Template:Calm talk

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Yugoslavia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yugoslavia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Balkan / European C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500 – present) European military history task force

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]