Talk:Trial of Radovan Karadžić

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge and delete[edit]

This article is out of date, and this has not changed since several years. Suggestion: merge relevant information with article Radovan Karadžić, then propose for deletion. --Uxh (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning light-minded unjustified deletion of sourced text[edit]

To Avala: Are you capable of delivering a justifying explanation concerning the light-minded removal of the second part of Vućić' statement? Do you expect from the translator to input in brackets comments for obvious things and to write "...and was doing [by arresting Karadžić, note of the translator] a favour to the persons who pandered to ..." instead of the only reasonable and conforming to Wikipedia standards: "...and was doing a favour to the persons who pandered to ..." ? I consider any removal of topic-related and sourced information from the article as an insupportable POV, and am thence eager to perceive your justification. Bogorm (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragandabic.com[edit]

straight from dragandabic.com (which I presume will go offline in the near future): (snip)

oops, strike that. The website is fake, put online after the arrest. http://www.psy-help-energy.com/ looks more like the real thing. --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep, psy-help-energy.com it is, Karadzic's email address is listed there as dddavid@psy-help-energy.com [1]. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you've got to admire the perfection of his alias. The psy-help-energy.com perfectly mimics the unprofessionality of your average esotericist quantum quack. His business card is also excellent, listing six successive e-mail addresses of the psy-help-energy.com domain. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title and further development[edit]

This article should probably become Radovan Karadžić's arrest and trial as events progress, paralleling Alberto Fujimori's arrest and trial. dab (𒁳) 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree. When the trial begins... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's now imprisoned in The Hague. Could we add more detail as to exactly what crimes he is accused of in the Trial-section? The article on himself lists the 11 charges as:

  • Five counts of crimes against humanity (Article 5 of the Statute - extermination, murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, persecutions, inhumane acts (forcible transfer));
  • Three counts of violations of the laws of war (Article 3 of the Statute - murder, unlawfully inflicting terror upon civilians, taking hostages);
  • One count of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (Article 2 of the Statute - willful killing).[2]
  • Unlawful transfer of civilians because of religious or national identity.[3]

--Leviel (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody retitled this article prematurely, from Arrest of Radovan Karadžić to Arrest and trial of Radovan Karadžić. A trial has not been scheduled yet, and there may never be a trial (if, for example, Karadžić pleads guilty). I would propose renaming this article to Proceedings by ICTY against Radovan Karadžić. --Mathew5000 (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arrest date[edit]

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

The president of the National Council for Cooperation with the Hague Tribunal said that Karadžić had been arrested in an operation that began on Monday (July 21) and lasted nine hours, rejecting claims by the suspect’s lawyer Svetozar Vujačić that he was arrested on Friday, July 18.[4]

Thanks, --Avala (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the Hague chap is deceiving the public - on the Russian state television the news were that he was arrested in an autobus with four faked controllers who had forced him to relinquish the bus and then arrested him. And he had allegedly shown no resistance. That could no way last 9 hours. In my opinion, both versions should be present with the explanation who is behind them. And please, do not indulge in efforts to deceive the public - on Первый канал it was said too that the parliament was dissolved on Friday in order to deprive the Radical party of the possibility to reprimand the arrest, does that not sound like a sound argument for the Friday version? How do you find this: "Вице-спикер Сербского парламента Божедар Делич был удивлен, когда в минувшую пятницу в Скупщине объявили перерыв в работе на две недели. Теперь понимает, что причиной такого кулуарного решения, о котором не знал даже он, один из руководителей парламента, был арест Караджича." (source) I am going to write it right now because the reader should know who is obfuscating what. Bogorm (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both may be telling the truth. He may have been detained on Friday and arrested on Monday. This is what this BBC report says

Officials said no further information about his detention would be released until the action team of prosecutors, police and intelligence teams meet in Belgrade on Tuesday morning, the BBC's Eastern Europe correspondent Nick Thorpe says.

"Radovan Karadzic was located and arrested tonight [Monday evening]" by Serbian security officers, a statement by the office of President Boris Tadic said, without giving details.

"Karadzic was brought to the investigative judge of the War Crimes Court in Belgrade, in accordance with the law on co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [ICTY]."

Serbian government sources told Reuters news agency he had been under surveillance for several weeks, following a tip-off from a foreign intelligence service.

But his lawyer, Svetozar Vujacic, said Mr Karadzic had been detained "on Friday in a bus" and held till he was brought before the judge of Serbia's war crimes court for questioning. Mr Karadzic was said to have remained silent during questioning.

However as the source for the detention is Karadzic's lawyer, Svetozar Vujacic. This should be explicitly mentioned as a minority POV. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you won't consider dubbing Bozhidar Delic's comments on the sudden two-weeks closure of the Parliament exactly on Friday as a POV as well, after all the Parliament of a country is a official body and all his members are to be reckoned with. And I hope that Pervy kanal would not be considered inferior to Channel 4 and sourced information based on it removed. Bogorm (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit clash) Why mention and Pervy kanal in the article when an English speaking source has already mentioned it? See WP:Verifiablity#Non-English sources "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly".

As to the rest of the paragraph you have added " According to the vice-chairman of the Serbian Skupština Božidar Delić the fact that the parliament had been dissolved for two weeks of break was correlated with the first version and he has understood the roots for this decision stemming from Karadžić' arrest only after several days had elapsed and the news had been publicised. " This is a political POV and should be in the body of the article not the lead because political POVs bloat the lead without bringing clarity and as only one POV is currently present it is not a NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where would you propose to move Delic' statement? That is not a reaction with a clear approving or castigating stance, therefore section "Reactions" is inappropriate. If I open a new section like "Controversy around the date of the arrest", why should there be only one sentence in it? And if any version of the date remains at the top and the other moved to a separate section, that will signify a preference for one of them, which is again POV. So whither is Delic' statement to be transferred? Bogorm (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest turning the sentence into a footnote, and removing the first reference to Pervy kanal so that the introduction looks like this:

The arrest of Radovan Karadžić took place on 21 July 2008 in Belgrade.[1] However Channel 4 reported that Karadzic's lawyer, Sveta Vujacic said that "I'm 100 % sure that ... Radovan Karadzic was arrested on July 18th at half past nine. ..."[2][3]


References
  1. ^ Staff. Serbia captures fugitive Karadzic, BBC, 22 July 2008
  2. ^ "Radovan Karadzic, Europe's most wanted man, is arrested in Belgrade". Channel 4 News. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
  3. ^ According to the vice-chairman of the Serbian Skupština Božidar Delić the fact that the parliament had been dissolved for two weeks of break was correlated with the first version and he has understood the roots for this decision stemming from Karadžić' arrest only after several days had elapsed and the news had been publicised (Božidar Delić' statement, on Pervy kanal, Accessed 4 July 2008)

If a refutation to Božidar Delić can be found then the spat on their political argument can be mentioned. Also note I have removed the bolding of the article name because it is a descriptive one and WP:MOS says descriptive names should not be in bold. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree only if 18 July were provided with a link like this: "was arrested on July 18th" in order not to be disparaged and if "Accessed 4 July 2008" were renamed as "... on 24 July 2008", on the 4th there was no article yet writted, but I suppose it was a technical mistake. Bogorm (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One objection: I have never heard of Channel 4, but according to "...if an English-language source of equal quality..." you are entitled to remove the first source only if this Channel is equal to Pervy kanal - Pervy kanal is the greatest channel in a 130 Million country like Russia (including СНГ, where it is also widely transmitted - 250 Mln.) and if Channel 4 is not amongst the top British channels, which I can not assert, then there is no equality. So, answer me sincerely and impartially (I myself am no Russion and am not from a СНГ state, so I consider myself impartial): is Channel 4 as authoritative and reliable source as, exempli gratia, BBC? Bogorm (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Channel 4 News is one of the most authoritative TV news programmes in the UK. This sentence needs clarifying as it does not make much sense in English:
"According to the vice-president of the National Assembly of Serbia, Božidar Delić the fact that the parliament had been dissolved for two weeks of break was correlated with the first version and he has understood the roots for this decision stemming from Karadžić' arrest only after several days had elapsed and the news had been publicised".
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will trust you, when you insist ... But Pervy kanal is not one of the most authoritative , but the most authoritative in the whole СНГ, to put it mildly. What does disturb you in the sentence? Bogorm (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(to Gustav von Humpelschmumpel) I obviously made a mistake by trusting you concerning C. 4 since you removed Delic' inconvenient statement about the day (18 July), quoted by one of the most reliable source of whole Eurasia. How would you justify such an edit? Bogorm (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the name of the Chief-of-Police who was fired ten days before the arrest?--Wetman (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protests[edit]

I saw footage of protests (including some violence) following his arrest on SkyNews this morning. Should this be included in the description of his arrest? --Leviel (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well SkyNews reporter said that there were much much less people then expected (~10k) and that most of them were football hooligans looking for an excuse to fight with police not caring too much about the protest.--Avala (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His stance on Holbrooke needs more detail in the article[edit]

It has been repeatedly mentioned in Media that he is accusing him of a certain deal. It is further reported that he claims he has the documents to prove it. --Leladax (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to expand it with current media reports.--Avala (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Addition to: Reactions to The Arrest[edit]

I would like to see The Israeli reaction to The Arrest. Barkmoss (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the Nauruan reaction to The Arrest. Bogorm (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Radovan Karadzic 2008.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Radovan Karadzic 2008.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Arrest and prosecution of Radovan Karadžić[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Arrest and prosecution of Radovan Karadžić's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holbrooke[edit]

Has there been any explanation covered in RS of why Holbrooke or the CIA might want to protect him? Did they think his arrest would harm the peace process or did they fear stuff he may reveal or did they support his actions or what? Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trial of Radovan Karadžić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Trial of Radovan Karadžić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_of_Radovan_Karadžić&oldid=1209584902"