Jump to content

Talk:Slobodan Milošević

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:8388:1600:c80:be5f:f4ff:fecd:7cb2 (talk) at 17:43, 24 June 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


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)[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]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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.
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]
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)[reply]
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)[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]

—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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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]
  • 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[reply]
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi, Trovatore, et al. Omnedon (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slobodan_Milošević&oldid=726828162"