting them. You're free to feel differently, although personally I'm completely uninterested by any argument which seems to rest on contempt for "poorly endowed eggheads" and on comparing diacritics to a fur-lined toilet or an extra nose.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say I don't get paid for my comedic writing. You get what you pay for. --В²C ☎ 16:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not funny—in fact as writing goes it's pretty good. But as an argument it's extremely weak, and I guarantee you it won't have any impact on the outcome here. Contrast that with Metal lunchbox's arguments: we've come to different conclusions, but he's making valid arguments that I'm taking seriously.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:USEENGLISH. When English speakers read and write this person's name, they typically don't use diacritics. Whether's that's "wrong" or "dumb" is irrelevant. What part of FOLLOWING COMMON ENGLISH USAGE is not understood here? --В²C ☎ 04:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who don't want to use the diacritics can just ignore them. We can do it right. This isn't about "using English". We are using English. --Trovatore (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just ignore them? You must be kidding. Ignoring diacritics is about as easy as ignoring an extra nose growing out of the side of someone's head. That aside, even if you want to argue that these appalling, ugly and pointless blotches and flecks are "English" in some twisted sense, they are not common English. Most pertinently, this particular name is much more commonly rendered in English without the typographic detritus. --В²C ☎ 07:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is — out of not having the correct characters conveniently available, or being too lazy to look up which ones go where, or not knowing that they belong in the first place, or reasons like that. Not because it's better to leave them off. Leaving off the diacritics is inferior. We should be better than that. --Trovatore (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I don't bother lining my toilet with fur is not because I'm lazy - I don't do it because it's pointless. Using diacritics in English makes even less sense than lining a toilet bowl with fur. It's utterly useless. It adds no information. It has no value whatsoever. And it's ugly, unsightly and looks bad. Plus it's a pain in the ass. Nobody want's to look at it. Nobody needs it. Nobody benefits from it. And certainly nobody wants or needs to link to such crap. Diacritics are probably the biggest and stupidest waste of time and energy on WP, and that's saying something. Where is your sense of aesthetics? --В²C ☎ 08:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically everything you just said is wrong. Oh, except for the first two sentences, I suppose. --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - are we still having to suffer through these anti-diacritics crusades? In 2014? Seriously? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "actual authority on correct English" is Merriam-Webster (p. 1421), which gives this name with diacritics. See also Britannica and Columbia. La crème de la crème (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
• Oppose per In ictu oculi, Trovatore, et al. Omnedon (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The diacritics add proper information (accurate spelling), Slobodan Milosevic redirects where it should allowing smooth use for anyone preferring not to use the diacritics, and I trust the diacritics do not hinder legibility. Thus wiki seems to profit from diacritics (greater accuracy) with no downside to users or wiki itself. WP:DIACRITICS does not prevent use of the diacritics, while cited WP:COMMONNAME itself is misinterpreted in this proposal. The policy does not prohibit use of diacritics, which is quite evident in one of the examples of its application: François Mitterrand (not: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand) - note the diacritic is left in the example cited by the policy itself. Finally, the policy seems to have been aimed at having the article under more common and more recognizable names such as "Bill Clinton" rather than official ones like "William Jefferson Clinton". Also, as noted above, reputable authorities dealing with English (Webster, Britannica) keep diacritics in such cases. WP:COMMONNAME only requests that if diacritics are used in the title, a redirect must be provided per WP:TSC (which is already the case here)--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way is WP:COMMONNAME misinterpreted? Mr. Mitterand is commonly known with the shorter version of his name in English and Milosevic is commonly known by his name without diacritics in English. The proposal doesn't claim that diacritics are forbiden on wikipedia, but it is again and again repeated in Every article on naming conventions, even the proposed WP:SERBIANNAMES that if a common form of the name clearly exists in English-language media that we use that one instead of the official name or more "accurate" one offered by a non-common systematic transliteration, the relevant guideline is quoted above. So again, no one is claiming that diacritics are banned, and this move proposal does not affect the status of titles like François Mitterrand. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It is misinterpreted in the way that it addresses the issue of diacritics at all beyond WP:TSC. Wording and examples provided at WP:COMMONNAME (François Mitterrand) lead to a conclusion that the name is considered common, recognizable and within the policy regardless of use of diacritics in sources. NYT spells François Mitterrand's name without the diacritic (see here) yet it has no bearing on WP:COMMONNAME - quite correctly I might add.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The guideline is a big mess. The text implies you shouldn't use diacritics. But the examples say, "Go ahead," including some really goofy diacritics that no one else is using. No one in the publishing industry knows what a "common name" is. If we want people to think of us as an encyclopedia, we should do what other encyclopedias do. That's the way I look at it. La crème de la crème (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason the guidelines are written without concrete guidance is to not be more proscriptive than consensus will allow. They would be applied to literally every (notable) topic in the universe with names coming from a myriad of different languages. I agree that it appears contradictory, but the general principle is to use the most current and widely adopted standard for romanization when one particular form of the name doesn't clearly predominate in English-language reliable sources. How exactly that should apply to one name or a group of names is up to the editors to decide on a more-or-less per article basis. This is consistent with broader WP principles. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per about a million reasons which have been repeated ad nauseam already. Timbouctou (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - others have made the same points I would make. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou, User:Peacemaker67, yes, as with User:Zanhe, User:Tomobe03, User:Omnedon, User:Trovatore, User:Joy - hope you don't mind the ping [thank you for all your comments, I couldn't agree more], but I can't avoid a comment before an admin closes this RM and puts the worm back in the can for another 3 months. Judging from your Opposes it is evident that nothing has changed from the last 2 dozen times the subject was aired. i.e. the consensus of en.wp's article space contributors do not share the view that full spelling of Emily Brontë is "ugly, unsightly and looks bad", or Lech Wałęsa is "such crap" [for which thank you]. But at the end of the day (or after the close of the RM) the fact is the participants here don't edit the guidelines, so the view here [which happens to also be my view] only counts for this 1 article title, for the 7 days of this RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the ping, but I do mind the snarky "I'll have the last word" riposte. I didn't bring my library of sources on Yugoslavia into this, because I thought that it had been pretty well nailed by others that had already commented, such as the list produced by User:Neil P. Quinn. Just for starters, other highly respected authors on recent Yugoslav history, Sabrina Ramet (a Brit), Marko Attila Hoare (a Yugoslav/Brit), Noel Malcolm (a Brit), Misha Glenny (a Brit), and Pal Kolstø (a Norwegian) all use the diacritics. And they are just five books I pulled off the shelf virtually at random. The fact that some lazy journos in tabloid newspapers don't use diacritics is largely irrelevant, and hardly "overwhelming". More "underwhelming", actually. The academic literature on the man uses the diacritics, and we are looking for what he is referred to in the reliable, published sources, not when he is referred to in a column opposite the page three girl in Private Eye. None of the people I have listed are "some poorly endowed eggheads", referred to by some clown above. They are real academics writing important works referring to this man. There is a lot of dross out there, I suggest you read less of that, and more of the real academic work, and you will see plenty of diacritics. Have a better one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per In ictu oculi. FkpCascais (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Slobodan Milošević. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623160558/http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050125IT.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050125IT.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060701031332/http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050125IT.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050125IT.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.life.com/image/1611663/in-gallery/22899/the-worlds-worst-dictators

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Slobodan Milošević. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623152824/http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050209IT.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050209IT.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623160558/http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050125IT.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050125IT.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623160558/http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050125IT.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/050125IT.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.life.com/image/1611663/in-gallery/22899/the-worlds-worst-dictators

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

In the last couple of weeks a large amount of content has been added on Milosevic's rise to power. While background and context is necessary, much of it goes into far too much detail that is only tangentially related to Milosevic himself. This is meant to be his biography, not a detailed narrative of Serbian/Yugoslav mid to late 20th century history. Another problem is that much of the content is close to a cut and paste of whole sentences and paragraphs from the cited sources and hence arguably a copyright breach (as well as being why there is too much detail). N-HH talk/edits 11:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps chunks need to be removed, either that or linked to the subject properly. --OJ (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Death

The factual statements to his death are fine. However had this line appears inappropriate:

"In 2007 on his death's anniversary, Miroslav Milošević, better known as "Photo Mile", struck Slobodan Milošević's grave with a hawthorn stake through his heart in order to, according to him, prevent the body from rising from the grave.[139]"

I have no idea why this has to appear there. Perhaps there should be a separate mini-article, e. g. reactions after his death, or it should be in legacy. But I actually don't even know why this is in the article about Slobodan - why not make a page for Miroslav Milosevic and write it down there instead? Anyway just my opinion. 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree and I think it should simply be removed until such articles are created. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Balkan wars

The Balkan wars happened decades before he was born, so I doubt he had any part in them, as stated in the first paragraph of the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Well spotted. --OJ (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Strong Serbian bias to this article

I'm not trying to slam the Slobodan Milošević article, or make anyone feel badly, but although the facts seem to be quite well covered, the end of each paragraph seems to give him an 'out', an excuse, or try to asssert that Milošević didn't actually do anything wrong. I get the idea by reading the entire article that although he was charged with crimes against humanity and left in den Haag til he died a few years later, he was an innocent man. From the article, I even get the impression that the author is asserting that he never even issued kill orders to HIS OWN TROOPS. I unfortunately have real real trouble believing that a president of a sovereign nation knows nothing about, nor even tries to stop, his troops, who for years mass-murder thousands. Well, again, let's reevaluate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardssr (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The article has some other problems, such as the 2007 mention past his death, which I don't feel should be on the article here, but instead should be on the article for Miroslav Milosevic instead. The first concern for wikipedia should be to GATHER and CITE facts and factual evidence, without any bias in either way. Then, add separate subsections for "praise and criticism". As for "his troops who mass murdered", well - that happens in every war, including the wars condoned by supposed "democracies". War crimes happen all the time on all sides. I have nothing against mentioning all the facts, mind you, but it has to happen in an OBJECTIVE manner on ALL wikipedia articles. Otherwise you would again incur reader or write bias in favour or against something. 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, war crimes do not happen every time by both sides. A war crime is an event either sanctioned by the government whose citizens commit the crimes, or are at least under the direction of an officer of some rank. Heinous actions by individuals are just crimes. 104.169.37.15 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What mass-murders are you refering to exactly? FkpCascais (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@104.169.37.15. Care to name a war whereby one side refrained from war crimes? --OJ (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

I have a problem with the sentence

"The public image of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia oscillated from a faceless bureaucrat to defender of Serbs,[156] while the attitude of the Western accounts toward Milošević oscillated from Milošević being demonized as the "Butcher of the Balkans" to Milošević being the "guarantor of the peace in the Balkans"".

For one I think the lines confusing considering in the sentences before it is said

"In 2010, the Life website included Milošević in its list of "The World's Worst Dictators".[155] He remains a controversial figure in Serbia and the Balkans due to the Yugoslav wars and his abuse of power, especially during the elections in both 1997 and 2000."

These statements seem contradictory to one another, with the former indicating that Slobodan Milošević has been exonerated in Serbia and the "West", while the latter indicates that he remains controversial and possibly remains a vile figure in the "Western" consciousness. On another note I feel the exonerating statement may be based on whimsical propaganda trying to clear his name rather then the facts. Are there any polls from Serbia and the other parts of Europe that may backup or refute these claims?

I feel the best course of action would be to delete the final sentence entirely if there is no further evidence to support it. An alternative however could be to just change the wording to be more neutral so that it reads, ""The public image of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia has oscillated between a faceless bureaucrat to defender of Serbs,[156] while the attitude of the Western accounts toward Milošević has oscillated between Milošević being the "Butcher of the Balkans" and Milošević being the "guarantor of the peace in the Balkans." This would help better indicate that he remains controversial and has not been exonerated entirely in the public consciousness nor by historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A311:D100:6894:543A:879B:2F1C (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

He was a war criminal.

Another reader commented that he was possibly not guilty? He sent death squads to kill his own people and thousands of Albanians in Kosovo died in his crimes against humanity. 97.116.19.198 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No evidence of crimes against humanity

Trial at the Hague sections says: "Milošević died before the trial could be concluded; he was therefore never found guilty of the charges brought against him. " This implies he was guilty but because he died the court could not deliver the guilty verdict. Maybe he wasnt found guilty because he wasnt guilty? In the trial of Mladic and Karadzic the verdicts state: "The evidence received by the Trial Chamber did not show that Slobodan Milošević, Jovica Stanišić, Franko Simatović, Željko Ražnatović, or Vojislav Šešelj participated in the realization of the common criminal objective". That is a posthomous acquittal, and it is well hidden in the legacy section but it should be in the trial section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.112.187 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(a) No, it does not imply he was guilty. (b) No, Milošević was not "posthumously acquitted" because Mladić and Karadžic were accused/sentenced for crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Milošević's was mostly indicted for crimes committed in Kosovo. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Add a section for honours/decorations

The list of Milošević’s honours and decorations should be included in this article. From information on the Russian and Serbian Wikipedias, his honours were:

• Order of Labour (Yugoslavia)
• Order of the Republika Srpska
• Order of Yugoslavia

142.219.49.126 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-sourced:

• Order of Labour (Yugoslavia)
• Order of the People's Hero
• Order of the Republika Srpska
• Order of Yugoslavia

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources provided failed verification (sources 1-3) or were not apparently reliable sources (source 4). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

Can someone please tweak pp-semi|small=yes → pp-semi-indef. 209.249.71.60 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

Hello! I would like to replace [slobǒdan milǒːʃeʋitɕ] with [sɫɔ̝bɔ̝̌dan miɫɔ̝̌ːʂɛ̝ʋit͡ɕ] as this transcription is more accurate. Thanks! Unreasonableperson (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022

I would like to link the text at the beginning of the fourth paragraph, "Milošević resigned from the Yugoslav presidency amid demonstrations," to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_Slobodan_Milošević . Jifferson68 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have added the link for you. If you were asking for permission to do so yourself, note that this page is semi-protected, and so only accounts with 10 edits that are 4 days old can edit this article. Permission to edit pages protected in this manner cannot be done on an account-by-account basis. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Slobodan Milošević, official portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)