Talk:Radovan Karadžić/Archive 1

Location
The whereabouts of Karadzic?

There's not much in this article about the current whereabouts of this wanted war criminal.. Is this because it's assumed that he is in Republika Srpska? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.1.223 (talk • contribs) 14 December 2005

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

Not sure what infobox is appropriate for a genocidal fugitive. Otherwise, the article warrants a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 01:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased first line
I removed the first line of this article, combining it with the second. It read that Karadžić "is a man who killed dozens of Bosniak men and boys and ordered rapes of Bosniak women and girls." Too biased, especially since he has not been convicted. While it may be true, it is not the proper way to introduce an article either.--Agent of the Reds 20:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Balkan peace petition
This is documentation regarding BALKAN PEACE PETITION and the march for peace by Neil Gittings

L'est Republican monday 28,febuary 1994 edition de Nancy

SLOVENEC Petek,13,maja 1994 by Zvone Zigon

Karntner Tageszeitung Mittwoch,27,April 1994

DELO http://www.delo.si/ stredna,4,maja 1994 by Romana Dobnikar-Seruga Lubijana

BORBA http://www.borba.co.yu Beograd petak 20,may 1994 by T.N.

ПОЛИТИКА/POLITIKA http://www.politika.co.yu/ Beograd petak 27 maj 1994

Freudenstadter Zeitung http://www.ktz.at/wm_frameset.php dienstag,15 marz 1994

VECERNJE NOVINE http://www.novosti.co.yu/code/navigate.php?Id=2 Sarajevo 20 juni/lipanj 1994 by B.Ekmcic

DNEVNIK Medarodna Politica petek 6,maja 1994 http://www.dnevnik.co.yu/ or http://www.dnevnik.bg/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.73.17 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 August 2007


 * Thank you for your hard work in collecting these sources. However, as this is the English version of Wikipedia, sources should be in English so that our readers may verify the material themselves. Please see this page for more details. Dchall1 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry,I removed the "citation needed" befor having read the last entry....I am afraid I don't know how to return to the pre-edited version.I will try to get some translations made.Yanitz 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chess master?
I have read that he is a strong player, a master in fact. worth mentioning in article if true.--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed link name
I changed the link called to "Serbian Propaganda" to the full article name Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.196.134 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New picture likely to be released since arrest
With Karadzic under arrest in Serbia, a new picture of him is likely to be released shortly. Since the most recent pictures currently available of Karadzic are 12 or 13 years old from 1995 or 1996, a new picture should replace the current one on this article when it is made available, unless of course if it is of poor quality. If the image is of any good quality I suggest that a user request permission to use such an image for Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre
Any discussion of Karadzic is grossly incomplete without a description of and a link to the article on the Srebrenica Massacre, which is a very complete description of the thousands of men and boys (and women) killed by Karadzic's forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.5.254.34 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight
Having the article end with reactions to his arrest and particularly with a quote about a red letter day for justice is not an optimal situation and probably violates WP:NPOV and maybe even of WP:BLP (he is, as yet, only accused). While the statements are sourced, I suggest they are being given too much prominence and that the whole section should be rewritten/moved within the article or just removed entirely. Rmhermen (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article image
Is that not a picture of Slobodan Milosevic??? Shona isbister (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's Radovan Karadžić. They look nothing like each other, Milošević may have been grey but he never had that much hair on his head. Some have said that the other one, Ratko Mladić looks a bit more like Milošević, but maybe people often see all the photos presented at the same time and have forgotten who is who. Evlekis (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Omitted information: arguably the most important section
Barend's note above is right, and causes a real problem. This article has no description of Karadzic's role in the Bosnian War of the mid 1990s. The only reference to the atrocities of which he has been accused is the single sentence "Karadžić is accused of having ordered the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks." There needs to be a description of how he and his forces were engaged in this conflict, and an attempt to give an account of the events which led to his being considered a genocidal war criminal and to his recent arrest. I suspect that for most readers of this article this will be the part which they want to know (as I recently turned to the article after the recent news of the arrest, hoping to find a reminder of the events concerned, neutrally presented). As Barend already suggested, it may be that failure to agree on a neutral account resulted in the whole thing being omitted; if so, this is not adequate. This is like an account of Newton which skips from "early life" to "experiments in alchemy" and baldly states in the middle "Newton developed a theory of gravity" and leaves it at that...

92.236.48.236 (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That kind of information is difficult to ascetrain, unless you use plain circumstancial sources. You're also right about another thing. Each party in the entire Balkan conflict, rather like all other conflicts across the world past, present and future, has its own version of events: exaggerating the opponents' actions whilst playing down their own. We've seen enough edit wars and disagreements and it is forever sympathisers or affiliates of one of the conflicting parties which are involved. Neutral observers simply wishing to learn "what happened?" are often fed propaganda by most editors. Sadly, because of the nature on conflict, you cannot please everyone, or find a compromising solution. You see, in politics, there is no such thing as a "reliable report", because such a product can only be presented by a "reputable source". For a source to be reputable, it requires all sides of a conflict to respect it, not just the supporters of one side. Reports alone, written or visual, prove nothing: they just say "we found evidence bla bla blah", but neither show the viewer anything, or if they do, they cannot authenticate their items: obviously the gullible will believe, but others scream questions at the TV set to which no answer is given. This is the one thing which the world is still waiting for: you can find sources whose presentation leans one way more than the other, and some which favour the other side for than the first. These can be: government publications; government lies; government truths; state-controlled facts; state controlled lies; free press truths; free press lies; blogs; online magazines; books; websites, all sorts etc. On the rare occasion that a source will try to appear neutral - by invariably dismissing all parties are guilty - it only meets with criticism from both/all sides of the conflict. One needs to be careful when editing such pages as Radovan Karadžić; when presenting updates: only state what has been reported, and also include that it was reported, by whom? And are any other reports from elsewhere giving different accounts. That way, there can be no revert wars and no offended editors. We must try not to make statements are though they are scientific facts, but state as part of the text, where the information is coming from. If reciting the rhetoric of a statesman/reporter, or using common terms, or rephrasing indictments, remember "to use speech marks" so that potentially controversial statements are not given in "November follows October" mood. For the time being, it is better to leave out any details concerning the man's actions; edit wars cannot be avoided at the worst of times, so there is no need to give Serbian/Bosniak/Global biggots the rope. Evlekis (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.   Blocked sock:Evlekis.

No one, I imagine, will deny that political questions are likely to be controversial, and the Bosnian War especially so. However, as the article stands, the very fact of a war in Bosnia in the 1990s is not directly acknowledged. It cannot be good logic to argue "everything about x is controversial, therefore an unbiased account may not include the very fact that x exists or that its nature is controversial". The bombing of Dresden is controversial; an account of it should take note of the controversies. But a history of Dresden should not ignore the fact that it was bombed at all... But I recognise that I am complaining rather than doing anything about it. I notice that there is an article "Bosnian War": might a temporary solution at least be to write something like "Between March 1992 and November 1995, there was a war in Bosnia, the parties to which included the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia. Subsequent allegations against Karadzic of war crimes, including genocide, relate to his responsibility for the actions of Bosnian Serb forces in this conflict, especially at Sarajevo and Srebrenica." There would be a link to the Bosnian War article. Well, it's just a thought... 92.236.48.236 (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not adding a single line to this article regarding exactly what crimes this man is accused of. I read through the article, trying to gain a greater clarity, but ended up just wasting my time. If ANYONE had put in the words "Srebrenica Massacre" it would have been a lot more informative and would have saved me time. I've seen toy articles with better presentations.

I understand, people are sensitive, and their feelings are easily hurt, even when articles are presented in a neutral fashion. But there is absolutely no hurt in saying "Radovan Karadžić is being tried for his role in the Srebrenica Massacre." Instead of "See Srebrenica Massacre for more information, and try to find out for yourself why exactly this man has been an international fugitive for over a decade." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.188.25 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Which crimes?
It doesn't say, or isn't clear enough, what crimes he is accused of exactly. Shouldn't there at least be a link to Srebrenica massacre? Francis Irving (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Came here to say the same.  Thanks for at least giving me the link here in the Talk page.  --Doradus (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I found this source .Maybe we can include it in the article once his identity has been ascertained.Source: The Associated Press

Updated: 8:43 p.m. ET July 21 URL: [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.228.191 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The indictment faced by Karadzic says he and others set out to gain control of areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina that had been proclaimed part of a Serbian republic and significantly reduce its non-Serb population. It says to achieve this, they committed grave crimes to force non-Serbs to leave those areas, to expel those who were reluctant to leave and to kill others, the document says.'Unimaginable savagery'
 * Referring to the Srebrenica massacre, a tribunal judge, Fouad Riad, said in 1995:The charges against Karadzic and Mladic include:
 * Referring to the Srebrenica massacre, a tribunal judge, Fouad Riad, said in 1995:The charges against Karadzic and Mladic include:

85.177.228.191 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "They are criminally responsible for the unlawful confinement, murder, rape, sexual assault, torture, beating, robbery and inhumane treatment of civilians; the targeting of political leaders, intellectuals and professionals; the unlawful deportation and transfer of civilians; the unlawful shelling of civilians; the unlawful appropriation and plunder of real and personal property; the destruction of homes and businesses; and the destruction of places of worship."
 * "Thousands of Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians, including women, children and elderly persons, were detained … for protracted periods of time. They were not afforded judicial process and their internment was not justified by military necessity. They were detained, in large measure, because of their national, religious and political identity. The conditions in the detention facilities were inhumane and brutal."
 * "In many instances, women and girls who were detained were raped at the camps or taken from the detention centres and raped or otherwise sexually abused at other locations. Daily food rations provided to detainees were inadequate and often amounted to starvation rations. Medical care for the detainees was insufficient or nonexistent and the general hygienic conditions were grossly inadequate."
 * "Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, individually and in concert with others, planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of unlawful attacks against the civilian population and individual civilians with weapons such as mortars, rockets and artillery."
 * "Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, individually and in concert with others, planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of the destruction of sacred sites or knew or had reason to know that subordinates were about to damage or destroy these sites or had done so and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent them from doing so or to punish the perpetrators thereof."
 * "Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, individually and in concert with others, planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of the taking of civilians, that is UN peacekeepers, as hostages and, additionally, using them as 'human shields.'"

So what did he actually do?
The article gives no indication of what he actually did to deserve his genocide accusations. Grand master  ka  18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an odd omission, isn't it? I've added a summary. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications
I note the article says "Radovan Karadžić moved to Sarajevo, Yugoslavia in 1960 to pursue his studies in psychiatry at the Sarajevo University School of Medicine. He studied neurotic disorders and depression at Næstved Hospital in Denmark in 1970, and during 1974 and 1975 he spent a year pursuing further medical training at Columbia University in New York." In all this, there is no mention of a single qualification being achieved. So do we have any info on this? Is he a medical doctor as stated in the news today? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Captured?
Hooray! - Pieter_v (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We tied! :-) - Pieter_v (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How is that a good thing? This man is a hero to Serbia. He's no war criminal - that's propaganda pumped out by western nations in an attempt to invalidate the huge good that these brave Serbians or allies of Serbia have done for their country, in order to further push Serbia's influence in the region down in a pathetic attempt at gaining their own. The capture of Karadzić is a further tragic blow to the nationalistic values of Serbia, one of the greatest nations on earth. Let it be known that Mladić will never be detained in the illegal and unjust international war crimes tribunal. Why any countries of the modern world support such a political entity masquerading as a legitimate court just goes to show that international leaders want to further demonize Serbia.--72.82.102.33 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is grounded on the assumption that Serbia is so important that countries like the USA will increase their influence and power by diminishing that of Serbia. There are elements of Serbian culture that I admire, but I am not fooling myself into thinking that Serbia is an international player of such a magnitude. Rama (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing because if you read the article, he's responsible for a number of crimes committed against humanity. 135.245.8.34 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence. They're all unfounded lies designed to further belittle a man who deserves to be revered as a national hero, and provide excuse for the arrest of yet another Serbian nationalist in an attempt at genocide on Serbian nationalism.--72.82.102.33 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not argue here any of us. Conflicts are the same wherever you go: each side has its version of events, nothing can be proven true until one side concedes its own argument and that is never going to happen, nor can one expect it to happen. The important details are that: to Bosnian Muslims, he is hated - not so much for his alleged crimes but more for being Head of the ARBH's rival belligerent, so one way or another, every action was going to be condemned as the very existence of VRS was damaging to the then-Bosniak vision of a single Bosnian entity - whilst to nationalist Serbs, he was a hero; again, not because he oversaw the deaths of thousands but because in doing so, he tried to create a sought after Serbian entity, either united within Yugoslavia or independent, but pleasing for Serbian nationalists. So the article could mention that the Serbs' fall from grace with western governments was the ultimate reason that nobody came down on their side in their bid for independence, at the same time, the Bosnian Serbs' refusal to lie down and give in to the conditions as laid down previously by the PDA (party of Izetbegović) did eventually earn them a territory in which they'd be a partner in a federation, as well as have a representative in a rotating presidency. So you could see why he is loved and hated by both sides of a conflict; but let's not be silly and suggest that the article should praise him as a hero, when the entire English speaking world likens him to a mass murderer or a serial killer. Evlekis (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.   Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Bogus charges
Some of the charges against him are bogus like he "Unlawfully deported and transferred civilians because of national or religious identity." As if Population transfer has no precedent;  for this reason, I put quotation marks around unlawful in the article.

"Destroyed homes, businesses and sacred sites"? Was it not a war?--71.108.28.97 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In most countries, population transfer is illegal. As a result, "unlawful" does not need quotation marks, as there is a general worldwide consensus that it is illegal to deport people based on ethnicity.  71.108.28.97, your comment "Destroyed homes, businesses and sacred sites"?  Was it not a war?" is a comment reserved for a discussion of the subject of this article.  This talk page is for a discussion on how to the article itself, and is not a place to discuss whether it is right for Karadzic to be tried for moving people.  EasyPeasy21 (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For an encyclopedic article, the point should be the fact that he is charged with this, not the question if the charges are "bogus" or not. That is for the ICTY-judges to decide. Statements such as "bogus" are POV and should be avoided. See WP:NPOV Tdevries (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete statement on Richard Holbrooke
"His ability to evade capture for over a decade made him a local hero among the Bosnian Serbs, despite an alleged deal with Richard Holbrooke[citation needed]. " This line must be incomplete as it make little sense. Who made a deal with Holbrooke -Karadzic or "the Serbs"? What was the deal concerning and why would the third party have objected? Rmhermen (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Karadžić's website
Believe it or not, he appears to have put up his own website (in English!) with photos of himself. Talk about chutzpah! See it at http://dragandabic.com before it gets taken down... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Domain of this website - http://dragandabic.com/ was registered today, so it's a FAKE.

According to b92 - this is the site of Karadzic: http://www.psy-help-energy.com

The link of the b92 story on youtube, contains an interview with Zoran Pavlovic, creator of the site: http://youtube.com/watch?v=l3EIjSXfbyc

the link of news: http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2008&mm=07&dd=22&nav_id=309674 Gaston28 (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Gaston28

> 02:30, 23 July 2008 Rodhullandemu (Talk | contribs) m (19,556 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Dp074; Rv, we've already established this is a fake created only today..) (undo) OK, this could be fake, thanks for correcting me, but you need to fix obvious errors elsewhere then. First, there are citations from this fake site accompanied with supposedly correct site, psy-help-energy. Then, there is no mention of Dabic on psy-help-energy. The Serbian videos and docs referred there do not mention this site. --Dp074 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, there is some indirect mentioning of Drabic, in a form of email: dddavid86@gmail.com supposedly belonging to him. But this is NOT his website by any means! It's the site of the clinic he had practise in. --Dp074 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Different issue, but the one created yesterday is unreliable. I'd have thought that the email links were not "mailto" links would be a bit of a giveaway, but then it was registered in California. -- Rodhull andemu  02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

-- @Dp074

1. For the moment, We dont know who is the creator of the domain - "dragandabic.com" created on 22-jul-2008 and the site hosted on "dreamhost". We dont know why he did that. Maybe, he wanted to use the public interest for commercial reasons, or simply he wanted to make some kind of joke. Anyone could make a such a site. The part of the text which exist on this "clone site" - "experts in the field of alternative medicine, bioenergy, and macrobiotic diet ex..." is a simple translation of the texts, which could be find for example on b92 and a dozen of different news companies.

2. The assumption that Radovan Karadzic is the owner of the site "psy-help-energy.com" is not based on this mail "dddavid86@gmail.com". We have a statement of web designer - Zoran Pavlovic for the news company b92, claiming that the site "psy-help-energy.com" was oredered by the person who present him self Dragan David Dabic. In the interview, he said that he was shocked when he find out, that his client Dragan David Dabic was actually Radovan Karadzic. Gaston28 (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "dragandabic.com" website is not a reliable sources because it cannot be verified, and indeed, the balance of evidence is n the opposite direction. In the second case, "psy-help-energy.com" has no relevance to the article as I see it. The presence of an email address (and a gmail at that!) doesn't persuade me otherwise. Sure it may have been designed for him by this web designer but the test is "what does this add to the article?". I've removed both from the infobox for these reasons, and the latter from the External Links. I'm open to persuasion otherwise. -- Rodhull andemu  13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this the website talked about in the fugitive section or another? Should we have any of that information? Rmhermen (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

--@Rodhullandemu

what does this add to the article? The info about his website should be mentioned in the article bcs, it add a needful information about his activities in the fugitive period. He was one of the most wanted fugitives in the world for more than the 12 years, and his activities in this period, whatever he was doing, should be mentioned: - in his fugitive period Karadzic had a website "...", confirmed by "..." - on that site, he was doing "..." - precise, short and enciclopedic info in a few sentences. Gaston28 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is that it's a self-published source and therefore not regarded as a reliable source. We then need to look at WP:SELFPUB to see what that site can be used for. That policy isn't clear, but given its purpose, I'd say it's strongly indicated that all seven heads have to be satisfied before the website can be used as a source, even for itself. I'd say it falls on the first hurdle (point 1) because it's not relevant to Karadzic's notability. I'd say it fails point 3 because it's clearly meant to drum up custom for his clinic, and is therefore self-serving. The other points are moot. If we used it to support the contention that "Karadzic claimed....", that would be supporting evidence. But no stronger than that. -- Rodhull andemu  16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu

What do you mean by "self-published source"? bcs Karadzic is not the source of the info about his website. We have a third party source for that info. The info about his website is sourced, confirmed by a dozen of the third party independent news companies, for example a notable news companies b92, CBS...

"He even had his own Web site - www.psy-help-energy.com - and gave lectures in front of hundreds of people on alternative medicine. The site displays pictures of metallic bullet-shaped amulets and Orthodox crosses with wires running out of them." - CBS []

The info about Karadzic website is not a self-published source, it's a third party independent info. Please, provide link to the notable third party source that can support your claime, that the "info about Karadzic site is published by Karadzic himself". Gaston28 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pic
With living people we use an up to date image. Therefore I can find no comp-rehensible reason to restore the 95 image in the info box, this is what I would describe as uneducational, please do not do it. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we prefer to have free licensed images in the infobox and they are probably going to shave his beard off anyway. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree up to a point, but it is as the old image that he is most recognisable to most people. -- Rodhull andemu  13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Free image - okay. Shave his beard off - we are not a crystal ball and sounds like nonsense anyway. Most people now recognise him by the old pic - complete rubbish. Come on folks, lets at least not give sloppy arguments. But I am impressed with the free image argument, lets hope we can get a free up to date image shortly. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently he shaved today. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unity with Greece?
"In February,1994, he contacted the Greek government and proposed the creation of a united Serbian Greek State. Karadžić is also known for his support of a Greater Serbia."

This should be sourced or deleted, because to me this just sounds ridiculous, I was in Serbia at the time and heard nothing like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.56.14 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 February 2006

- I have restored the former phrase, because even if you personally were not aware of it, it has been widely documented. Just google Greek-Serbian confederation, or either buy the book [|"Unholy Alliance: Greece and Milošević's Serbia"], by Greek journalist Takis Michas, which provides serious evidences of these initiatives. Also reports from the Greek and Yugoslav press mentioned it, as collected in []. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.128.35 (talk • contribs) 1:07, 11 November 2006

I can also confirm this is never discussed in Greece and obviously not wanted by Greeks. --Leladax (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro
Please, let's edit the intro to focus on the man's life as whole, particularly his most notable period of activity in the 1990s. This current intro deals with almost nothing but things related to his indictment, eventual arrest and impending trial. A person reading this intro who knew nothing about Karadzic would be baffled. Everyking (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

His poetry
2008: Jebol' svoju majku mrtvu u pakšu

This book of poetry is fraud. That is just heavy coursing on the account of Karadzic.85.222.172.167 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The pinch
I give up. How did they finally arrest him? An informer? An observant bus rider? Adrian Monk?Lestrade (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * They said they had help from foreign intelligence agencies. The film of him at the medical conference is dated January, 2008 so it is interesting where that film came from- if from the government, have they known his identity since January? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Details on life as a fugitive
According to this article, Karadzic lived with a younger mistress and claimed to have grandchildren in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Article says he was on the run since 1995; president until 1996
How was he a fugitive between 1995 and July 1996 if he was still President of Serbia?

It would seem to be a bit difficult to be on the run and in charge of a country at the same time, surely. Garth M (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * POV commentary removed per WP:TALK and WP:BLP.-- Rodhull andemu  11:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well-written article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.74.17.185 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

He was never president of Serbia!! He was president of Republika Srpska which is a name for the Serb-controlled territory won over by Serbs in Bosnia in the Bosnian war 1992-1995. (Imagine California-born Mexicans taking over California territory between L.A. and San Diego, and declare it Republica Calimexicana. Well, he was a president of Republica Calimexicana.)

And to answer your question, he was on the run since 1995, yet he was president until 1996 BUT only formally, in name and spirit, not in actions or presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karambito45 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arrest date
Please do not add that speculation or lies by the lawyer when it has been officially refuted.

The president of the National Council for Cooperation with the Hague Tribunal said that Karadžić had been arrested in an operation that began on Monday (July 21) and lasted nine hours, rejecting claims by the suspect’s lawyer Svetozar Vujačić that he was arrested on Friday, July 18.

Thanks, --Avala (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the government lawyer can't lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karambito45 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Economical crimes
I've placed as I feel that my info on Karadzics economical crimes was removed without any explanation nor any discussion on talk page prior to removal. All information was very well referenced (Most respected news papper in Serbia - Politika as well as Serbian News Agency). In my opinion this is nothing else but pushing certain political agenda by some users.

Information on why info on economical crimes has been removed is at best laughable. Claiming that all decision made by Yugoslav courts are invalid is bull. If the case was fingered as the user who removed my texts would like to claim how comes there is not a single source quoting this point of view?

Regards --EmirA (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that discussion a few days ago, but it seems the material is still in there (under the Early Life section). Was there some other material that was removed as well?  Because I can't find anything in the history...  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 12:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pointers to the revisions where your material was deleted would be helpful. --moof (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's please have some pointers so that we can review this. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry. I just realised that the text was put back into the article while I was adding neutrality tag. I'm removing neutrality tag. Sorry for bothering you. --EmirA (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection in America
An editor recently added a paragraph stating that Karadzic lived in the US from 1995-2000 until he was expelled for participating in SDS politics. Although the statement was sourced to a Daily Telegraph article, nowhere does the article state that he lived in the US. I've removed those lines, and incidentally added a source about Holbrooke's denial that he made a deal with Karadzic. Discussion welcome if anyone disagrees. //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Last part of intro
It's been the 29th, it is the 30th as i type this, and Karadzic refused to enter a plea, judge entered not guilty on his behalf. someone fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.52.25 (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Serb republic
what is all this nonsense about him one minute creating a Serb republic in Bosnia and then wanting to be a part of "Yugsoalvia"? There was no "Serb republic" and no "Yugoslavia", he just wanted to be with the rest of Serbia, which was the only republic left in Yugoslavia with the exception of Montenegro (its slave) who were clearly frightened of being ethnically cleansed, judging by what was going on in Kosovo and Bosnia. Look at the map on the page of Greater Serbia and there is your evidence, that was what the man wanted to create. Sinbad Barron (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Currently on trial"
... well, not exactly, no. Not yet anyway, he hasn't even entered a plea. 207.112.82.107 (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. It's because he is guilty and he knows it. The man is a modern-day Adolf Hitler who was Slobodan Milosevic's right hand man. All he wanted to do was replace a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia and turn it into a new "Yugoslavia" which was to be a Serbia only country. Naturlaly he will not recognize the court, because his buddy in crime Milosevic and his buthcers never recognized it either. But I bet they 'd be the first to hail the court as legal justice if it ever switched to chasing up the so-called "anti-Serb atrocities" which they staged to pathetically get the world on their side. Ended up only winning the support of the other fascist state still left in the world, Russia, and that's about all. Sinbad Barron (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's bullshit exactly? That he's not yet on trial? I'm not even sure who you're arguing with. This is a discussion page for improving the article, not a debating forum.207.112.52.89 (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He was not Petar Glumac!
Please delete/omit all references linking Karadzic to Petar Glumac (Vienna story) because Austrian and Croatian authorities determined that Petar Glumac was indeed a real Croatian national who only looked like "Dr. Dabic".

There is even video and the interview with the real Petar Glumac.

http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/karadzic-klaute-meine-identitaet-96613

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Karambito45 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently this is the case of identity theft and Karadzic probably stole Glumac's identity due to physical similarity. His nephew, Dragan Karadžić has claimed in an interview to the Corriere della Sera that Radovan Karadžić attended football matches of Serie A and that he visited Venice under the very same identity of Petar Glumac. Keep in mind that Karadzic is a very good manipulator and that such abilities of his were known even before this masquerade. We should not exclude the possibility that he even overtook some of the Glumac's patients. Someone would expected a bearded man with white hair and black shirt and when Karadzic would appear they would think it must be the healer their friend told them about etc. --Avala (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, the real Glumac says that he himself was the one detained by police in Vienna, not Karadzic.
 * http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=df118fa7-4bb2-45d5-8804-32f2ad0c9ae5
 * So you should probably delete the reference to Karadzic living in Vienna. Not only has it not been properly confirmed, it's probably not true.70.55.58.252 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently this is NOT the case of identity theft, but is a pure misinformation. The real man named Petar Glumac lived in Vienna and was arrested. He looks like Karadzic, so some journalists thought that it was Karadzic hiding in Vienna under the name of Petar Glumac, but it was later cleared out that Karadzic had nothing to do at all with Glumac. Glumac and Karadzic are not related in any way, so I deleted the reference on Karadzic living in Vienna in the oppening part of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations commented out
I noticed that the following three quotes are commented out in the article. Does anyone know if there was a reason for this? Freako (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Today, from the perspective of the Serbian nation, it is only acceptable to be independent, that we may not be dominated, that the numerical superiority of another nation doesn't influence us, that our fate will not be determined by the percentage of Muslims in Bosnia. That is our right!
 * - Radovan Karadžić in an interview, 1991

The Serbs have only two friends: God, and the Greeks.
 * - Radovan Karadžić, during a rally organized to express support for Serbs in Athens, Greece, 1995.

Sarajevans will not be counting the dead. They will be counting the living.
 * - Radovan Karadžić in an interview regarding the siege of Sarajevo, 1993

Misquotation
"You want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina down the same highway to hell and suffering that Slovenia and Croatia are travelling. Do not think that you will not lead Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell, and do not think that you will not perhaps lead the Muslim people into annihilation, because the Muslims cannot defend themselves if there is war - How will you prevent everyone from being killed in Bosnia and Herzegovina?"

This is taken out of its context, he never said "How will you prevent everyone from being killed" implying that he was saying that muslims will be killed unless certain actions were taken, he rather said "How will you prevent everyone from starting killing eachother?". This is a fine example of misquotation, and if you read the entire speech you will get a different picture of what he was trying to say. I am a Bosniak myself but in an encyclopedia, at least that is what wikipedia is said to be, we should al stay true to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.177.226 (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

... and since 2009?
What's happened to him since 2009? Is he on trial? --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

11 month detainment
On the accusations of fraud of public funds. Some proud Serb hiding behind apparently thinks that this part is "biased", "speculated", and that a "trial under a dictatorship is not a reliable source". That Krajišnik and Karadžić were both imprisoned for 11 months for the mentioned charges can be easily verified on b.g.c. and on dozens of other places on the Internet. Since every part of the section is referenced, I propose a removal of the {speculation} template. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You just violated Civility and Assume good faith, keep your ethno-religious bias off here please. FYI, I'm an English Protestant. This material is unreliable, no matter how many times it is regurgitated. --81.77.120.190 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should we care what you think is unreliable, if you cannot provide a single quotation in your favour? Sorry but WP does not function on the basis what people "think", despite plenty of counter-evidence. So please provide the cites that Karadžić and Krajišnik trial was a "communist set-up with no real evidence", or stop accusing well-cited sources of being "biased" and "speculated". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The notion that "trial under a dictatorship is not a reliable source" is a very bizarre one indeed. Rama (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe you guys support that type of system, but it is still unreliable given his anti-communist background. --81.77.120.190 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it happened and it is not for us to question its validity. It's sourced. If other sources question its validity, cite them as well. -- Rodhull andemu  16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that this so-called "trial" happened. I'm more concerned that claims made by a communist court are classed as fact here. --84.68.157.29 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be just as concerned if claims could be dismissed just because they were made by a Communist court. Truth is not a matter of political system. The USA were a democracy when they invaded Iraq over tales of weapons of mass destructions. USSR was a dictatorship when it sent the first man in space. Rama (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Stalin and Tito would agree with you. No argument. --84.68.157.29 (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * - If you have sources supporting your ideologically-biased views on "fraud charges", please provide them, otherwise stop removing well-sourced content. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think you are the biased one here, Yugoslavia was a dictatorship with an inherently flawed judicial system and its judgements cannot be stated as fact here. --84.70.136.74 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be your personal opinion. The fact is that he and Krajišnik were jailed for 11 months for the mentioned charges, and that can be trivially verified on the abovementioned b.g.c. link. If you have cites that support your personal interpretation of the trial as a "regime set-up", you are free to mention it. If you don't, stop removing cited content that you "don't like", because it's pure POV vandalism. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the "inherently flawed system" - that phrase perfectly describes current WP vandalism fighting procedure. This page has been vandalised for at least 2 dozens times in the last 2 days and yet no one bothered to semi-protect it. Chetnik-sympathizing IP addresses are given right to remove cited content, and yet no one bothers to check what exactly their "arguments" on the talk page really are. Someone even commented out famous Karadžić's quote in Bosnian parliament that can be verified in just about any Yugoslav war book and tagged it with {fact} and "dubious". When Karadžić gets officially convicted for architecthing the biggest genocide in Europe since WW2, I'm sure there'll be plenty of IPs saying that the Hague court is "political" and "inherently flawed", and would prefer the article to be written with 95% content dedicated to Radovan's poetry achievements. His early history could be written on how he taught poetry at workers' night school and was the psychiatrist of Sarajevo football club (and somewhere on footnotes it could be mentioned that he was the chief commander of death squads that put > 100k people to mass graves). Very sad. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the UN was co-founded by Vyacheslav Molotov (he of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact fame). There are plenty of reasons to argue that the UN is very political. --84.70.228.190 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * - Your replaced cited content (which can be verified in many other Western authors above), with the explanation that the "trial was flawed" and the cited book is written by "Croatian nationalist" with your personal un-cited assessment of those two war criminals that are about to be rejoined in Scheveningen prison after all these years of being "arrested by the communist authorities on fraud charges". Please provide evidence that prove that the trial was a set-up on fraud charges, and that they were arrested by "communists" because Karadžić stems from Chetnik lineage. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * - i don't need to source the fact that a "trial" under a dictatorial regime is unreliable Sigh. You're hopeless. I won't be reverting your unsourced "opinions" and removals of multiply cited content not to violate WP:3RR, so let it stand as token of how far well-motivated IPs can push their ideologically-motivated agenda. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see that there's anything wrong with this source. The fact that the author is of Croatian heritage does not disqualify his book.  I've returned the material to the article.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you would say that, as it was your Chancellor who intitiated the catastrophe by recognising the pro-fascist Tudjman regime in Croatia. --84.64.181.104 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's customary not to remove sourced material but to discuss it on the talk page first. Edit-warring is unseemly on such a currently high-profile page but I will not protect it for now. "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war", remember? -- Rodhull andemu  18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. The writer is a Croatian propagandist who is regurgitating so-called "evidence" from a communist kangaroo court - this is not a reliable source. --84.64.181.104 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your POV. It's up to you to persuade other editors here that your version is actually neutral. I suggest you do that while the 3RR clock's ticking. Meanwhile, if you can't reach agreement, take it to WP:NPOVN. -- Rodhull andemu  18:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does your ad-hoc "neutrality" rule also apply to the Moscow Trials? --84.64.181.104 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remembering WP:CIVIL, please ignore irrelevant matters and stick to the issue at hand. I am ->|<- this far from blocking you for disuption and POV-pushing. Please negotiate with other editors. -- Rodhull andemu  18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is relevant. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were both dictatorships with politically controlled judicial systems. --84.64.181.104 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What concrete evidence do you have that Krajišnik & Karadžić were innocent, and that the charges for spending public loan money to build cottages in Pale were fabricated by the regime? If it's just your belief, it doesn't count much. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What is at issue is the reliability of the evidence here. Given the judicial system of the country, the convictions were unsafe. BTW, did you or your family really enjoy having no freedom? --90.242.173.31 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask you to refrain from comments like this and that. Please discuss content and not contributors.  My ancestry has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate.  Thanks.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments like what? You are deliberately putting forward unreliable material as fact. --90.242.173.31 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Rogel (2004) Karadzic was cleared of charges and declared innocent. Please see Rogel, Carole. (2004) The breakup of Yugoslavia and its aftermath. Greenwood Publishing Group. p 115. I won't wish to enter some kind of editing war but the current reference is less accurate and someone must review it, possible use reference to official court documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.198.166 (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Wikiquote
Quotations sections do not belong on Wikipedia WP:NOT WP:QUOTE they go on Wikiquote instead. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Knight of the Order of St Dionysius of Xanthe
Order and knighthood appear to exist (see, , ). Quis separabit? 17:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Radovan Karadžić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110522062729/http://www.gmanews.tv/story/110336/Karadzic-being-held-in-same-jail-as-Milosevic-was to http://www.gmanews.tv/story/110336/Karadzic-being-held-in-same-jail-as-Milosevic-was

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Verdict of 24 March
The verdict of 24 March is not a final verdict, it is a first-instance verdict, and the parties to the trial have the right to appeal the judgement (within 30 days). Karadžić's defense team has announced that they will do so. The presumption of innocence legally still applies to Karadžić: "no-one is guilty before the final verdict is reached" (Official Journal of the European Union). Naming him a war criminal is thus a misrepresentation of current facts, and wikipedia is not supposed to be a crystal ball as to what his final verdict will be. Vladimir (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood. He has been convicted.  He has the right to appeal.   The current facts are that he has been convicted of various crimes.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever the court decides, he is widely perceived around the world as a war criminal and to have been responsible for genocide, and the many, many Reliable Sources that state that will continue to be cited, regardless of what the EU court finally states. 98.67.178.132 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Radovan Karadžić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130813113039/http://voices.yahoo.com/radovan-karadzic-accused-serbian-war-criminal-captured-1710045.html to http://voices.yahoo.com/radovan-karadzic-accused-serbian-war-criminal-captured-1710045.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Details on imprisonment: is he still in prison [dec 2016,] which one?
Details on imprisonment: is he still in prison, [dec 2016,]which one? . If not in the article [i dint see it,] pls add it. ty. 173.61.96.10 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Box
Why and who removed the box about his presidency of Rebublika Srpska? He was the 1st president of RS, therefore the box should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.187.184 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the box, it lists his nationality as Serb, Should that be changed to Ethnicity? His Nationality would have been fluid, first Yugoslavian, then perhaps Bosnian, then "Srpskan"? Just a thought, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefete (talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda video meme?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-EQJA8Ahac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.99.69 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Radovan Karadžić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080726045044/http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/karadzic.html to http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/karadzic.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417040300/http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/index.cfm?page=Karadzic to http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/index.cfm?page=Karadzic
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psy-help-energy.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.-- InternetArchiveBot 21:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Nationality of Radovan
If you guys know, Montenegro was originally apart of Serbia, and he led a Serbian army known as the “Republika Srpska”. His religion is Orthodoxy. Please change nationality to Serbian — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoBody Importaint (talk • contribs) 21:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When he was born, he had Yugoslavian citizenship. When Bosnia attempted to break away from Yugoslavia, he was leader of an unrecognised state called Republika Srpska.


 * The American magazine Foreign Policy says that Republika Srpska is "s nominally part of Bosnia but manages a separate tax system and police force"  Perhaps it would be better to give has nationality as Republika Srpska?


 * The argument that he was born in Montenegro, might suggest that his nationality was Montenegran. During happier times, Montenegro was an independent country, and since the break up of Yugoslavia, it has become independent again.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss or suggest here. He is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He has applied for Serbian citizenship but as far as I can tell, he still has not received it. I have found no reliable source indicating that he might be a national of Montenegro. Please take a look at the article Nationality. Surtsicna (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019
the [16] source is no longer accessible, it needs to be replaced with a cached copy or removed Fuomag9 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Psychiatrist
Are you serious on this? Karadzic is known as a political leader, good or bad, and locally as a poet. Why is he on this list of famous psychiatrists? Are you trying to scare people away from psychiatrists? Why don't we make lists of all the teachers, lawyers, priests and dentists who are truly prominent, and throw in a few who are not famous for their professions, but for misfeasance or success in other fields? We need organized knowledge, not mixed vegetable soup every day. 16:32 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) sof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.241.2 (talk • contribs)


 * This is just one in line of the perils of excessive categorization... for example, the first category Miroslav Krleza got placed in was -- the one for deserters! I guess we simply have to be bold and fix it... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   20:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Every famous person was something before becoming famous. Of course, I don't think that every occupation a person had should be listed in its categories. However, the fact that Karadzic was a psychiatrist is well and widely known, and sometimes used for explanation of his actions as a politician. So, IMHO, it is notable fact that Karadzic is a psychiatrist, and thus the category should stay. Nikola 10:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Radovan Karadzic should not be considered as a famous shrink, he once advised one of his patients who was dissatisfied with his wife to start beating her... The thing is that in the former yugoslavia that there was a certain quota of people that had to occupy a certain occupation. So if they had a lack of shrinks, many people unsuited for the occupation could become one. Sad, really. Sorry, let me just add, isn't the famous psychiatrist category for people that aquired fame as shrinks? This guy was no famous shrink, but he is a famous war criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.174 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

I remove Karadžić from Psychiatry page. Amorrow 14:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I semi-disagree. You include Hitler on the list of political leaders of Germany, even though Horst Köhler probobly doesn't want to be associated with him. To not include someone on a list because they supply "negitive connotations" is to deny their past. By the way, don't get me started on "Famous". 24.167.79.43 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any paper work to prove that he was a psychiatrist? This might help. However, I'm pretty sure he's not practicing anymore.135.245.8.34 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.84.101 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This man is a psychiatrist and he should be listed as such.

It is important to know that psychiatrists not are all wonderful people.

Too bad if you don't like it... 66.227.84.101 (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) It is a fact that Dr. Radovan Karadzic was a psychiatrist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:DC63:500:88B7:320:696F:6CEB (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Due process and justice
The article repeats comments which could be taken to impute guilt to Mr Karadžić. If folks aren't careful he may not get a fair trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No he has got a horrifyingly unfair trial with no consideration for his advanced age, he had no direct control over the Srebrenica events due to limited communications nor had General Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian atrocity unit of Nasser Oric escaped with an armed breakthrough in violation of surrender terms, at which General Ratko Mladic temporarily appeared at a hotel where he was resented for eating pork, and two Bosnian generals Halilovic and Enverhalilovic I think there names were or similar reported to the Sun publication that there was a death march ordered to Tuzla under an agreement of 5000 dead Bosnians in exchange for international intervention, this with an armed breakthrough attacking the surrounding Serbs with weapons of which there are photographs in the Washington Times as they reached Kapija — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:dc63:500:88b7:320:696f:6ceb (talk • contribs) 10:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Accused? Or rather convicted? (wording)
The current article text states that the tribunal accused Mr Karadžić of crimes. Is it not true that it was/is the prosecutor who does the accusing and the tribunal who does the convicting? In other words: should not the text be adapted as saying that the tribunal convicted him (or pronounced him guilty) of crimes?Redav (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1992-1995?
This article has a black hole for the period between 1992 and 1995 - the period when Karadzic was in the limelight. Why? Interminable edit wars? There needs to be information on this period in the article.--Barend 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ف ااببيسسسيصثثثقريب 154.121.46.171 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)