Talk:Franjo Tuđman

Lead section

Why does the lead section contain a ICTY verdict, as if that is the thing he will be remebered in history? Furthermore, it is written in some kind of broken English. Why does it not instead emphasise the importance of this individual in Croatia's independence, and in leading his nation through war?

Criminal

Tozwu, please stop edit warring, and engage in a constructive debate on the talk page. You can't remove sourced material, and this has been for a long time in the lede so you need to reach a consensus before making that changes. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this was added like a month ago to the lead. It's a first instance verdict not primarily targeted against Tuđman, and considering that ICTY often changes its verdicts (the presiding judge will be the same one as in the Gotovina et al. second instance verdict) adding it to the lead this way is biased. 2 months ago it wasn't in the lead and there was no discussion about adding it. There were many trials in the Hague and if we add them all it would be a mess, that's why there is the ICTY section. Tzowu (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That information, that there was a verdict is very important to the whole article, because it is about him. The verdict was not changed, and I really don't understand why you are saying that. Because there are a lot of verdict there is a ICTY section, and just one mentioned in the lead, because we don't want to make a mess. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a first instance verdict against 6 Bosnian Croat leaders, not the final verdict. I've looked through the history of the page and there was no mention in the lead of the ICTY first instance verdict against Gotovina in 2011 that dealt with Tuđman much more than this one. Why should it have more importance for the lead instead of other verdicts, including the Gotovina et al. final acquittal? There is the ICTY section where all of the cases are mentioned, the lead is for the relevant information. Tzowu (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And that is important information, because that is his legacy and who he was. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, the final verdict is not yet given and it will likely be similar to the Gotovina case outcome. ICTY has a record of changing its judgments so we should stick to the final ones, at least for people that aren't the primary focus of an indictment. Tzowu (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not my opinion, it is the ruling of the Court. And I don't understand why are you mentioning the Gotovina case, like it is in your favor. And the ruling hasn't been changed, and you cant really do anything about that. You are accusing others of putting their opinions in the article, but in fact you are doing precisely that. Please stop. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Saying that "it is his legacy and who he was" is your personal opinion. The verdict is, again, not the final one, the appeal is in progress and its primary focus is on the 6 leaders of HB, not Tuđman. The Gotovina et al. case is an example where the final outcome was the acquittal of the indictees. When the verdict becomes final then add it to the lead. Tzowu (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, not my opinion, that are facts and what is in the verdict. This is going nowhere because you will not change your position even when pure facts are presented to you. So you can't change the article on your own, or we will have to call others, and again you will be engaged in a edit-war that is not good for you. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't even know what the verdict is about and it also seems that you don't know the difference between a first instance verdict and a second instance verdict. And please finally stop threatening others. Tzowu (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is debatable at best whether the verdict that is pending appeal should be in the article body or not - it should definitely not be in the intro. On the other hand, Tuđman's role in the Bosnian War has been extensively discussed by a number of sources (with many unfavorable assessments), and this generally speaking is for the intro. Surely there is a way of incorporating this without rushing with ICTY non-final judgments. GregorB (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a final verdict of the first degree court. When there are some changes then we can edit the article, but now it should stay as it is. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, it should already be clear from the above discussion that both Tzowu and I disagree with you about adding the verdict to the intro. I'm not really in favor of adding it to the body either, but I'd be willing to accept it as a compromise solution. GregorB (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That is probably because you do not understand how ICTY works. If you have a verdict you are going to prison, you are not waiting for a second degree verdict to go to prison. You are found guilty and in the second degree it is a regular response to the first degree verdict. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is precisely the argument against inclusion. For e.g. Ante Gotovina, it would have made sense to include info about the first-degree verdict because it had significant real-life consequences which could not be ignored, even if the verdict was not final: namely, that he had to stay in prison. (There were of course conflicting WP:BLP concerns too, but this is another matter.) Since Tuđman is not going to prison, i.e. the first-degree verdict has no immediate consequences for the topic of his bio, this makes the event less important and thus less suitable for the intro. GregorB (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Tzowu

Please stop edit warring. Please. You do not OWN this article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I warned him on his talk page. If @Tzowu keeps it up -- report him at WP:ANI and provide diffs of his edits. Quis separabit? 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"keeps it up"? 2 users on this page have thoroughly explained why this isn't for the lead. It's interesting that you only "warned" me, while Tuvixer made more reverts on this page. I'll tell you the same thing I told him, stop with the threatening. If you have something to say about this issue then do it, don't wait until someone makes a wrong step to report him for nothing. Tzowu (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and blanking text without reason or explanation are unacceptable. You have been editing here long enough to know that. Quis separabit? 19:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page why this isn't for the lead and so did GregorB. Tzowu (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, could you explain why "owning the article" describes Tzowu's actions and, somehow, not yours? GregorB (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Rms125a@hotmail.com, I don't think that removing content that did not receive support in the prior talk page discussion is "edit warring". GregorB (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How about an RfC?

Tzowu, Tuvixer, Rms125a@hotmail.com, Tmina32 - how about starting an RfC to get a wider input the intro problem? I'm volunteering to do it if you agree. GregorB (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not? If the RfC-er will be for keeping it in the lead at least he'll give an explanation on the talk page, not just bad threat attempts. Tzowu (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

OK by me. Quis separabit? 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment about the intro

Would you support or oppose the inclusion of material about the 2013 ICTY verdict on Herzeg-Bosnian leaders in the intro, which currently reads:

In May 2013, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in a first-instance verdict against former high-ranking officials of Herceg-Bosna, found that Tuđman was leader of the joint criminal enterprise against the non-Croat population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

That is, would you support the above wording, an alternative wording, or do you oppose it altogether in the intro?

See talk page above for prior discussion and arguments. GregorB (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Support inclusion as an accurate reflection of what the court found regarding Tudjman's involvement in the JCE (albeit after his death, it is a bit hard to follow some of the argumentation on the talk page, as it is pretty hard to go to jail when you're dead). With the proviso that substantiation is provided regarding the use of the word "leader". I thought the words "key member" were used in the judgement? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. The judgment is non-final (i.e. it is pending appeal), it is a bit too recent and it doesn't have an immediate effect on Tuđman's bio (the way e.g. serving prison would have for a living person). Apart from that, the relevance of this bit of information has to be established by non-primary sources, and it's way too early for that. That's why I'd say that mention in the body is (barely) OK, mention in the intro is not. GregorB (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. The verdict is not final and is not primarily about Tuđman, but about 6 Herzeg-Bosnian leaders. We can make a parallel to the Trial of Gotovina et al, where in the final verdict the chamber concluded that there was no joint criminal enterprise by the Croatian leadership, which was led by Tuđman. We don't have that in the lead now nor was it in the lead earlier. There's no reason for giving a greater importance to a non-final verdict in the less known Herzeg-Bosnia case than to the Gotovina et al. case which dealt with Tuđman much more. Also, the appeal is pending and it barely even passed in the first instance judgment, 2 judges were for it, and the presiding judge Jean-Claude Antoanetti against it. He opposed the notion of a JCE in a separate opinion. After all, both of the cases, the Prlić et al. and Gotovina et al., were done after Tuđman's death and had no impact on his bio. Tzowu (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Inclusion -- The verdict is not final therefore we should not include it in the article. It is not technically a "fact" yet. Like the above user stated, once the verdict is final than we can introduce it into the article. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)