Talk:Ratko Mladić

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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 ([1], [2]). 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] VERY VERY VERY 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Brithdate?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] cooridinates

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 [3], 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)