Talk:Slobodan Milošević: Difference between revisions
Neil Shah-Quinn (talk | contribs) →Survey: Weak oppose |
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Survey: What part of FOLLOWING COMMON ENGLISH USAGE is not understand here? |
||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
** M. Spoerri (2010), "Crossing the line: partisan party assistance in post-Milošević Serbia", ''Democratisation'' |
** M. Spoerri (2010), "Crossing the line: partisan party assistance in post-Milošević Serbia", ''Democratisation'' |
||
—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 04:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
—[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 04:46, 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 understand here? --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 04:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
||
Revision as of 04:56, 9 September 2014
Template:Vital article Template:Calm
| This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.
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)
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
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.
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)
just one example of the problems with this article
| WP:UNCIVIL |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
" Milošević denounced the declaration of independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Yugoslavia in 1992, and said that "Bosnia and Herzegovina was illegally proclaimed as an independent state and recognized. That recognition was like when the Roman Emperor Caligula appointed his horse as a Senator: they recognized a state that never existed before. The Serbs there said, 'We want to stay within Yugoslavia. We don't want to be second-class citizens.' And then the conflicts were started by Muslims, no doubt. And the Serbs, in defending themselves, were always better fighters, no doubt. And they achieved results, no doubt. But please, we were insisting on peace. The international community gave premature recognition first of Slovenia and then of Croatia and supported the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina on a totally irregular basis." " Whoever inserted this crap has very poor English skills, and the statements are childish. What a mess . . . 23:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC) |
Requested move 2
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 understand here? --В²C ☎ 04:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
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)
- 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)




