Talk:Trial of Draža Mihailović

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the list of the accused in the order the Communists presented them in?--Methodius 12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. They are in the order in which their names would have been read out. I am not sure if this indicates the penalties they were assigned to be given. :) Why, do you want to rearrnage them in another way?--As286 12:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) --As286 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, that makes sense. I was just wondering why Moljević was given such significance.--Methodius 12:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved the sources tag to the abuse of process part, as that is really where proper sources need to be quoted. The rest of the article is simply a retelling of the official proceedings which are publicly available on the web site quoted in the references.--As286 18:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrial was not called for only by the Serbs. As a matter of fact, a number of them would very much like him to stay convicted. There were Cetniks elsewhere in ex-YU (Aleksander Bajt in Slovenia, for instance). The Americans have also protested in 1946 and so have the French. Also, parts of the ex-YU population believe that the case ought to be revised on the account of other crimes that were not properly dealt with such as various war crimes that were not in the indictment.--As286 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC) --As286 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the section should be elaborated a little then. The calls for rehabilitation of the late 1940s, and the calls for rehabilitation in the 2000s are both significant, but vastly different in nature. For instance, the French and Americans would probably not be very supportive of such an idea today. Regards. --Thewanderer 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That is probably true. Corrected accordingly.--As286 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are putting the NPOV tag, please explain what it is that you are disputing. As mentioned, the article is based almost exclusively on the proceedings published in 1946 and contains no opinions, except for one in the section on abuse of proceedings.--As286 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article has to be deleted.I t describes a war criminal as a hero.

This article has to be deleted.It describes a war criminal as a hero. The neutrality of this article is disputed, and contains unverified claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.4 (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC).