Talk:Ratko Mladić/Archive 1

Archive 1

Military promotions

The article says that Mladic was promoted to General Major in 1991, and to General Lieutenant in 1992. Since the latter is actually a lower rank, this doesn't make sense. Could someone check the facts? GregorB 21:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I figure it wasn't a lower rank in the Yugoslav People's Army. The Croatian page on JNA confirms my suspicion, general-pukovnik is higher than general-major. --Joy [shallot]

It might be a good idea to use the Serbo-croat term, possibly putting a rough English equivalent in parenthesis beside for clarity... Rama 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to suppose that "General Major" and "General Lieutenant" correspond to US/UK Major General and Lieutenant General. The latter is indeed one rank higher than the former. GdB 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mladić was promoted to "general-major" (translates to major general) in October 1991 and to "general-potpukovnik" (translates to liuetenant colonel general) in April 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.80.131 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Very important

SOMEONE PUT THIS PICTURE IN THIS ARTICLE,ITS FROM SERBIAN WIKIPEDIA

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Mladic_i_Clark.jpg

IF YOU DONT RECOGNIZE THE OTHER MAN,IT IS FAMOUS AMERICAN GENERAL AND CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT,ALSO COMANDING NATO AT THE TIME.THAT WHY THIS PICTURE SHOULD BE HERE IN ANY CASEDzoni 05:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of ethnic cleansing against Serbs

"The city was bombarded with shells, snipers randomly killed civilians, and ethnic cleansing campaigns against Serbs as well as non-Serbs were conducted"

How should I interpret this? Did Mladic's troops also conduct ethnic cleansing campaigns against serbs ( his own people?) or do you mean that other parties did the same thing to them? Evilbu 11:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That should probably be clarified. There were BiH Army factions that killed and expelled Serb civilians in some areas, though not on the same scale as what non-Serbs suffered. Mladić had more to do General Stanislav Galić's campaign of constant shelling and sniping of civilians than the looting and other close-quarters criminal activity, which were conducted by paramilitary units, primarily Arkans Tigers and Šešelj's White Eagles (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/III-A.htm#IV.A.35). Timmay 17:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well by all means, please edit that part. That would be very interesting. Evilbu 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually wondering why that is even mentioned here, as a cursory mention of the siege is warranted, but details of that which was not perpetrated by Mladić does not bear mention in this entry, but would have a place in the Sarajevo Siege entry. I'll look at it and see if there could be better phrasing. Timmay 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of 1995 Croatian offensive

Today i eliminated language from the section of this article that referred to the Croation offensive against the Krajina in 1995. As it stood, the section ran along the lines of "a massive Croation force poised to cleanse the Serb Krajina (just has had the Ustashe in WWII). In an edit summary when this information was inserted, the editor (who lacks a wikipedia account) said that they were inserting undeniable information. While the fact that the Croatian state run by Pavelic did occupy the Krajina is undeniable, the fact that the 'cleansed' it is. Furthermore, it would seem illogical that an area cleansed of Serbs would remain a centre of Serb population into the 1990's. Additionally, the statement that Croatian forces both intended to and accomplished their goal of cleansing the Krajina of Serbs needs support from an outside source. As to the ongoing debate over whether Mladic is a hero of the Serbian people, i think it could be effectively summarized with the old addage that one mans hero is another mans terrorist. As to the statement that in two years the US 'decided' that Mladic was a war criminal, it's important to consider a couple things. First of all, when Clarke said he was an honorable man, there were ongoing negotitions to which Mladic (and his goodwill) were key. This was not true two years later. Secondly, the period between 1994 and 1996 includes the month of July 1995, when forces under Mladics command overran the Srebrenica enclave and massacred in the range of 7000 men and boys. Please don't do yourself the disservice of denying what happened at Srebrenica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.139.242 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove dispute tag?

I can't really find any arguments that this article is biased. Two account holders (one of whom has been suspended) have made positive statements about Mladić, yet don't point to any specific sentences or segments that they feel should be removed. In the absence of any structured argument against the article’s neutrality, can we remove the dispute tag? If not, can you please provide the reason why you wish the dispute tag to remain and cite the biased words, sentences, or paragraphs? Thanks. Jim Campbell 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate?

The ICTY indictment and the interpol searchwarrant list 1942 as his bithdate, not 1943 als the article states. What is right? Tdevries 13:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Message to user Evv

Sorry, there is nothing to discuss. Mladiq was born in Bosnia and so he is Bosnian, that is the rule. Don't believe it, you just consult user Alkalada or he will tell you straight. Stop reverting me, we dont allow for Serbian nationalism on Wiki. Barbaric 22:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mladic quote

Add this "evo nas, 11 jula, 1995 godine, u srpskoj srebrenici, u oci jos jednoga velikoga praznika srpskoga, poklanjamo srpskoga narodu ovaj grad, i napokon dosao je trenutak da se posle bune protiv dahija, turcima osvetimo na ovom prostoru"

"Here we are, on 11th July, 1995 year, in Serbian Srebrenica, just before a great Serb Holy day.(petrovden). We give this town to the Serb Nation. Remembering the uprising against the Turks, the time has come to take revenge on the Turks"

I just want to add another quote,to demonstrate how peacefull Djeneral Ratko really was,and how he tryed to prevent the war:

"If humankind were to follow my advice and if it were in my power, I wouldn't allow the word 'war' to be uttered in any language, I would ban all weapons, even in the form of toys." From interview with Robert Block, 1995 Ice Cold 02:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation above is a very fine example of dirty lie and manipulation, so common in serbian politicians. And tis is the man whom Serbs see as a hero. Nice. --83.131.150.49 11:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont see what is so dirty in ones opinion that there should be no wars and weapons,General Mladic was a pacifist and thats a very rare thing for a politician,so it shows you why Serbs respect him so much,because he always tryed to do his best to stop the war.

What is dirty is American foreign policy.I can also find a quote from General Wesley Clark(who later was candidate for USA president)in witch he called General Mladic "an honorable man".It was in 1994.Only couple of years later America changed its policy and now they say General Mladic is a war criminal,just because he defended his nation. Ice Cold 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Defended his nation ? From who ? He was the agressor. Anonymous16:00, 21 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.129.169 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE ADD THIS VIDEO http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8545884329966500873 thanx

Who do you want to convinnce with such quotes. Actions count, not quotes. Hitler himself was full of them.

IceCold: really smart! Look where are you, what you economic situation is. Because such criminals as milosevic, mladic and Karadzic. I just can't believe how can you be such masochists and support people that have a place alongside Hitler, not heroes. JohnBlackcomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.170.128 (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular figure in Serbia

I believe that the picture (and its caption) emphisising Ratko Mladic's popularity in Serbia is biased, as it is a matter of opinion. The caption does not specify among who Ratko Mladic is popular, at the moment I believe that it implies that all Serbs support or see Mladic as a hero and this is simply not the case. The caption may say "Ratko Mladic is a popular figure among nationalists in Serbia today" or something along those lines, another possible solution is to delete the picture (as I have once tried to do) unless someone discovers an alternative or gives a good reason as to why this should be kept. Mladenrox69 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed. --82.183.224.40 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this picture is important because it illustrates the fact that he is popular within some portions of Serbian society. The caption says he is popular among some nationalists, which is not the same as all of Serbian society. I don't know of any survey on how popular he is, but it is undeniable that some in Serbia still look to him as a hero. If you think a citation is needed for this, I can provide them. but the picture stays. Dchall1 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

What encyclopedic value on a biography article does latitude and longitude of a birth place have? Is there any reason to keep them here, seems very encyclopedic and out of place, and breaks up the flow of the article. What is the point Joy? // laughing man 03:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems encyclopedic? Maybe you meant to say the opposite? :)

The previous editors included no less than two mentions of it, which I condensed appropriately, as well as a historical description (that is otherwise available a few clicks away). It can be argued that this historical description helps describe the wider context; equally, it can be argued that a one-sentence geographical definition also helps describe the context. The fact that he was born and grew up in a place that's in the middle of a mountain, fairly far away from the mentioned urban areas, can be useful in the evaluation of the biography. --Joy [shallot] 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think any Encyclopedia would ever have the latitude and longitude in a biography article. It's really ridiculous here, and I really don't believe you don't see that way. What VALUE does it add to this article? nothing. It belongs in a geography article about the village, not in a biography.

You know that, but perhaps you don't like accepting sometimes that you are wrong. // laughing man 14:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In any case, please provide a citation for these cooridinates, as right now, it looks like its your original research. Thank you. // laughing man 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not difficult to verify them [1], but I do agree it's strange thing to have in a biographical article. How about creating a stub on Božinovići instead? Well, it's actually a well researched village (http://www.b92.net/info/emisije/insajder.php?nav_id=190149&yyyy=2006&mm=02) just because of... Duja► 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mladic's 1993 picture in article a forgery?

The picture where General Ratko Mladić (centre) arrives for UN-mediated talks at Sarajevo airport, June 1993, taken by Mikhail Evstafiev shows a men standing to his right who is nonetheless Mladic himself!!! Either this is his body double, or the picture is a fake. Very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.96.106 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

His comments

These comments of his

People are not little stones, or keys in someone's pocket, that can be moved from one place to another just like that … Therefore, we cannot precisely arrange for only Serbs to stay in one part of the country while removing others painlessly. I do not know how Mr Krajišnik and Mr Karadžić will explain that to the world. That is genocide, said Mladić.[28]

from Srebrenica massacre should probably be added, at least in part, to the article for balance reasons Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I definetely agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexv123 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth

Many sources, written and online, give 1943 as his birth year instead of 1942 given here. It seems to me that 1943 is correct -- for one thing, Mladic has been quoted saying that his father was killed on his second birthday. --Ker (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

June 2009 events in the intro?

I saw the FTV report with the alleged 2008 footage of Ratko Mladic as an older man, with a cane, walking on a snowy mountainous path. Did anyone else? They cut the video right before the zoom in. Now, did anyone see the original of that video, with the zoom? You can clearly see Ratko as a younger man, not so much older than the other videos. FTV presents these videos as being hidden from the world. Serbia however did send these videos to the Hague tribunal, and this has been confirmed. Olli Rehn also stated that he doesn't believe what FTV stated. Do they have any proof? Are there any references that actually have some proof that this video is from 2008, other than 'they just said so', without any concrete evidence? If not, that should be removed from the intro, as any TV station can make false claims and then wait for others to disprove them - as these have already been disproved to a great extent. --Cinéma C 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources, anyone?

There is a lot of non-sourced content in this article. Paragraphs that rant about stories with no references. Can this page be cleaned up, and maybe made a little bit more objective? 65.115.72.2 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You can add this: , by writing {{fact}} for the sentences you are disputing and wait for someone to add references, OR you could try to find references for those sentences yourself. --Cinéma C 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, or could remove the paragraphs if they look like obvious stories. There should not be half a dozen non-cited full blown paragraphs. Intent is obvious. 65.115.72.2 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Take Cinema's advice next time. PRODUCER (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe you crack me up! I wonder if you look funny too. Nothing to contribute to discussion but "take advice"? 65.115.72.2 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are according to Norwegian press, there is a ongoing police enquiry, reasons to believe that he is living in Norway under an assumed name. This could be backed up with various sources and eye witness accounts. Would that be something that would be worth adding to the article? 193.157.203.127 (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mladić, caught in Romania?

According to Evenimentul Zilei, some "anonymous" governmental source said that Mladić was caught near Drobeta-Turnu Severin by some joint Romanian-British operation. (Mladici, prins in Romania?)

Should we add this or wait for the official confirmation? bogdan 22:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

as rumour to a RS source, yeah.(Lihaas (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)).

Milorad Komadic

"Milorad Komadic" doesn't redirect here, but Dragan Dabic redirects to another Serb. Shouldn't both names redirect to the relevant Serbs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Birth year again

Serb nationalists attempted to celebrate his 65th birthday in 2008, I doubt 1942 is right. http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serb-nationalists-mark-mladic-s-birthday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ker (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In "General Mladic" by Liljana Bulatovic, Mladic is even quoted: "Mladic: Ja sam rodjen 1943. godine kada je Jugoslavija gorela u ratu..." --Ker (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Execution/arrest?

On the article under "arrest" it says "According to Serbian President Boris Tadic, Ratko Mladic was arrested on 26 May 2011 in Lazarevo, near Zrenjanin in the Banat region of the northern province of Vojvodina and later was executed." Yet a few lines after that it says he was being prepared to be extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal. Is he killed or just arrested? Shuipzv3 (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13561407 HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Arrested and awaiting trail at the Hague the I guess. They either misquoted the Serbian pres or he had his facts wrong at the time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Precedent of using Flag of Kosovo

(This discussion pertains to the use of the Kosovo flag in the reactions section)

Precedent:

• International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war
• Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden

Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for any flags and the use of them in this context goes against the MOS. Bjmullan (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not. There is no explanation here for the neutrality tag or why Kosovo is listed as "Other Entities". Viciouspiggy (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

per Bjmullan MOSFLAGS doesnt allow for it. and also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (which can go both ways) is not a reason to include it. Furthermore it shouldnt be used on those pages either.

kosovo is not wholly recognised as a state. that way Palestine would be listed as such and not "Palestinian territories" neither is S. Ossetia or Abkhazia.(Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)).

Why do some people consider him a hero? --or -- Public opinion in Serbia

The article could benefit if it would explain for what reason there seems to be public support in Serbia for this person, some people even regarding him a hero. From his involvement in the Balkan wars, as the article describes, one mostly learns he was a mediocre general without manifest military accomplishments. Whereas his negative image in most parts of Europe and, of course, the former parts of Yugoslavia goes without saying (does it?), the article should outline what Serbian people might associate with him. (PS: I am from Germany and don't much more than explained in the article.)--131.220.99.58 (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It probably should as long as there are RSs on it. Preferably in English so that there isn't as much emotion in them and non-South Slavonian editors can check them. Yep, old capital of the BRD. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I added something to EL that mentions it, one can merge that into the article if need be?(Lihaas (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)).

File:Col. Karremans.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Col. Karremans.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Daughter's suicide

I object to Mladic's daughter's suicide being used for cheap political points. There is no evidence that she committed suicide because of 'disgust at the way her father was leading the war'. This interpretation, popular with western media at the time, was meant to paint a picture how his own daughter could not live with the burden of having a father like Mladic. As no suicide note was left, that we know of, we can only speculate as to the true motives. At the time of her suicide there was intense media criticism in Belgrade (where his daughter was studying) of general Mladic and the Bosnian Serb leadership, for failing to endorse peace proposals. It is possible that this public criticism was too much to bear for a 23-year-old. I repeat, we do not know the true reasons for the suicide, and we should not try to second-guess them. She is dead, and let her rest in peace. I have ammended the article accordingly, and I hope it is satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.7.24 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 December 2004 (UTC)

The contradictory informations about the reasons for the suicide of Mladic's daugther is in itself an interesting piece of information (by the way, what was her name ?). I have found very few informations about the young girl herself, only things in respect to her father; it would be interesting to find more (beginning with her first name !), particularly about her political beliefs. The difficulties created by the absence of a suicide note could then be overcome. By the way, excuse me, but as I understand them, your proposal for alternative reasons for the suicide seem quite close to a political protest against Ratko Mladic.

I would advise that a clear mention of the political theory of this suicide be mentionned here; since it is quite widely known, neglecting this could appear as a defense of Ratko Mladic, which would weaken the article. Thus, if contradicting theories have to be mentionned, they should be with references. I have put a reference to an article which states the "political suicide" theory, it should remain along with references of the contradicting opinion. What would you think of something like this :

In 1994, his daughter committed suicide; it is widely believed that the act was done in disgust or in protest at the way her father was leading the war ([2], [3]). However, no suicide note was found, and some people in Serbia believe that the suicide might not have been politically loaded. She rests in Topcider; it is believed that for some time Mladic came regularly to see the grave.

Of course, I'd like to put a link to an example immidiately after "some people in Serbia believe that the suicide might not have been politically loaded". Rama 21:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Her name was Ana.

I do not believe this article should be in defense (or in attack) of Mladic but should be as factual as possible. This is especially true for someone who is so controvercial even today. In this respect I am not even too happy with the version I posted. But at least that version combines two coincident facts: (a) her suicide, and (b) sudden media campaign against her father in her country. The linking of the two is quite speculative though (altough it is the theory I have come across most often), as is the linking of the way her father conducted the war to her suicide.

I have a real problem with the two weblinks you suggest. These are not 'sources' as such, but speculative reports from the past, and I do not believe they reflect any 'widely' held belief.

A quick search for Ana Mladic on google gives a number of results in Serbian. None of them give any hint as to disgust at the way the war was fought. One particular article by a family friend paints a picture of an extremely close father-daughter relationship. Apparently Ana was one of the best students in her year, and Mladic was extremely proud of this. Close to her suicide she complained of strong headaches, if this means anything. She also asked to go back to Bosnia with her father, but Mladic did not allow this.

If there is anything interesting about this story it is that a man like Mladic, however brutal he is, has capacity to show great care for his close family. If this indeed was the case then it certainly plays to the theory that she was brought to suicide by the intensive adverse media campaign surrounding her father. This is why I think there should be no reference to his daughter's disgust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.7.24 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 December 2004 (UTC)

There are no evidence for or against the suicide or any motive. The book that was used as a source is certainly no official police report. At the time when this covered no media have published any news on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.38.136 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mladic's son's Muslim wife Aida

I need urgent clarification. In previous edits, as well as from Serbian media, it was correctly pointed that Darko Mladic's wife was Aida. Later, she quietly changed her name to Biljana. There was no big fuss over her change of name in the Serbian media. But, it is a fact that her former name was Aida, she changed it to Biljana. Does anyone have any more info on this? ""Darko Mladić married Aida, who gave birth on March 2, 2006 to a boy, the first grandchild of Mladić. The child has been named after the saint St. Stefan, the protector of Republika Srpska." source http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Ratko_Mladi%C4%87 .Bosniak (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There have been those rumors on certain Serbian internet media websites but it has never been confirmed.

Also if her name is Aida that doesn't mean that she is Muslim, in fact she is absolutely not Muslim since a Muslim woman cannot marry a kafir and still stay Muslim.

Conclusion she is not Muslim even if her real name once was Aida.

PS.Some critical thinking wouldn't hurt you User:Bosniak since obviously not everything you read online is true. Zec (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

oh please, lets not get into politics here. there are plenty of strains of sects in every relgion that believes one wya or the other. See the wife of Sachin Pilot. theres not "critical thinking" here (Lihaas (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).

NATO reaction

I think the section under Reactions entitled International should be retitled NATO.

After all, every opinion in that section, with the exception of the Swedish one, is the reaction of a government official of a NATO country, while Sweden is of course near the heart of NATO country.

(Or, perhaps it could be called Victor, since NATO was unquestionably the victor in the war against Yugoslavia, and no doubt Mr Mladic, whether the charges against him are true or false, is bound to surely face victor's justice.) Son of eugene (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to question the entire section. I do not think it is even necessary to have an "International" section within the Reactions. What importance do France and Turkey have to Ratko Mladić? Or Sweden, Albania, or the UK for that matter? A simple "Reactions" section with reactions from Serbia, the regions directly affected by Mladić (Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia, etc) and then the EU. I mean, look at this: UK "called it excellent news", Turkey "called it great news", Netherlands "called it great news", Albania "called it great news". Of course they are going to all say the same thing--why would they say otherwise? It's frivolous. I say get rid of these subcategories and keep the "reactions" section.--Jesuislafete (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jesuislafete. Reaction should always be confined to the principal players. Possibly there may be a case for an 'International repercussions' section later, but presently there doesn't seem to be a need for one. Similarly in the ongoing Strauss-Kahn Sexual Assault Allegations article, reaction should be confined to America and France, the players involved. User Wikiwatcher1's valorisation, for example, in that article of the views of the hitherto little known Francesco Sisci, Director of the Institute for Italian Culture in Beijing and writing in Asia On Line, which are of little relevance and notability to the article, yet at the last count Wikiwatcher1 had three references in the article (a watershed for history, no wonder there are conspiracy theories, if only SDK could get over this little setback he will make a great French president ... incisive stuff like that) is just plain wrong-headed, however much in good faith.

Please get rid of the dross here, It only sets bad examples which make life difficult for the rest of us elsewhere. FightingMac (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

the precedence here is "supranationa:l"(Lihaas (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)).

I propose we create an article that is similar to the Arrest and prosecution of Radovan Karadžić article. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

General Ratko Mladic was not a Communist after 1991

@Island Monkey: Sorry for not explaining the removal of the category "Yugoslav communists". I think that the membership of the Communist Party during the Eastern Bloc era does not prove that a person was still a Communist after the fall of this bloc. Actually many members or leaders of the Communist Parties (including Boris Yeltsin, Ivica Racan, Milan Kucan etc) were against the continuation of the regime's existence. In addition, the 99% of the JNA officers were members of the SKJ. After all, I think that General Ratko Mladic never cited after 1991 that he was still a Communist, that he was in favor of Communism. So I think is right to remove the category "Yugoslav Communists" from the article. Radical Agitator (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ratko Mladić. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090526144843/http://www.interpol.int/public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/1995/54/1995_47754.asp to http://www.interpol.int/public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/1995/54/1995_47754.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Srebrenica misrepresentation

In the article about Ratko Mladic, the description says he was convicted, in part, due to the Srebrenica massacre. According to a reliable source, the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia case IT-09-92, the crime was described as a genocide. There should be a change from the word massacre to genocide, as the body that was created to shed some light on the events in former Yugoslavia described and confirmed the description in two verdicts for Mladic and numerous others (e.g. Karadzic case IT-95-5/18). All of the verdicts are accessible on the internet with a simple Google search. 2A02:27B0:5502:19B0:FC5C:1214:B974:F36B (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

IP, read the Srebrenica massacre talk page discussions with regard to the name. WP titles are generally chosen according to WP:COMMONNAME, not according to court decisions. The general view is that 'massacre' is used more commonly than 'genocide', very possibly because the name was established before the court decisions. Regardless of the reason though, the article states clearly both that 'genocide' is an alternate name and that courts have ruled it to be a genocide. Not all genocides are automatically referred to as 'XYZ genocide', witness the Holocaust as the best known example. Btw, this isn't really the proper place to discuss this topic, unless you are trying to canvas support, rather than discuss the topic in hand. Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)