Talk:Slobodan Milošević/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Death of Political Opponents

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Formulation of Serbian desires

message: 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)
thread_title: Nationalist?

message: 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)
thread_title: Wording

message: 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)
replies: text: Wasn't it Radovan Karadic who was a psychiatrist before? andy 11:54, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's Karadzic, and yes, Milošević has a law degree, it's Karadžić who was a psychiatrist. --Shallot 17:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychiatrist?

message: How do you pronounce his last name?
: Something like slo-BO-dahn me-LO-sheh-vitch. --Shallot 17:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronounciation? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Milo&#353;evi&#263;'s politics 

message: Can somebody please provide references for citeing the points of this agreement? --Dejan Čabrilo 22:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miloševi&#263;-Holbrooke-Tudjman Agreement 

message: 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)
thread_title: POV?

message: 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)
thread_title: Trial

message: 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)
thread_title:  wtf? NPOV alert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This does not represent a Neutral Point of View 

message: I've added the names of Slobodan Milošević's parents.
Gardenworker 07:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents names 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lock Article / Block IP 

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

message: This article, especially the introduction, needs a little clean-up. Captain Jackson 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've removed the curious ending of that sentence. -- ChrisO 00:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-Up 

message: -- 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)
thread_title:  On poisoning and source links 

message: 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)
thread_title: too much death

message: -- 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)
thread_title:  Location / split 

message: 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)
thread_title: Category

message: Please provide source links for the quotes and information provided in this section. NEMT 19:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Burial

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing NPOV flag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reasons for denying leave to go to Russia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV flag removed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Why Milosevic Was Murdered

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments to the bottom please 

message: 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)
thread_title: Please add to burial section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slobo the rigid moralist 

message: 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)
thread_title: Why links to sources are removed?

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Three dead leaders 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Burial - brief info 

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

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

text: →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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Allegations of coverup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nationalism 

message: "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 . 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 () 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)
thread_title:  When did Owen say that? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: … 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  War Criminal? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: death section too long

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indictment charges 

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''Slobodone Might be a Red Croatian''' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Image

message: 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)
thread_title: Greater Serbia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picked the wrong side? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion Within Article

message: 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)
thread_title:  1997-2000 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism? and kinda long too 

message: 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)
thread_title: International relations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Other Side of the Story

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diana Johnston and Mirjana Markovic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neil Clark - defender of Milosevic 

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

message: Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment