| Revision as of 18:00, 8 October 2016 editGrabovcan (talk | contribs)48 edits →Joint criminal enterprise: Why have the editors not← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:10, 1 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,045,177 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: The article is NOT listed in any vital article list page. |
| (48 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|b}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Not a forum}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=n|listas=Tudman, Franjo| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid|military-work-group=y|military-priority=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Croatia|importance=top}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start |
|
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist --> |
|
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist --> |
|
|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =no |
|
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =n |
|
|B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =no |
|
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =n |
|
|B3 <!-- Structure --> =yes |
|
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y |
|
|B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =yes |
|
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y |
|
|B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =yes |
|
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y |
|
|Biography=yes|Balkan=yes}} |
|
|Biography=yes|Balkan=yes|WWII=y|Post-Cold-War=y|Cold-War=y}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Croatia|class=C |
|
|
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> =n |
|
|
|b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> =n |
|
|
|b3 <!--Structure --> =y |
|
|
|b4 <!--Grammar & style --> =y |
|
|
|b5 <!--Supporting materials --> =y |
|
|
|b6 <!--Accessibility --> =y |
|
|
|importance=High}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=C|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Tudman, Franjo|military-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Copied|from=Vrhovnik|to=Franjo Tuđman|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Franjo_Tuđman&action=historysubmit&diff=474314372&oldid=473533063}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Vrhovnik|to=Franjo Tuđman|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Franjo_Tuđman&action=historysubmit&diff=474314372&oldid=473533063}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Vrhovnik|Vrhovnik|16 January 2012}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Vrhovnik|Vrhovnik|16 January 2012}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:Franjo Tuđman/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:Franjo Tuđman/Archive index |
| Line 38: |
Line 32: |
|
|archive = Talk:Franjo Tuđman/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Franjo Tuđman/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Bosnian war section == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second para starts with "The Bosniak leadership initially showed willingness to remain in a rump Yugoslavia, (...)", this is just half true. In reality it was one of two currents within the SDA party, the one led by two prominent party leaders Muhamed Filipović and that other guy dissident from Switzerland, whose name I can't remember, which opted to negotiate with Milosevic and seek some way to stay within YUG. Filipovic and this other guy were in fact on the meeting with Milosevic in Belgrade, and this matter practically caused the party to break into two factions and at the first elections they were already completely separated into SDA and some other party, which was completely ignored by Bosniak electorate. Characters like Izetbegovic, Silajdzic, Ganic, Cengic, etc never even contemplated such variant, and they were key Bosniak leaders. Kristo exploiting rather simplistic view on this episode in history. ]] 20:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
== Lead section == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Antisemitism section needed == |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, Franjo Tudjman left behind not only highly antisemitic academic work, as already described in the article, but is on the record of making antisemitic remarks in public as well. |
|
==Joint criminal enterprise== |
|
|
Please remove the passage starting with "In May 2013, the ICTY, found that Tuđman had been the leader of the joint criminal enterprise" as this was found not to be true (speaking about icty finding). The appeals chamber had found that “he Trial Chamber made no explicit findings concerning participation in the JCE and did not find them guilty of any crimes" . If not removed, new content should be added by reporting what the appeals chamber had found. I'm pinging all participants of the upper discussion. {{ping|Peacemaker67}} {{ping|GregorB}} {{ping|Tzowu}} {{ping|Comatmebro}} {{ping|Rms125a@hotmail.com}} {{ping|Cwobeel}} {{ping|Zezen}} {{ping|Aircorn}} {{ping|Jack Upland}} {{ping|United Union}}. I was also involved as the only ip that had provided a comment (54.163.189.221). Also see this ] (]) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Such as his 1990 election speech where he makes antisemitic remarks about supposed rumors that he is of Jewish, or that his wife is either of Jewish or Serbian descent - namely that "had that been true he'd be rich and not a communist" and his happiness regarding "his wife not being either (Jew or Serb)". |
|
:'''Comment'''. I'd agree with removing the said passage for the same reasons I gave in the earlier RfC, but not for the reason stated above. The appeals chamber stated that “he Trial Chamber made no explicit findings concerning participation in the JCE and did not find them guilty of any crimes", but - if I understand correctly - this is a ''factually incorrect statement'', because the Trial Chamber did precisely that. Miseticlaw.blogspot.hr sees this as a ''legal opinion'', but I don't think it's legally possible to overturn the first degree verdict in an ''amicus curiae'' application ruling. This is a legal conundrum of sorts - IANAL, so I can only say that things seem illogical; apart from that, miseticlaw.blogspot.hr has a vested interest in interpreting the ruling in a particular way, and is therefore not a reliable secondary source. ] (]) 13:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The speech is easy to find on YouTube, has been since at least 2020, and it should be added, along with other instances of Tudjman's antisemitism into a new, separate, section. Clearly, from the rambling character of the speech it is obvious that such antisemitic ideas were integral to his personal way of thinking and not just a part of some political speech, perhaps prepared by someone else. |
|
:'''Comment'''. Why have the editors not yet either removed the references to the Trial Chamber's comments about Tudjman, or else allowed the quote from the Appeals Chamber to stand? The Appeals Chamber is the higher court. If it made an express conclusion that the Trial Chamber made no such findings about Tudjman, then the high court's findings should be included on Wiki as a counterpoint, in fairness. It is not for Misplaced Pages editors to censor the point because it believes that the higher court made a "factually incorrect statement". ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 16:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
::: {{ping|GregorB}} The ICTY found ''"that Tuđman was a key member of the joint criminal enterprise and that he intended to repopulate the Krajina with Croats. Other members of the joint criminal enterprise included Gojko Šušak, who was the Minister of Defence and a close associate of Tuđman’s, Zvonimir Červenko, the Chief of the Croatian army Main Staff. The members of the joint criminal enterprise also included others in the Croatian political and military leadership who participated in Presidential meetings and were close associates of Tuđman’s"'' (see ) ] 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And now we have the appeals chamber saying that “he Trial Chamber made no explicit findings concerning participation in the JCE and did not find them guilty of any crimes". ] (]) 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sorry, it was pointed out to my attention that the upper quote does not come from the trial judgement. I reviewed your source. This quote comes from a press release from 2011 Gotovina trials (which was later overturned). The source I had posted comes from the appeals chamber to Prlic and others, where some (including this article) had written that that trials chamber had found Tudjman a part of JCE. Now we have the appeals chamber findings. ] (]) 16:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Interesting, I didn't see this news. The Croatian Ministry has the same view on this decision of the Appeals Chamber: . ] (]) 17:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The article already describes this at length, if you have a specific suggestion to make please do, otherwise this sounds like a bit of ]. --] (]) 11:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
*Removing edit request template. IP appears blocked and other editors who can edit the page are discussing the topic. ] ] 01:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
The second para starts with "The Bosniak leadership initially showed willingness to remain in a rump Yugoslavia, (...)", this is just half true. In reality it was one of two currents within the SDA party, the one led by two prominent party leaders Muhamed Filipović and that other guy dissident from Switzerland, whose name I can't remember, which opted to negotiate with Milosevic and seek some way to stay within YUG. Filipovic and this other guy were in fact on the meeting with Milosevic in Belgrade, and this matter practically caused the party to break into two factions and at the first elections they were already completely separated into SDA and some other party, which was completely ignored by Bosniak electorate. Characters like Izetbegovic, Silajdzic, Ganic, Cengic, etc never even contemplated such variant, and they were key Bosniak leaders. Kristo exploiting rather simplistic view on this episode in history. ౪ Santa ౪ 20:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Clearly, Franjo Tudjman left behind not only highly antisemitic academic work, as already described in the article, but is on the record of making antisemitic remarks in public as well.
The speech is easy to find on YouTube, has been since at least 2020, and it should be added, along with other instances of Tudjman's antisemitism into a new, separate, section. Clearly, from the rambling character of the speech it is obvious that such antisemitic ideas were integral to his personal way of thinking and not just a part of some political speech, perhaps prepared by someone else.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Structure: criterion met
