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:

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 (assessed as High-importance). 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. Template:WikiProject Belgrade Bosnia and Herzegovina High‑importance Slobodan Milošević is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Serbia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Kosovo High‑importance Slobodan Milošević is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. North Macedonia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia 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.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Slobodan Milošević → Slobodan MilosevicSlobodan 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]
• Lenard J. Cohen (2002), Serpent In The Bosom: The Rise And Fall Of Slobodan Milosevic, Westview Press [2]
• Chris Stephen (2005), Judgement day: the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, Atlantic Monthly Press [3]
• Eric Gordy (2013), Guilt, Responsibility, and Denial: The Past at Stake in Post-Milošević Serbia [4]
• Nebojsa Vladisavljevic (2008), Serbia's antibureaucratic revolution: Milosevic, the fall of communism and nationalist mobilization, , Palgrave Macmillan [5]
• M. Spoerri (2010), "Crossing the line: partisan party assistance in post-Milošević Serbia", Democratisation [6]

--В²C ☎ 05:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Oppose - are we still having to suffer through these anti-diacritics crusades? In 2014? Seriously? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any additional comments:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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