Talk:Franjo Tuđman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Before 1990, in the 1990s

The article should include more info about what he was doing before 1990 (perhaps mentioning among other things that he was president of FK Partizan or the way he received his PhD title (which is, according to some sources, just an honorary doctorate which had been presented to him by the University of Zadar some time in the late 1980s or early 1990s as he never actually studied history at any university). It's also unknown if he could enrol at university at all as it remains unclear whether he ever formally gradutaed from high school (he had to leave high school when he joined the partisans in WWII).

Another thing that's missing is his connection with Croats abroad, specifically, about how he went on fundraising tours in the late 1980s garnering support for his program (allegedly, most notable of these were his frequent trips to Canada, hosted by Gojko Šušak.) Also, the highly controversial topic of the fall of Vukovar (which some believe was intentionally left to its own means by the Croatian government) is not mentioned at all.

Furthermore, the article could use with some expansion concerning the authoritarian style or ruling the country he introduced in the 1990s (for example, the way he himself decided about political appointments, or his disregard for the role of parliament, the renaming of Dinamo Zagreb, the Zagreb Crisis, the Radio 101 protests, the way members of his immediate family transformed into enterpreneurs owning several large businesses, his frequent fallouts with the opposition media (Feral Tribune being a nice example) and so forth).

In short, I think it's pretty evident that his rule had influenced almost every aspect of life in Croatia in the 1990s and it doesn't do justice do the article to focus merely on the 1990-95 war the add a bit about the privatisation. Several books of memoirs have been publised by people who were close to him, and he has been subject of numerous articles in the press in the last 10 years, so there's plenty of documented and verified facts which could and should be included in the article. There's my two lipas. Timbouctou (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article indeed appears as if editors who wrote it weren't at all interested in Tudjman as an individual. That's why it's light on actual biographic details, especially before 1990, and heavy on essay-like stuff. A good source for Tuđman's biography might be the Hudelist's book, which I happen to have - but alas, haven't read it and don't really plan to... GregorB (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am just reading Sadkovich's book,taking notes and inserting information about his lifer prior 1990s.--Kennechten (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully that will bring about an improvement, the article is very messy. Regarding the Sadkovich's book, bringing the references in line with WP:CITESHORT would be nice, currently the References section looks a bit crowded. GregorB (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Issues

It seems that Kenechten thought it would be a good idea to merely translate whatever Sadkovich and Hudelist (both of whom have credentials which leave much to be desired) said about Tuđman and fill the article with an indiscriminate collection of factoids and POV observations by them. Here's a few examples, all taken from the current revision of the article:

• After the war, he worked as a historian for a few years. He lived relatively anonymous in the following years until the end of communism. - "After the war" and "until the end of communism" is a period spanning some 45 years. Could you be more precise?
• The whole bit about the origin of his family name is completely nonsensical, and if "there is no clear evidence about origins of surname Tuđman" then why talk about it at all?.
• His father Stjepan owned a tavern and was an important member of the Croatian Peasant Party. - Important? Based on what? Was he head of the local branch or something or is Sadkovich just making this up? How do we know he was important?
• The whole bit about his genealogy seems superficial and irrelevant as it never mentions a single person who is notable in their own right. From what I can tell Franjo came from a huge family of anonymous people - does it make sense to list them all?
• His father liked Stjepan Radić and had anticlerical attitude and young Franjo adopted their attitudes. - What does this mean exactly? What does liking Stjepan Radić mean, or do you expect readers to be familiar with the political background of 1920s Croatia?
• When he was 15 his father brought him to Zagreb where he met Vladko Maček, president of HSS.[3] At first, young Franjo liked HSS, but later he turned towards communism. - See above.
• On November 5, 1940 he was arrested during student demonstrations celebrating the anniversary of the Soviet October revolution. - Again, no context. He was arrested because he was demonstrating and he was demonstrating because he was celebrating?
• On April 10 1941, when Slavko Kvaternik proclaimed NDH Tuđman left school and started publishing secret newspapers with his friend Vlado Stopar. He was recruited by Yugoslav partisans at the begining of 1942 by Marko Belinić. - Who is Marko Belinić? What is NDH? Who is Slavko Kvaternik? Who is Vlado Stopar? What are "secret newspapers"? Who read them?
• His father joined the partisans and became one of founders of ZAVNOH. - this is a fact which should come with a reference supporting it.
• They both managed to survive, unlike the youngest brother Stjepan who was killed by Gestapo fighting for the Partisans in 1943. - Really? The Gestapo? I'm certainly no expert on WWII but it seems odd that the German police killed someone who I assume (and I certainly can't know from the article as it is missing a great deal of context) was fighting in Croatia, e.g. outside Germany. If this was indeed the case some explanation on how Gestapo found itself here would be useful.
• Franjo Tuđman and Ankica Žumbar have married in the Belgrade city council. They turned the same day on their jobs. - When were they married? Is it relevant that they were married at the city council? If so, why? What does it matter that they showed up at work the very same day?
• On April 26, 1946 his father Stjepan and stepmother were found dead.[10] His father Stjepan killed his wife and then himself, according to the police finding. Tuđman has never managed to clarify circumstances of their death.According to the police finding his father Stjepan killed his wife and then himself. Other theories accuse Ustaše guerrila (Crusaders) for their death. Other sources accuse members of Yugoslav secret police. (OZNA) - Weasel words copied from sources are still weasel words and as such unacceptable here. Who are these "other sources"? Who exactly did propose these theories and are they just crakcpot theories or real possibilities?
• Like many partisans Franjo and Ankica did not graduate secondary school. They did that after the war, in Belgrade. - When did they graduate? Which school?
• During his leadership Institute became source of alternative interpretations of Yugoslav history. - Alternative in what way?
• University of Zagreb has rejected his dissertation under excuse that some parts of it were already published - Wording. "Under the excuse" is an inappropriate way to describe a valid reason not to award a PhD. Also, which parts? Did UNIZG in fact say that he plagiarized his thesis because that's what's being said in between the lines here.
• Members of his committee were Vaso Bogdanov,Kosta Milutinović and Dinko Foretić,professors at University of Zadar. - again, unnecessary listing non-notable people.
• However,publisher "Naprijed" has cancelled contract with him following his refusal to change some "controversial" statements. - When?
• His most important book from that period was Velike ideje i Mali narodi ("Great ideas and small nations"), a monograph on political history that collided with central dogmas of Yugoslav Communist elite with regard to the interconnectedness of the national and social elements in the Yugoslav revolutionary war (during WWII). - Unclear. What does this sentence mean to an average reader of Wikipedia? Which were the prevalent dogmas? Why did his book collide with them? Who says it was his most important book?
• In 1971 he was sentenced to two years of prison for subversive activities during the Croatian Spring. - Who called the activities "subversive"? Was it the government? If so, than say so.
• According to Tuđman's own testimony, Yugoslav President Marshal Josip Broz Tito personally intervened to recommend the court be lenient in his case, sparing him a far longer sentence. - A reference to Tuđman's "own testimony" would be nice to support this (yes, I know there's a video on YouTube in which Tuđman talks about this, and this should be added as a source for the claim).
• According to Tuđman, he and Tito were personal friends. - Wording. Are there any non-personal friends?
• The Croatian Spring was a national movement that was actually set in motion by Josip Broz Tito and Croatian party chairman Vladimir Bakarić in the climate of growing liberalism in the late 60s - Jumping to conclusions. You'd need some heavy referencing to support this statement, and there's bound to be an abundance of sources to choose from.
• It was initially a tepid and ideologically controlled party liberalism, but it soon grew into mass nationalist-based manifestation of dissatisfaction with the position of Croatia within Yugoslavia, and threatened the party's political monopoly. - See above.
• Bakarić quickly distanced himself from the Croatian Communist leadership that he himself helped gain power earlier, and sided with the Yugoslav president. However, Tito took the protesters' demands into consideration, and in 1974 the new Yugoslav constitution granted the majority of the demands sought by the Croatian Spring. - See above.
• On other topics like Communism and one-party monopoly, Tuđman remained mostly within the framework of Communist ideology. His sentence was commuted by Tito's government and Tuđman was released after nine months. - References for the first sentence. When was his sentence commuted? When was he released?
• Tuđman was trialed again in 1981 for having spread "enemy propaganda", while giving an interview to the Swedish TV on the position of Croats in Yugoslavia and was sentenced to three years of prison, but again he only served a portion (this time eleven months). - References, context. When was he tried, when was he imprisoned, when was he released, what did he say in the interview?
• Tuđman's connections with Croatian diaspora (he traveled a few times to Canada and the USA after 1987) proved to be crucial when he founded Croatian Democratic Union in 1989 —a party that was to stay in power until 2000, and which cannot be classified along criteria dominant in stable societies. - Eh?
• His first journey in 1989 was to the Theresian Military Academy in Vienna in Austria, where he got as a General from his Austro-Hungarian Army friends a public meeting organized on 5 March 1989, where he met people like Ivo Sanader, Ivan Milas and others. Since then is the role of Austria on the Balkans very suspicious, see: Vienna Capital Partners. - Eh?
• For the tensions and wars that ensued, one should see history of Croatia and history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. - Eh? I expect the article to provide some background, not to direct me to other articles. Otherwise we might dispense with this whole article and turn it into a redirect pointing to List of Presidents of Croatia.
• Tuđman's strategy of stalling the Yugoslav Army in 1991 by signing frequent cease fires intermediated by foreign diplomats was efficient — when the first cease fire was signed, the emerging Croatian Army had seven brigades; the last, twentieth cease fire the Croats had met with 64 brigades. - Reference needed. I lived in Croatia at the time and I can't remember anyone seeing numerous cease fires as an ingenious piece of strategic thought on Tuđman's part. I'm certainly no expert, but if this was said by one I'd like to know which one.
• Even during his presidency there were circles in society who claimed that Mr Tuđman's rule was autocratic and that he showed little sensitivity to criticism.* - "Circles in society" eh? Which circles?
• In 2001 a review from the IPI reported about an increased number of libel law suits that were initiated during Tuđman's mandate - Increased number of libels might be an interesting indicator, if only we knew what it meant exactly. What sort of libels is the article talking about?
• Some of his critics mention Gojko Šušak as his version of Darth Vader. - ROFL
• There have been written many opinions by various authors that knew a little about Croatian history but they were dead certain that Tuđman was hard-line nationalist. (Sadkovich again - he takes upon himself to dismiss other peoples' opinions as uninformed)
• Alleged secret discussions between Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina between Serbia and Croatia were held as early as March 1991 known as Karađorđevo agreement or Karađorđevo meeting. - Nothing "alleged" about this. Whether an agreement was actually reached is debatable but there are many sources confirming that there indeed were secret meetings and talks between Milošević and Tuđman (see Šarinić's book of memoirs).
• All "proofs" for this "agreement" are based on rumours of the persons that were not present at the meeting. There is not any record of this meeting that proves existence of any agreement. - The source used for this noticeable statement is a political biography by James J. Sadkovich. However, the reliability of the source is highly questionable, as it failed to pass peer review commissioned for it's publishing by The Woodrow Wilson Center. Instead, Sadkovich resorted to publishing it through the Croatian newspaper Večernji list, which doesn't, in any way, have scientific accountability. The claims have therefore been removed due to the lack of valid sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapidarist (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is just a portion of statements which need to be fixed. Even after skipping sections which are problematic in its entirety (such as pretty much the entire sections currently titled "Controversies", "Formation of the national program" and "Legacy") I must admit I got tired of wading through it. (The Dinamo dispute does not provide enough context and in addition uses wrong dates, the legacy section reads like an opinion piece copied from some newspaper columnist, the national program section is an amalgamation of who knows what taken from who knows where, the privatization issue has too little references to be taken seriously and the Bosnian war and war crimes allegations sections are too big and include stuff which is not directly related to Tuđman - btw, the whole section which discusses his alleged intent to partition Bosnia does not even mention the most lasting legacy of his plans which is the large number of Croats living there who were granted Croatian citizenship during the Tuđman years).

There surely must be people other than Sadkovich and Hudelist who published works touching on Tuđman, as well as a myriad of sources from the Western media. We have absolutely no clue how reliable Sadkovich is, while on the other hand there are books by authors such as Misha Glenny which could and should be consulted. In comparison to this article, the Croatian version is way better, even with all the usual outdated embellishments of the man's life and times, because at least it tries to provide some context, however debatable the framing of the context might be. The prose is poor, the article is overloaded with weasel words and essay-like sections, it seriously lacks references from a diverse rage of sources. The important bits are either unmentioned or painted in sketchy terms, while other totally irrelevant bits are give undue prominence. I'm not writing all this to trash other users' attempts at bringing the article to a decent level of quality - on the contrary - I'm commenting here so that future editors and/or reviewers will immediately see what the issues are and deal with them properly. I thought someone should say something so here I am, saying something. Timbouctou 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can only agree with the above. In short: the article needed a cleanup, now it needs a rewrite. (Tagged accordingly.)

Let me say a thing or two about the sources... Haven't read Sadkovich, but what was distilled here doesn't look too promising, to put it mildly. Haven't read Hudelist either, although I have the book. IIRC, it is an award-winning work, but this negative review from Vijenac (in Croatian) looks pretty convincing to me. Hudelist is an intelligent man and definitely an above-average writer, but it seems that, at the very least, his journalistic instincts got the better of him. I'm certain that both sources could be used, but only with good judgment. GregorB (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Precisely that is the reason to mention only facts and dates. Opinion (plenty of them in Hudelist's book )tend to avoid

Doctorate

Here's one biography of Tuđman, from Biografije.com, which claims to be based on three books (I. Radoš: Tuđman izbliza, H. Šošić: Istine o dr Franji Tuđmanu and M. Pavković: dr Franjo Tuđman ili tako je govorio prvi hrvatski predsjednik i pobjednik hrvatskog Domovinskog rata). It says that he received hid doctorate at the University of Zagreb (even though virtually all sources, including this article which quotes Sadkovich, say he got it in Zadar). Apparently the mix up comes from the fact that he presented his thesis at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zadar, which was at the time part of the University of Zagreb (as the present-day University of Zadar was founded almost 40 years later in 2002). It also might be worth mentioning that he worked as professor at the Univ. of Zagreb Faculty of Political Science between 1963 and 1967, where he taught a class called "The socialist revolution and modern national history". Timbouctou 13:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

actually ,your are wrong and right at the same time . He graduated at a faculty of filosophy in Zadar which belonged to University of Zagreb (its subsidiary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.170.246 (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that's different from what I said earlier. Both the Zagreb Faculty of Philosophy and the Zadar Faculty of Philosophy used to be part of UNIZG in 1965. Timbouctou 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Note on Sadkovich

For editors interested to see how credible various accounts of Tudjman and the breakup of Yugoslavia are I recommend Sabrina Ramet's 2005 book Thinking about Yugoslavia: Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (Cambridge University Press) in which she compares some 130 scholarly and popular works which had been published about the topic (here's a book review). Parts of it are available on Google Books here, including the section in which she offers an overview of the way Tudjman and his policies were portrayed by various scholars. On Sadkovich and his views she says the following:

One of those who had tried to present Tudjman in a favourable light is James J. Sadkovich, who, at this writing, is completing the composition of the first biography in English of the Croatian leader. Admitting that Tudjman proved to be controversial as president, Sadkovich reproves Western academics and journalists who ignored the Croatian leader's "respect for formal, procedural democracy" and notes that Tudjman was among those who, in early 1993, "had pressed for the creation of an international court to try war crimes". For Sadkovich, the widespread portrait of Tudjman as a provincial authoritarian is superficial and inaccurate, as is the notion that he was a "fascist" or a "radical nationalist". Rather, says Sadkovich, the Croatian leader should be seen as a somewhat "archaic intellectual" who, if "long-winded and old-fashioned", was nonetheless a "Croatian patriot" attracted to humanism. Sadkovich also documents a pervasive tendency of Western reportage to be distinctly unsympathetic to Croats who were sometimes blamed even when it was Croat villages which were being overrun by the Yugoslav Army and Serb paramilitary forces.

— Sabrina P. Ramet, Thinking about Yugoslavia: Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo

I might also add that a WorldCat search does not give any results for Sadkovich's book and I cannot seem to find any professional review of his 2010 book on Tudjman in either English or Croatian, which should all be taken as signs of questionable credibility. I'm not saying that everything Sadkovich wrote should be rejected automatically, but we should keep in mind WP:WEIGHT, tht is, that our articles must fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.

For getting an idea of what constitutes "widely held views" Ramet's book could serve as a starting point. In addition, a 2002 article by Sadkovich himself published in the Croatian peer-reviewed journal Polemos (available here) titled "Argument, Persuasion and Anecdote: The Usefulness of History to Understanding Conflict" in which he lists a number of sources and writers who, in his opinion, have "shaped attitudes in the early 1990s" (he mentions works by Laura Silber, Alan Little, Robert J. Kaplan, Noel Malcolm, Branka Magaš, Tim Judah, Marcus Tanner, Misha Glenny, who have all, according to Sadkovich, "written influential books on Yugoslavia's demise"). Timbouctou 18:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadkovich's book was published in Croatian 2 months ago. In English-not yet [2]

WP:CITESHORT

I'd like to urge fellow editors who add book sources to this article to read WP:CITESHORT and try to implement it here. The references look a bit messy, shortened notes would have been easier for all. GregorB (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality, NPOV

"Ante Marković was the best ally of the U.S. in Yugoslavia. The Greek cruise ship MTS Oceanos sank off the Wild Coast of South Africa one day later on 4th of August 1991. Germany was caught and paid 800 Million Mark. Such way it was not possible to end the war quickly. Until the end of the war were about 40 different nations leading a war against each other."

This short passage is representative for the article in it's POV, nebulous language, inferior phrasing, lack of sources, disarangement and incoherence as regards content. Whoever has tried here to put about his/her/their "truth", this text is unworthy of wikipedia.--Severino (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I find this article a bit messy too. I think it is better to have it semi-protected and to rewrite large parts of it. I really find it difficult even to understand the English used in some paragraphs there. --Vitaltrust (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

FK Partizan

Perhaps this should be addressed here as it seems to bother some anons. While it is true that the common misconception that Tuđman held the post of chairman of FK Partizan football club is untrue (official list here), it is true that he was member of the board of the JSD Partizan, its parent multi-sports society. The board's members - usually consisting of senior Yugoslav Army officers - regularly rotated in the post of the sports society's chairman. Thus Tuđman served as chairman of JSD Partizan from 1958 to 1961 and there is a number of sources confirming this, including Hudelist's book. As to the reasons for his appointment, his contributions to the club, his actual influence on its workings (or lack of it) and/or his personal feelings about it - they are all debatable and a matter of speculation. But the factoid itself is not. Timbouctou (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Education

'Military Gymnasium' Tudjman's graduation is a pure invention of some nationalistic writers. Also, Tudjman took several classes at the Belgrade Military Academy. Never graduated there. If anything mentioned were true, then his followers would provide the proper documents, i.e. the copies of the education institution diplomas--71.191.31.183 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

Suggest a complete rewrite of the article. It is a mess, and has multiple internal inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.184.227 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Despotic

An IP had showed up a few days ago and introduced a reference for the statement that "the most common accusation is that of autocratic behaviour and despotism". IP sourced it to a 2001 opinion piece by Prakash Karat published by something billed as the "Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India" (which is not WP:RS and which does not even mention his autocracy or despotism - the article actually describes him as a "fascist nationalist" :-)

In this edit of DIREKTOR's he used this source (page 84 of Bellamy's The Formation of Croatian National Identity) to replace the Indian opinion piece. (The sentence is a remnant of a small unreferenced and POV-ish paragraph in the Controversies section which has been around since 2007).

The quote in Bellamy comes from a section in which he explains what other political parties' criticised Tudjman's politics for:

The other main parties [other than IDS] argued that far from Europeanising Croatia, Tuđman was responsible for its Balkanisation. While Tuđman claimed that Croatia belonged to he Central European political sphere, he acted like a Balkan despot. Hence, it was claimed, Franjoism had nothing to do with either the legacy of Croatian state-right or its political and social culture and was thus self-defeating in its attempts to distance Croatia from all things Yugoslav, as it was only through Franjoism that the two were related.

— Alex J. Bellamy, The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream, (p. 84; 2003)

So Bellamy does not mention autocracy, he mentions despotism in a cultural sense as related to the Balkanisation and he never says this was the "most common accusation". On the other hand there are copious sources describing him and his rule as autocratic (here's Los Angeles Times and BBC to name a couple) and this is by no means controversial - even his fans agree that he was an autocrat. So I don't see why it should go into the Controversies section at all - a mention of this might belong into the lede, as long as it is properly referenced.

Hence I removed the entire sentence. Sure enough, DIREKTOR reverted this, passionately opining how I have "just declared [his autocracy] to be "general knowledge"???". Well, if something is mentioned in pretty much any book written on the subject than it certainly is general knowledge ad it certainly isn't "controversial". On the other hand - his "despotism" is rarely mentioned anywhere at all, and it originates from a paragraph which was unreferenced for four years and came from somebody's opinion piece. WP:OR and WP:DUE apply. Timbouctou (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on one point; I see no problem with autocracy being in the controversy section, it has been shown that rival parties did complain of it and thought it a serious problem. They also complained of despotism (not as often, but a mention in the article should be there). However, the rest of the sentences were lifted directly from Bellamy's book, so I condensed the information into a sentence having to be careful not to be biased or editorialising which it was veering towards. What do you think now? --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many people described him and his rule as autocratic, which is precisely the point - there are hardly any sources not describing him that way (including a number of his closest aides), so what makes this claim controversial? In order to establish a controversy one should be able to contrast opposing credible views - and there simply aren't any. As far as referencing goes I don't mind Bellamy although he has minor flaws - but if one would want to reference the claim one would be better off using quotes from sources who didn't stand to gain something by making such accusations (of course opposition parties criticized him - that is what opposition parties normally do). So this bit probably belongs into the lede or the "President of Croatia" section, referenced by any of the myriad of sources calling him autocratic/dictatorial/despotic or whatever. Timbouctou (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Timbouctou, "sure enough", you are misquoting me. What I complained about in my edit summary was that, on the basis of you declaring autocracy to be general knowledge - you removed all mention of it from the article. And as far as I am concerned, you may feel free to write "there are hardly any sources not describing Franjo Tudman as autocratic" in the lede or wherever, and then delete mention of it from the controversy section. But others might accurately object that the question at hand is not whether something is "general knowledge", however doubtful that claim of yours is, but that the issue is simply whether it was controversial. And it is controversial in Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really, no. "Others" are unlikely to "accurately object" that there's something controversial with the claim and I really wonder where did you get the impression that it is - in Croatia or abroad, regardless. Even Sadkovich - a historian of questionable credibility who wrote an entire book with the aim of portraying FT in a positive light - agrees with that. Žarko Domljan, Hrvoje Šarinić, Mate Granić and many other politicians who were close to him talked about this on record and at length. Saying that Tuđman was autocratic is about as "controversial" as saying that George Bush Jr. invaded Iraq. Timbouctou (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I am actually not a fan of stating "matter-of-fact" sentences, but I was trying to find a compromise and prevent an edit war. Especially when I can see the reasoning behind both your and Direktor's views. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

War Criminal

I know this is late, but shouldn't there be information about the war crimes committed by Tudjman in the opening paragraph considering it would be inconsistent that Gotovina, who was found guilty in the crime of which Tudjman was the leader has information about it as well as Milosevic, someone who couldn't be found guilty, has information in the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.210.70 (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues in President of Croatia chapter

Second Paragraph

First, it seems that the old Austro-Hungarian Army has been dissolved in 1918, when Tuđman was not even born. So it cannot be talked about him "as a General of the old Austro-Hungarian Army". In this paragraph two facts are considered that seem to be totally dis-joined. If there is a relation between Tuđman visit at the Theresian Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt and the request by FIAT of buying the Zastava factory in Serbia and the subsequent refusal by Slobodan Milošević, please explain. Explain in particular the starting point: who are "his friends" in the Theresian Military Academy? Moreover, how can it be concluded that "The Break-up of Yugoslavia and its Brotherhood and unity became a fait accompli"? Only over a dispute about the destiny of a, though important, car factory? --Carlotm (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, that paragraph is completely nonsensical. Timbouctou (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"Lapsed Catholic (considered by some even Atheist)", since when and from what source?

Infobox says that Tuđman was "lapsed Catholic (considered by some even Atheist)", and that is the first time I ever heard of it. For that, only source which is provided is New York Times article by David Binder. Personally I consider that source to be ridiculous, especially coming from an article full of prejudices such as when Binder labels Tuđman as enthusiastic Yugoslav patriot who became an equally enthusiastic Croatian nationalist, ardent Communist who became an ardent anti-Communist. How can someone be enthusiastic Yugoslav patriot and ardent Communist when he was in a house arrest for criticizing the Yugoslav Socialist establishment, accused for subversive activities during the Croatian Spring and tried for having spread enemy propaganda? Only that, make this source unworthy and untrue. Especially if we look at the testimony of Tadeusz Mazowiecki from June 2012, when he said; Bio sam šokiran kad mi je Franjo Tuđman rekao: Vi ste katolik, i ja sam. Ali, znate, ti muslimani... (I was shocked when Franjo Tuđman said: You are catholic, and so am I. But, you know, these Muslims...) Any thoughts?--Bbrezic (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the entries on people's beliefs should be filled in based on their self-identification, i.e. we would need a quote coming directly from him in which he described himself as a catholic or an atheist. But this is a guy who started off as an ardent communist and gradually turned into something of an ardent nationalist so this is pretty vague territory. We have no evidence that Tudjman was the slightest bit religious before at least the late 1980s - by the time he was already in his late 60s - and we know for a fact that he did not marry his wife in a church ceremony like a good Catholic was supposed to. So I guess we should just leave it blank. Timbouctou (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

as explained in the article:A lapsed Catholic is a person baptised as a Catholic who is non-practising.and Tuđman was that-since the end of WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.68.41 (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Biography

There was an issue about one paragraph in the early life of Franjo Tudjman. In relation to that, the source for the last edit that was done is the book "Tuđman : biografija" (ISBN:9531200386 9789531200387) which is the officially accepted biography of Franjo Tudjman. In relation to that, please do not revert edits that were done on the basis of that book if you didn't read the book. Thank you. 2A00:C440:20:27E:C086:6EB0:C981:43B (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "officially accepted biography of Franjo Tudjman". And even if there was, it probably wouldn't be the one you use, written by Darko Hudelist and often criticized for its accuracy and style. We don't really have an authoritative work written on Tudjman yet so all existing sources (especially those published in Croatia) should be taken with a large grain of salt. Timbouctou (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There might not be an officially approved version of the biography, but however the book, apart from being partially subjective, is still stating some pure facts, ant that is the reason why it was actually mentioned. After all, how is it possible to know that the critics of the author is not biased? 129.240.83.175 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Since Hudelist's factography has been questioned many times before, I'd rather wait for a second source confirming that Tudjman's baptismal name was indeed "Stjepan Sranjo" (I will leave the matter whether this factoid merits inclusion at all for later). In any case "Sranjo" is not a common name and roughly translates to "shithead". As for him adopting the name Franjo "in honour of Franz Ferdinand of Austria" - this is pure speculation on biographer's part. Timbouctou (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This User:2A00:C440:20:27E:C086:6EB0:C981:43B (or User:129.240.83.175, it's the same person) is persistently vandalizing this article by inserting the statement that Tuđman's birth name is "Sranjo" ("sranje" meaning "shit" in Serbo-Croatian). He tries to legitimate this vandalism by claiming that he cites the book "Tuđman : biografija", but this information is not in the book, it's pure vandalism. This vandal also removed my comment from this talk page (dif). There is an ongoing AFI discussion about his actions here. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dictator?

The United States support of authoritarian regimes lists Tuđman as a European dictator. Either he should be noted as a dictator in this article or he should be erased from the said list. Otherwise the Wikipedia is contradicting itself.90.181.138.240 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article you are referring to does not provide a citation for the said claim. So your dilemma is solved right there. Timbouctou (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears to provide not one, but two. Surtsicna (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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? 31.147.114.65 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

War crimes allegations section

This section contains a heap of outdated information. Gotovina et al case is closed by an appeal verdict and only that verdict carries weight. No "joint criminal enterprise" was proven, let alone that Tuđman took part in it. The first-degree verdict can be mentioned, but marginally (like the appeal verdict is mentioned now, which is ridicoulous).Tmina32 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite evident agenda on this article.

It is quite obviouse that there is a bias agaibst the subject of this article. There is a section where a claim is made that most sources put the nuber of victims in Jesenovac at 800,000. First, this number has been debunked multiple times to under 100,000. Second, why is this a huge focus in this article? Ehy are Ustase always brought up in Croatia related articles when it is uncalled for? Also why is it mentioned that it is beleived all Croats supported the Ustase? Such a claim is easly proven insanity. Not to mention said once by a Serbian historian. Why is that even brought up? Just to demonize Croats and Tudjman to counter balance Serbians and Melosovic?

This is a website for facts not political axe grinding and bigited opinions masscareded as "fact". Further investigation is called for in this article. -Anonymous

---

There is an agenda present. Though those figures are mention to show that there is a discrepancy between Tudjman and other historians when discussing the figures for the number of victims. It is questionable to label Tudjman's assessment as controversial yet those of the Serbian historians not controversial being that the figures are disputed and there are multiple other sources that back Tudjman's claims.--

"During and since World War II, there has been much debate and controversy regarding the number of victims killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp complex in its more than 3½ years of operation. Gradually, in the 15 years after the war ended, a figure of 700,000 began to reflect conventional wisdom, although estimates range between 350,000 and 800,000. The authorities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia conducted a population survey in 1964 that showed a far lower figure, but kept it a secret; when Vladimir Žerjavić published such lower figures in the 1980s, he was criticized by Antun Miletić among others, but his research has since been considered trustworthy by authorities on World War II Yugoslav history such as Jozo Tomasevich.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) in Washington, D.C. presently estimates that the Ustaša regime murdered between 77,000 and 99,000 people in Jasenovac between 1941 and 1945. The Jasenovac Memorial Site quotes a similar figure of between 80,000 and 100,000 victims."

Jackiechan321 (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions not facts.

"Had Tuđman lived longer, he would have been possibly brought up on war crimes charges by the UN Yugoslav war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Graham Blewitt, a senior Tribunal prosecutor, told the AFP wire service that "There would have been sufficient evidence to indict president Tuđman had he still been alive".[70] The Tribunal's indictment of Croatian general Ante Gotovina lists Tuđman as a key participant in a "joint criminal enterprise" aimed at the "permanent removal of the Serb population from the "Krajina" region by killing, force, fear or threat of force, persecution, forced displacement, transfer and deportation, appropriation and destruction of property other minority belongings & means".[71] In 1995, Carl Bildt had suggested that Franjo Tuđman was as guilty of war crimes as the "Krajina" Serb leader Milan Martić. Bildt was declared a persona non grata by Croatia following these statements.[72][73] because he "lost the credibility necessary for the role of a peace mediator".[72][73]"

This is a matter of opinion. It was never proven and Gotovina was appealed of the supposed crimes. Whys is this part of the article worded as if Tudjman was in fact a criminal guilty of said crimes?

Jackiechan321 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This article has a list of "controversies" bigger than Hitler's article, while if I recall correctly, and I do, I read that a controversies section is against WP:MoS. This one needs serious changes. Tzowu (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

The issue of his promotion is misrepresented here:

His promotion was not extreme but it was atypical for a Croat because senior officers were increasingly likely to be Serbs and Montenegrins. In 1962 Serbs and Montenegrins composed 70% of army generals.

These sentences seem to imply that there was a bias against Croats in the Yugoslav Army with respect to promotion, by claiming that "senior officers were increasingly likely to be Serbs and Montenegrins". However, this is because the military personnel was increasingly likely to be Serbs and Montenegrins. Saying that "Serbs and Montenegrins composed 70% of army generals" without mentioning what was their proportion among the military personnel (likely around 70% or even higher) muddles the issue further. GregorB (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Alma mater

Franjo Tuđman was educated at the University of Zagreb . Please add this to the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.7.42 (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any sources for that? GregorB (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted (forgot to explain in edit summary)

"In 1991 football club GNK Dinamo changed its name to HAŠK Građanski, and another name change followed in 1993, when the club was renamed to Croatia Zagreb. The name change was widely seen as a political move by the leadership of then newly independent Croatia, with the goal of distancing the club from its Communist past. However, the name change was never accepted by their supporters, and the club renamed themselves back to Dinamo on 14 February 2000." was reverted as wholly unsourced, and is largely irrelevant as the name was changed back, making the entire issue a temporary, 360 degree turnaround. Quis separabit? 21:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it was irrelevant: the name change was hugely controversial, and Tuđman was directly involved in it (which the quoted text somehow fails to note). Yes, the issue was "temporary" (most issues are), but the name was notably changed back only after Tuđman's death, as apparently no one dared to do it in his lifetime. Plenty of sources on all that, so hopefully someone will reintroduce this topic back into the article. GregorB (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

POV

Tzowu, could you briefly (or not so briefly :-) ) list the problems that warranted the POV banner?[3] (I'm not saying there are none, it's just that, with an article of this size (7600 words), section tagging and/or talk page comments are much more conducive to analysis and fixing.) GregorB (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In December it was the sections about the privatization, the ICTY, and a significant amount of unsourced and OR content. As far as I'm concerned, the tag can be removed now. Tzowu (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks - I've removed the tag without prejudice against putting it back should further concerns arise. GregorB (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

Quote

@Tzowu Regarding your last edit, the source you have provided is really bad, that is not a source. I don't have a problem with the quote, but try to find a better source, and so will I. Then it can be in the article, ok? Tnx :) --Tuvixer (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bad source. There's a video of the rally on youtube, it starts here at 00:38: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWZsiMKndbE . Would a video as a source be better? Wikipedia:Videos as references Template:Cite AV media. Tzowu (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a bad audio, so no. :/ --Tuvixer (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment about the intro

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for inclusion in the lede. The argument is to evenly split. The findings of the discussion are its important that some mention be made, but its to recent, its under appeal, and sourced to a primary source. These things probably should be included/attributed in the body of the article if not already there. AlbinoFerret 17:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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)

• Support brief inclusion as pertaining to an important political figure of the 20th century. Any clarifications, explanations or updates can be included as needed in the body of the article. If his fame derives from his role in leading Croatia out of Yugoslavia, then his infamy necessarily derives from the means he employed to accomplish this goal. As far as the opposition comments above, to disconnect the Herzeg-Bosnia from the Zagreb leadership is intellectually dishonest. I believe Carla del Ponte who has stated that had Tuđman and Susak not died they would have been indicted, knows more than we Wikipedians can about the matter. How the ICTY judges (in whom I must admit I have less than the highest regard given some of their individual decisions) would have voted and how the prospective trials would have played out had Tuđman and Susak not died is something we cannot know, although we may think we do, and is therefore a secondary consideration. Brief and concise mention of germane facts in lede, with a more detailed explanation in proper section of the body of the article, is therefore not unreasonable. Quis separabit? 23:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• It can be included, but it needs to be explained that the verdict is not final. The material needs to be fully attributed to. (Summoned by bot). - Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• COMMENT: I agree it can be included, but it seems to me that some are trying to give it more weight in the overall biography than in objectively has. The verdict is the first instance of a verdict that isn't against Tudjman, but he is just mentioned there. No one had bothered to defend him, because he was not on trial. Reading trough article I see more instances of such cases where more weight is given to statements and claims that do not deserve that much weight. For instance the quote that his wife is luckily not a Jew or Serbian is out of context and although it's bit clumsy it's weight isn't really what the article suggests. There really can't be an opposition to mention this in the article. It is something that had happened in front of ICTY. However, I think that some do not have good intentions of writing the biography of this person in an way that would cover all the major aspects of it, but that they are trying to emphasis such things that would give the wrong image of this person and his achievements. This just shows how anyone can be presented in good and bad light by manipulating with the weight of undeniable facts from his biography. I'm AGAINST stating this info in the lead, since it doesn't have due weight. It can be stated in the article, but as the verdict is not against Tudjman and as this is only first instance this info doesn't belong in the lead. 54.163.189.221 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Everyone that has taken a brief look at the work of ICTY can notice its inconsistency and the frequent changing of its decisions. For example, in the case against Mile Martić, Franko Simatović and Jovica Stanišić were found to be members of a joint criminal enterprise in the final verdict. However, in cases against Simatović and Stanišić, they were set free. This RfC is specifically about the case against the 6 Herzeg-Bosnia leaders, not the Croatian War of Independence or Carla del Ponte's comments (which were about the Croatian war). Again, as the IP also noted, the role of Tuđman is secondary in that trial (which was not the case in the Gotovina et al. trial, which is not in the lead), and considering that Theodor Meron is the presiding judge in the appeal, chances of its overturn are very high. Tzowu (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, as too recent and too long. Zezen (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Something about the trials should be briefly mentioned in the lead, but do not think we should mention the verdict until it is final. So I guess I support an alternative wording. I do not know what that should be, perhaps something along the lines of Although he was never indicted during his life, he was mentioned after his death in the Trial of Gotovina. The final verdict can be added as a sentence when it appears. Note: I am just responding to the RFC and make no claims to be familiar with this case, the wording was just what I got from the article body, I have not fact checked the sources. AIRcorn (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion: definitely important.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Zppix from feedback request service The current census that i see is yes add it. If anyone opposes this go ahead and reply to the request for feedback on my talkpage. Thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A majority of users voted against the inclusion. Tzowu (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That is simply not true. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

6 voted against the inclusion, 3 voted in favour of it, one said that only the trial should be briefly mentioned, not the verdict, and two said that a different wording is needed. There is obviously no consensus for adding this to the lead. Tzowu (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? Well everyone can see that 6 a for the inclusion, and 4 are against. I have a conformation from one user who voted against the inclusion that he did so because he wants to hide that fact from the article, so you are down to 3 who are against. GregorB made the request so should his vote count, no. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, really. Me, GregorB, Comatmebro, IP, Zezen and United Union opposed the inclusion, you, Peacemaker67 and Jack Upland supported the inclusion, Rms125a voted for a brief inclusion, Cwobeel said that "it can be included", but with an explanation that it's not a final verdict, and AIRcorn sad that only the trials should be briefly mentioned, not the verdict. There's no consensus to add this. Tzowu (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer Of course GregorB counts. Zppix is a new user who has been commenting on articles that get sent to him by a bot and I am not 100% sure he understands what a RFC is. Also you need to provide proof if you are going to accuse someone of bias or conflict of interest. AIRcorn (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion -- The verdict is not final. United Union (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion: it is definitely very important, common sense. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I removed a sentence with a remark Klaus-Peter Willsch for from the ICTY section. This was undone by Rms125a@hotmail.com. Rather than starting a edit/undo sequence we agreed to put this on the talk page.

The reason for my edit is the following. I was reading the well-done article but this sentence struck me as irrelevant and rather childish. It is a remark by an ordinary German parlementarian, mentioning dead popes, and rather partisan. Mr Willsch not an authority on the matter or somebody with a global stature. Further down in the article there is a remark by Kissinger, and that is another matter. Many journalists and politicians and others hold opinions on the ICTY and Tudjman - some consider him a hero, others a criminal, and all shades in between. We cannot possibly mention all these opinions. I hold Mr. Willsch is no particular authority to comment on the proceedings of the ICTY, and his remark in neither tone nor content is appropriate to an encyclopedic article, and it give no information, just opinion. I article is more sober and better without it. Sober is important in a hotly disputed topic as the Yougoslav wars.

What does one think? Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I also have no intention of edit warring, but the discussion petered out and there is no consensus for the removal of topical, sourced text. Any further discussion/vote on removing sourced text can certainly (re)start here. Quis separabit? 18:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on points made by @Ludwig Boltzmann

So, can someone explain why it should be in the article? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is now open for a very long time. Arguments are given why the sentence has no place in an encyclopedia. No objections. There is an explicit call for arguments why it should be in the article - no response. Arguments against no arguments given. I think I can conclude the sentence is better deleted.Ludwig Boltzmann (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

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 “[t]he Trial Chamber made no explicit findings concerning [Tudjman's, Šušak's and Bobetko's] participation in the JCE and did not find them guilty of any crimes" [4]. 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. @Peacemaker67: @GregorB: @Tzowu: @Comatmebro: @Rms125a@hotmail.com: @Cwobeel: @Zezen: @Aircorn: @Jack Upland: @United Union:. I was also involved as the only ip that had provided a comment (54.163.189.221). Also see this [5] 89.164.217.100 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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 “[t]he Trial Chamber made no explicit findings concerning [Tudjman's, Šušak's and Bobetko's] 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. GregorB (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@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 [6]) Quis separabit? 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And now we have the appeals chamber saying that “[t]he Trial Chamber made no explicit findings concerning [Tudjman's, Šušak's and Bobetko's] participation in the JCE and did not find them guilty of any crimes". 89.164.217.100 (talk) 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. 89.164.217.100 (talk) 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: Ministry: ICTY confirms Croatia wasn't responsible. Tzowu (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Removing edit request template. IP appears blocked and other editors who can edit the page are discussing the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia editors to censor the point because it believes that the higher court made a "factually incorrect statement". grabovcan —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franjo Tuđman. 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/20141027054405/http://www.dnevno.hr/kolumne/ante-nazor/76778-laz-je-da-tudman-izbacio-srbe-iz-ustava.html to http://www.dnevno.hr/kolumne/ante-nazor/76778-laz-je-da-tudman-izbacio-srbe-iz-ustava.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Franjo Tuđman. 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/20100419143648/http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/99/12/12/HRT0057.html to http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/99/12/12/HRT0057.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://eblnews.net/news/croatia/ministry-icty-confirms-croatia-wasnt-responsible-29777
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://eblnews.net/news/croatia/icty-denies-croatias-request-be-included-prlic-et-al-appeal-29747
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924031752/http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/99/12/12/HRT0057.html to http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/99/12/12/HRT0057.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Franjo Tuđman. 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/20130508152706/http://www.moljac.hr/biografije/tudjman.htm to http://www.moljac.hr/biografije/tudjman.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ffpu.hr/index.php?id=29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228202531/http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/croatia/croatia.htm to http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/croatia/croatia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721181407/http://dalje.com/en-croatia/minister-says-upgraded-zagreb-airport-to-be-named-after-tudjman/548587 to http://dalje.com/en-croatia/minister-says-upgraded-zagreb-airport-to-be-named-after-tudjman/548587

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

WAR CRIME TRIBUNAL FINDINGS

The section regarding the Bosnian-Croat war with the appropriate war crime allegations and recent development that confirm Tudman's role in genocide and ethnic cleansing needs to be part of this article.

im not a editor. someone please update. http://www.reuters.tv/v/AJ2/2017/11/29/bosnia-war-criminal-swigs-poison-in-court — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4500:61A:8014:4C4E:1A25:2DC0 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

See page 727 of the verdict, the Appeals Chamber noted that "...none of the crimes committed in furtherance of the CCP were attributed to the JCE through Tudman, Susak, Bobetko, Boban, or the unnamed members of the JCE...", similar to their announcement from July 2016. What they did find (see page 10 of the summary) is that the ultimate purpose of the JCE, which was "setting up a Croatian entity that reconstituted earlier borders and that facilitated the reunification of the Croatian people", was shared by Tuđman. In my opinion, that should be under the ICTY section, but not in the lead as he was not found guilty of any war crime. Tzowu (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, you can't be posthumously convicted or absolved of war crimes. His death is what "saved" him, just like Milosevic. 23 editor (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. It all depends on the body that is making the decision. see Martin Bormann, for ex. 104.169.18.61 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

He was the 9th and last President of the Presidency of SR Croatia from May to July 1990.

This passage contains a wrong fact. He was the 9th and last President of the Presidency of SR Croatia from May to July 1990. - This fact refers to Stipe Mesić, not Franjo Tuđman. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.215.109 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

Put in Category:People who died in office please, for obvious reasons. 86.169.238.12 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 21:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Izbori 1997. u Hrvatskoj (cropped).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Jasenovac casualties in Horrors of War

The article states that in his 1989 book Horrors of War, Tudjman estimated that the total number of victims in Jasenovac was somewhere "between 30,000 and 60,000". This is attributed to James J. Sadkovich's 2010 article in this journal. Most reliable sources however state that he gave an estimate of between 30,000 and 40,000. Macdonald even says that he arrived at a total of 50,000 victims for all Ustashe camps in the NDH. His high-end estimate for Jasenovac alone cannot be 60,000 then. It also isn't clear whether Sadkovich is alluding specifically to the 1989 book, as he says in the relevant passage that "in 1981 Tudjman was working from the 1964 census." Regarding Sadkovich's credibility, this should also be taken into account that was posted by another user on the talk page a while back. --Griboski (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)