Talk:Slobodan Praljak/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mediation?

I notice there's an edit-war on this article, and would like to help resolve the issue by offering informal mediation, provided of course, that both PRODUCER and Àntó consider me impartial. Until you guys get unblocked, I'll just say that this doesn't look like a very tough dispute, and that I'm sure it can be resolved relatively quickly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, let us see where the problem is:

If you take a look at edit history you will see the following:

• PRODUCER has removed category "People from Čapljina"- [1][2][3] Why??
• PRODUCER has removed category "Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina"- Why?
• PRODUCER has removed link to Praljak personal website-Why?? What is wrong with that?

About Sections:

• I did not erased this link . I just placed it in another section.
• Sentence "Slobodan Praljak is among six accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in relation to the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia." is written below with that source and it is absolutely necessary to repeat it twice.
• 2 Section "indicment" and "charges" are totally meaningless because that is the same thing.

PRODUCER'S modus oprandi here seems to be deleteing everything that he dislikes. no mather what collateral damage might be done.As in many other articles before. --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all: STOP edit-warring - you will get blocked for a long time. This version can stand for a while. Here's how I see it, there are a number of issues:

• Categories. All the categories, if they're correct of course, should stay.
• Personal website. As far as I know, a link to his personal website in the "External links" section is ok.
• Lead. The lead is supposed to repeat the content of the article. There is no reason to remove the text about his indictment from the lead.
• "Charges" section. The "Charges" section is unnecessary in my view, and it should fall under the "ICTY indictment" section.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead section must mention the ICTY trial per lead policy, the rest (categories etc.) were caught in the edit and couldn't care less about. PRODUCER (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well then, we agree. The lead can indeed repeat article text. Àntó?

By the way, PRODUCER, Àntó, I can guarantee you both: you will be blocked for weeks/months if you do not STOP edit-warring immediately. Just trust me, it'll happen. We need to take things slow and cool down. I suggest, if you'll accept my mediation, that we start with Slobodan Praljak and move on? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. PRODUCER (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a compromise. What if the lead section said something like "he is among six Croat politicians on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in relation to war crimes during the Bosnian War." Because he has not yet been found guilty there need not be details about the specifics of these crimes in the lead but I think it is important that they are mentioned. How is this for a solution? (feel free to improve on my text here). Polargeo

There you go guys, can we move on? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. PRODUCER (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL... so why were you edit-warring? :P Come on, a little less ethnic hatred please, remember that the Ustaše wanted us to be friends ;D --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic hatred? Where is this coming from? There is no other way of keeping that info in the lead section. You've witnessed edits that even remotely show anything bad about a Croat politician be removed by Aradic (Tudman, Prajlak, Glavas, Boban, etc). I've dealt with Aradic before with a third opinion and reached a consensus only to have it be later breached by him. Hopefully this will be more effective. PRODUCER (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An edit warrior who ( despite his username) , PRODUCES NOTHING ,whose 90% activities are reverting and cca 9% fighting on talk pages is not appropriate person to judge anybody. Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Silly comment Aradic, can you please stop trying to provoke PRODUCER? Polargeo (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER, I was kidding (note the smileys :). I was just referring to the fact that you're both not even seriously trying to discuss every issue, and that you really should use the talkpage if you're reverted. I was blocked a few times for edit-warring myself, but not before my hand ached from writing. No matter how futile it may be, at least give it a try. (I'm not lecturing, I'm trying to help. I don't want to see you guys blocked.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How many years did he get?

How long does he have to stay behind bars? --84.56.250.27 (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

He's dead bro. 96.227.114.188 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You may have the record for the longest response time I've ever seen.

War Crimes

The section on his service in the war consists mostly of praise. The only mention of the war crimes mentioned later in the trial section is the bombing of the bridge, of which he was acquitted. There needs to be substance on what his crimes were specifically in the war, and why the courts judged him guilty. Mr. Phorcys (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It does not consist mostly of praise nor in the "ICTY indictment" the bridge is the only mentioned crime, while the "acquittal" was only partial and about that the bridge was a legitimate military target. His crime is that as a high commander with his responsibility failed to "make any serious efforts to stop his soldiers rounding up Muslims in the summer of 1993" and "act on information that murders were being planned, as well as attacks on members of international organisations and the destruction of Mostar's historic Old Bridge and mosques" (per [4]) in a Joint criminal enterprise.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed veterans praise for better neutrality.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

There are two occurrences of "claimed" in the article. Per WP:CLAIM, please change them to "said". Headings: "During the war" and "Reaction". 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

@Patar knight:@United Union: regarding [5] and similar edits found in the revision history, to prevent a possible edit war and misunderstanding, would call interested editors to participate in the discussion to make a consensus. I am not an expert on WP:BLP, but the approach such as in the initial sentence that he "was a Bosnian Croat general and convicted war criminal" is not used on for e.g. Ratko Mladić's article lead, and along mention that "Before his military career, he was an engineer, professor, and television director" in the ending of the lead is made a false viewpoint that he primary was a general like Mladić, which he was not as he was a volunteer, that based on around 4 years of military service should be based his whole life, that after the war he was also a general which he was not as continued with his private professional and intellectual career. I propose an intermediate lead, similar to one of the previous, for e.g. "was a Bosnian Croat engineer, television director, and businessman. Between 1992 and 1995, he served as general in the Croatian Army and the Croatian Defence Council, an army of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia. Praljak was found guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Yugoslav Wars, by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. That being said, he was more than just a soldier (and war criminal) as seen from the article. Current lead, its significant part in a matter of fact, clearly mentions his conviction for committed war crimes so I don't see a problem there. I would propose this formulation: - was a Bosnian Croat engineer, television director, and businessman. Between 1992 and 1995, he served as a general in the Croatian Army and the Croatian Defence Council, an army of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia. Praljak was found guilty of committing war crimes against the Bosnian Muslim population during the Croat–Bosniak War by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for which he was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment. + the part on suicide which could be shorter. The reason I changed "Yugoslav wars" is because he committed those crimes during the Croat–Bosniak War and not other conflicts that fall under the "Yugoslav Wars". I'm not sure if the "crimes against humanity" are mentioned in the verdict, but if they are then it should be included as well. Greetings, United Union (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The crimes are against "humanity", "violations of the laws or customs of war", and "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions". Indeed, Yugoslav Wars is a bit too broad term. You propose one instead of two paragraphs? I would keep two, first less detailed like in my example above, and second detailed about the trial and his death.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We are apparently ignoring the fact that this man is not notable for being an "engineer, television director and businessman". He was indeed not primarily a general, but his notability stems from his involvement in the war and his conviction, not from directing theater plays. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Positions and roles: "Avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, then according to the standard of style and WP:LEAD made a bold edit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit

"committed a suicide" ?? The last sentence of the lead reads terribly. 2A02:C7F:2C12:5E00:D1A5:93EE:4C6E:336B (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Now adjusted, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

The last line of the second paragraph is missing a word: "and committed suicide by drinking bottle of poison" should be "and committed suicide by drinking a bottle of poison". VanCaspel (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Now corrected, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Wording

"Before and after the war he was an engineer, television and theatre director, as well businessman."

Shouldn't it be "as well as a businessman"?

Yes, it should. I will correct it, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Praljak's wife

I don't think this was a good edit. One cannot base WP:BLP concerns on pure guesswork ("authors made no effort to verify the claim") and OR ("cannot think of any Muslim...", "online sources confirming that it's a Croat name"). It's not even good OR: Bosnian Muslims are Slavs, just like Croats, so Slavic (not "Croat"!) names like Kaćuša (Katyusha) are possible.

I also don't think this bit of information is of any major value, though, so it's for others to decide. GregorB (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

So, two questions: 1) is Kaćuša Babić a Muslim, or not? 2) do we have a reliable source? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's just 2) actually - there is no "truth" independent of reliable sources. Yes, RTL Televizija is a reliable source, and the above mentioned edit's summary did not argue otherwise. Also, to be quite clear, I'm not saying the article should say she is a Muslim, I'm saying that it legitimately (w.r.t. WP:V and WP:BLP) might say it. GregorB (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

She may have widely self-reported as a Muslim (or as not a Muslim) in one or more unreliable sources? Yes, I forgot 3) does it matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not self-reported, although I don't think it matters (i.e. this is not a WP:CAT/R case). And yes, 3) is a good point, I don't think any action is required here. GregorB (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The name Kaćuša is not Slavic. It's a pet name derived from the Greek name Aikaterina, of which the first known bearer was a Christian saint. The likelihood of a Muslim Slav being named after a Christian saint is very low, and I think it's reasonable to expect more than a say-so from some neighbours as a source. For what it's worth, Acta Croatica says that in Croatia, the name Kaćuša is "exclusively Croat" (i.e. presently borne only by Croats). My BLP concern was based on someone else's guesswork, the neighbours'. Attributing religious or ethnic identity to people who have themselves not reported such identity (as far as we know) is a very unhelpful practice, in my opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to point to Katyusha here, without further comment. GregorB (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

All I see there is "Russian", presumably = Russian? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link to the relevant article, GregorB. It doesn't hurt to have the link to what I have explained. Surtsicna (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rank

In the infobox is mentioned that his rank, presume at the time of retirement, was Lieutenant general (according to Croatian military ranks that would be three-star "general pukovnik"). However, in some sources ([6], [7] etc.) is stated that by 3 April 1992 he held the rank of Major general (that would be two-star "general bojnik"), in an image is seen with such insignia, while other sources ([8]) indicate that he was major general since 1991 and then lieutenant general and Praljak himself denied that he was retired major general. In other words, seemingly there's some doubt about his exact rank at the time of retirement.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: since you are currently active, can you confirm something on this possible issue?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I am hardly an expert on military ranks, but the matter seems rather simple to me. He was a major general in 1992 but retired as a lieutenant general, as supported by all the sources, right? Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Seemingly not all, and I don't know if such deduction is right. For example, at Google Books some mention "major general" ([9]) or "general bojnik" ([10]), but could not find "lieutenant general" ([11]), with some vaguely mention of "general pukovnik" ([12]), and I do not know whether because he had such a rank at the time, or it is titling regardless of the time period.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you think we can remove the info from the infobox until we are clear on this? Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Would not remove the rank completely, but temporarily replace it with General. Subsequently, we should find 1) or enough reliable and specified source 2) or some kind of consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Category

Unable to add as page locked - [[Category:People convicted of war crimes]]

217.33.79.34 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Category:Croatian people convicted of war crimes would be more accurate? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

@Jevrejin: regarding your change of infobox template [13] from military person to criminal was wrong with false information, and as much read and made research it is not used such practice on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

But he is a criminal isn't he? Or was. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess the point is that articles on convicted people with that kind of military background normally use a military-person-infobox (Alfredo Astiz, Ratko Mladić, Klaus Barbie, ...) ---Sluzzelin talk 21:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

As it is stated, "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perfectly reasonable. I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Death

In the courtroom video, in the moments leading up to Praljak taking the poison, he can clearly be seen nervously fidgeting with the bottle. I am surprised that there was no bailiff watching the defendant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The comment does not point to specific content if anything, the conditions will be part of the investigation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He didn't do it to avoid the prison sentence, which was already almost completely served. What's obvious to me is that he (an educated philosopher) took his life in a way that closely mimics The Death of Socrates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.107.231 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, he was facing a long term in prison-read the article-comment upon ways to IMPROVE the article, not on the topic of the article. WP:FORUM. 104.169.28.113 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, see WP:FORUM for such comments. However, a correction, he was already in ICTY prison (detention center that holds suspects) since April 2004, over 13 years, and considering the ICTY practice and sentence, he most probably would have been released perhaps within several months or few years. As his lawyer said, he believed that he was an "innocent man", and it probably was a matter of pride.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

This article definitely needs to shed more light on 1) exactly which poison Praljak used, and 2) how he managed to smuggle it into the courtroom. Hopefully, the autopsy and investigation of the incident will reveal more details. As yet, the sentences about this spectacularly orchestrated suicide look mysterious. Better to simply state that these questions remain as yet unanswered, but that they are part of the forensic investigation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.6 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure the court will post their findings on this talkpage first, thus solving the mystery. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Until then we have only speculation. This report, which we use in our article, uses the wording (translated to English) "Although [Dr Plavsic] still does not know which poison it is, apart from being very strong, some assumptions suggest that it may be cyanide or arsenic." Even though the source may be reliable enough, the suggestion of cyanide or arsenic is entirely unverifiable, and we would need to cite who made the suggestions or who is making the assumption. MIDI (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The preliminary autopsy report revealed the poison he used was potassium cyanide and cause of death was heart failure.

Have updated the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the source does not say he suffered from heart failure, which is a medical term with a specific meaning, but from "a failure of the heart", which is not. TompaDompa (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The source does not use an html link to that Wikipedia article, and so you are right, neither should we. The paraphrase given above may be a little misleading. But I suspect that, as far as that source, is concerned "heart failure" and "failure of the heart" may be synonymous. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. Cardiac arrest seems much more likely. TompaDompa (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We're all entitled to have doubts, even serious ones. But I'm not sure we can prove it either way. I agree it's better to cautious. I suspect this may be resolved by the final report from the post mortem. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. I note that the Potassium cyanide#Toxicity section makes no mention of the heart, so this seems to be unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not suggesting we change it to cardiac arrest, just that we don't write "heart failure". It's pretty obvious that the cited source was not written by a native speaker of English, so some confusion with regards to terminology is to be expected. Hell, there was major confusion about heart failure heart attack vs. cardiac arrest among native speakers after the death of Carrie Fisher, with various news outlets erroneously even using the terms interchangeably.
I'll note that cyanide poisoning does mention the heart. Not to get too technical, but that seems logical. The effect of cyanide poisoning is cellular respiration being blocked (cells become unable to use oxygen for energy production), and the heart is a highly aerobic (oxygen-consuming) organ. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of confusion. And we know nothing of his previous medical history? I was also surprised by that at Potassium cyanide. I did not look at cyanide poisoning. You might wish to raise that as a question at one or both talk pages? But, of course, WP is not WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Change request: Like Göring

So, he imitated his role model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring#Trial_and_death:
Defying the sentence imposed by his captors, he committed suicide with a potassium cyanide capsule the night before he was to be hanged Based on this note, I'd like to see this change in the current version:

On 29 November 2017, Praljak died at a hospital in The Hague soon after drinking potassium cyanide (like Hermann Göring) ...--109.92.160.161 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We have a reliable source comparing Praljak's death to Göring's. We do not have a reliable source describing Göring as Praljak's role model, however, so that's a no-no. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source you are looking for Praljak kao i nacista Hermann Göring popio otrov nakon izricanja presude--109.92.160.161 (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Then this one: War crime trials have failed to bring reconciliation to the Balkans where is written "The astonishment on the face of the presiding judge as Praljak responded to his sentence by drinking a deadly draft made clear just how extraordinary the breach was – reminiscent of Goering’s death by cyanide capsule on the eve of his execution in 1946"--109.92.160.161 (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Then one more: UN court closes under cloud of Slobodan Praljak's suicide: "He pointed to Adolf Hitler's designated successor, Hermann Goering, sentenced to death by hanging in October 1946 at Nuremberg. But Goering escaped what he considered a humiliating end for a soldier by swallowing cyanide just hours before he was set to be executed."--109.92.160.161 (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP three times ignored ([14], [15], [16]) that on Wikipedia are not supported such WP:FORUM type of comments. As the edits should not be made in such a way to be subsequently confirmed by references, as well as comments should not be made to be subsequently referenced with reliable sources. The IPs statement about "role model" is not supported by any reliable source, not even in the provided sources, and the interpretation belongs to WP:OR. The comparison to the death of Göring is controversial.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

As I already noted, the "role model" claim is indeed unsubstantiated. But why is the comparison to the death of Göring controversial? I don't think it's a matter of dispute that both war crimes convicts evaded their sentences by fatally ingesting cyanide. Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Praljak did not evade his sentence like Göring because already was around 13 years in jail and would be released soon; cited in the investigation section made it seem like it was an official comparison; it has nothing to do with investigation (as Igor Yalovecky said); it is a minority consideration, and perhaps too soon for inclusion of such comparisons or mythologization (in some South Slavic media it was compared to Socrates#Death of Socrates).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right, he did not really evade it, which makes the death even sadder for his family. Also correct is the assessment that the comparison was introduced into a wrong section. But since the comparison was made by the former US ambassador for war crimes Stephen Rapp, I would argue it's not insignificant. I am aware of the Socrates comparisons too. Apparently it was made by a non-notable priest; this I would argue to be insignificant, unless repeated by a notable official. Surtsicna (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly would not consider it as insignificant, and perhaps it could be included in the main reaction section. As for Socrates, see (Vesna Škare-Ožbolt, [17]: Žarko Puhovski, [18]), but again would not support inclusion of such mythologization of his personality and deed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• People across the globe see the same way this theatrical death: Así se puede morir tras ingerir veneno: del nazi Göring al bosniocroata Praljak
• Praljak come Goering: il suicidio con il veleno dei criminali di guerra --109.92.160.161 (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Still a minority. Your part of the comment which has nothing to do with the article content, and is false, was removed. This the last warning because it lacks WP:FAITH, and if make another such comment you will be reported to the administrators.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not accuse editors of sock puppetry without evidence and on random talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Il suicidio di Praljak: il veleno e i mancati controlli un disegno studiato a lungo
• 30. November 2017, 18:19 Uhr Kriegsverbrecher Slobodan Praljak:"Ein Gerichtsinsider in Den Haag weist darauf hin, es sei denkbar, dass Praljak das Gift schon seit Jahren in seinem Besitz hatte, zumal bei einigen Toxinen schon winzige Ampullen genügen. Man denkt an Zyankali und an den NS-Verbrecher Hermann Göring, angeklagt in Nürnberg. Er war in der Lage, sich mit einer solchen Kapsel das Leben zu nehmen, obwohl die Alliierten riesigen Überwachungsaufwand getrieben hatten, um Suizide zu verhindern"--109.92.160.161 (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop listing all these articles as the comparison is already included.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• • The prosecutors compared Praljak to Nazis. He talked about himself as about a good Göring. The Swedish Expressen wrote Den kroatiske generalen kopierade Hermann Göring. So, Göring is, at some point, his role model. --Taribuk (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

After translation, there's no evidence Praljak mentioned him as a role model at all, neither said Göring was good. Do not understand why such an obvious ideological concoction would be constructive for the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Country of Birth

Shouldn't the country of birth be listed as Independent State of Croatia? This is how it has been for years for other people born during WWII. See for instance Ratko Mladić and Vladimir Šeks.PametUGlavu (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The articles Kingdom of Yugoslavia (-41?) and Independent State of Croatia (41-) are badly referenced, and it makes confusion. Suppose it should be reverted.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Independent State of Croatia was not a state nor a subject of the international law. Just a murderous regime who never had a full control over the claimed territory. In 1945 ISC controlled a small territory around Zagreb only.--Taribuk (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And how much territory did Kingdom of Yugoslavia control in those years? You arguments are emotional, nothing more. North Korea is a murderous regime - what does that have to do with the fact of its existence as a state? And Independent State of Croatia had control of almost all of the territory, certainly the place where General Praljak was born, but again it is irrelevant. Plenty of countries do not have control over all their territory... Cuba, Ukraine, Cyprus, Syria, Morocco. Please, keep your irrational sentiment out of Wikipedia. PametUGlavu (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The response above is a rant and an ignorance. Again, ISC was not a state, not an international law subject. All comparisons of the ISC to other countries are utmost nonsense.--Taribuk (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Kingdom of Yugoslavia either. How about we change it to Democratic Federal Yugoslavia? BytEfLUSh | Talk! 07:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I misread the date when it was formed. BytEfLUSh | Talk! 07:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There's too much confusion about KY and ISC. First does not make sense because seemingly existed until 1943 (which makes doubt whether Praljak was born with documents of specific state), while other had a dubious international recognition. Please, can an expert on the topic give an objectively correct answer?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia already recognizes the Independent State of Croatia as a state that existed during WWII, albeit as a puppet state of Germany and Italy. De-facto sovereignty has priority over international recognition. Kingdom of Yugoslavia's government was in exile, and here Taribuk is complaining that ISC did not have full control of territory(!) User Taribuk is using locutions like "an ignorance" which suggests he is not even fluent in English. Not sure why he is making edits on English Wikipedia - clearly has ulterior motives. PametUGlavu (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to argue whether NDH was a state or a murderous regime. NDH lost control over Čapljina months before Praljak's birth. Yugoslav Partisans had liberated it on 26 October 1944. Thus Praljak was, both de facto and de jure, born not in NDH but in Yugoslavia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Miroslav Tuđman

Why is he quoted here? Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He is a prominent Croatian politician, son of Franjo Tuđman (who is mentioned in the trial), and his quote alongside few other prominent Croatian politicians gives a more appropriate representation of the reaction and perception of policy of the current Croatian authorities.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is it written that a son of a notable person is notable? He is obviously biased.

4.09% in 2009 votes, so there are several more important politicians in Croatia.

The last fact from his biography is In 2011, he became a candidate. Is he still a politician?Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A more recent biography [19].Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Any politician would be and is biased, the Croatian politics and public reaction are predominantly biased. He is notable due to his political and scholar career, and is still a parliamentary representative.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I see Xx236's point. Miroslav Tuđman is a peripheral politician, and his being son of Franjo Tuđman makes his stance rather obvious. The same can be said about Vojislav Šešelj, another peripheral politician with a very much obvious view. I would limit the "regional reaction" to heads of states and governments. For example, if anyone from Serbia is to be quoted, it should be Vučić or Brnabić. Otherwise the section could get unwieldy, as there is hardly anyone who hasn't yet voiced an opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Miroslav is not a peripheral politician, Šešelj is also notable because of his presence during the war and trial by ICTY, and their "obvious" viewpoints are not "obvious" i.e. known to the general public if are not mentioned in the article. Actually, initially, people would not consider that former mutual enemies would have a mutual praise for Praljak's act. I disagree, would not limit the reaction to the current top heads, nor make further expansion, in other words, mention of three other politicians gives a constructive representation of the regional perception. Found statements for inclusion by both Bakir Izetbegović ([20]) and Aleksandar Vučić ([21]).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Vučić did not make such a statement"? The cited source says he did. Surtsicna (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If Miroslav Tudjman is an active politician why noone cares to make his biography more complete? 6 misterious years since 2011.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Reaction

If you do google search Slobodan Praljak Goering or Slobodan Praljak Göring you'll get, at least 50 news sources supporting this simple statement: "Praljak, a convicted war criminal staged publicly his suicide. He drank a cyanide capsule imitating Göring". I think these sentences shall be a summary of the Reaction subtitle. Regional reaction has undue weight. This man is notable for just being a convicted war criminal who staged his suicide. The whole article shall be rewritten following this line. Bizarre statements like the one stating that his stepson added Praljak surname to his names should not have place in this biography.--Taribuk (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that too manny people here, as wall as in the media are suggesting to others how should the feel about this act. Whether the should have poslove od negativne opinions and so on. You can write each opinion in the reactions section. However, Praljak has said that he is not a war criminal. His argument is that he would rather die than to commit war crimes. It doesn't seem the same as "I'll rather kill myself then let they kill me" attitude. But, that's just my opinion.212.15.178.17 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, do not start a separate section for which already exist one. 1) I do not agree anyhow with such criteria for the specific section summary; you obviously have an own agenda pushing for fringe "imitation of Göring"; does not have undue weight; Praljak is not notable for just or being a convicted criminal (he is notable for being a general during 1990s); the article shall not be rewritten; it is not a bizarre statement 2) not too many opinion, it is enough and gives perspective.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not at all pushing for "imitation of Göring". I'm strongly against that. I'm saying that people who find him guilty will compare him to Göring, while the others who do not find him guilty will see it as Socratous act. Who's opinion is correct? No one's or anyone's. Opinions do not matter. What matters is Praljak's opinion. He stated his opinion. He felt that he did the best he could in the chaos that was in Bosnia and although crimes have been committed, he wasn't to blame as he had always tried to minimize them. He had demonstrated he would rather die than to be a war criminal, back then or now with 9 months to being released. That's nothing comparable to Göring in my opinion. 141.136.192.51 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Miki Filigranski Comparison to Göring is not a fringe. MSM worldwide see this comparison reasonable. Like Göring from Hitler, Praljak got a high military rank from Tudjman (as HDZ party member) without having any military education. Moreover, when defending himself he calls himself (good) Göring. @IP141. it's disgusting and uncivil to compare Praljak to Socrates.--Taribuk (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand that what you claim is your consideration, a fringe WP:OR? He did not call himself as "good Goring" nor he was his role model, the sources do not say such a thing, and again, your personal thoughts like for example about the comparison to Socrates (which is also legitimate for inclusion as Göring, see discussions on the talk) are not suitable on this page per WP:FORUM.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You are arbitrarily using Wikipedia rules (WP:OR, WP:FORUM) in order to sidetrack a serious discussion. It's not difficult to find a great number (>50) of news references worldwide comparing Praljak to Göring in different languages and across the globe. His story about himself being a "good Goering" is here. About this "Socrates" read more at Praljak - Tuđmanova žrtva i osuđeni ratni zločinac, a ne heroj: "Zahvaljujući ovom udruženom medijskom poduhvatu, Slobodan Praljak u javnoj percepciji mnogih ljudi u Hrvatskoj postao je Sokrat, samuraj i poslovični heroj, dok se o žrtvama postupaka zbog kojih su osuđena hercegbosanska šestorica nije reklo ništa".--Taribuk (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I am warning you that you are not following the Wikipedian rules of discussion, and you are going off-topic. Do you understand that the comparison is already included in the article? Do you understand that comparison is not what you claim it to be? I am not going to repeat anymore that he did not consider himself being a "good Goering" - accusers made such a Nazi comparison on which Praljak answered by reciting how many good deeds this Praljak-Goering made to the Muslims-Jews during the war as an example that this comparison is ridiculous. I do not need to read about "Socrates" as already cited two reliable sources from notable personalities in the discussion "Change request: Like Göring", several days before this commentary. The victims personally were not the focus of this trial and as such it is wrong to say they needed more media coverage, in other words, this commentary can be also perceived as "media manipulation".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Not a crime"

Re: "committed suicide" vs "killed himself" - the article currently clearly states: "The Dutch authorities declared the courtroom a crime scene, and launched an investigation", and this wording is supported by one of the two sources. There seems to be some degree of inconsistency here? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not really - the "crime" referred to is presumably supplying Praljak with poison. GregorB (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Books category

@Taribuk: considering the fact that you ignored to open a discussion, and rather decided to violate WP:3RR, will do it myself. Please say here what, how, and why you think "brochures" or "brochures of schund literature" should to be changed to "works categorised and taxed as pap, trash and pornography". You understand these works were about war, and not pornography?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You do not know what are you talking about. You are even not reading references used to support the statement. It's you who violated WP:3RR. --Taribuk (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You obviously do not wish to engage in a discussion, and consciously decided to make an edit war and break 3RR again, and no, you're the one who firstly violated it. You obviously do not understand editing policy neither how WP:BRD works. I read the references, and advise you to comment on the content. Present your concern in next reply, if you do not and decide to violate 3RR again you consciously decided to be reported.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

To make it clear, the references in question are [22], [23], [24].--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My comment on this is that "schund" shouldn't be used, as it's not an English word. Perhaps replace it with "pap"? BytEfLUSh | Talk 21:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not that unknown, but indeed it is better to use an English word. A translation would be "worthless", also "pap" or "trash".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, "worthless" might be a better option. I tried Googling "schund", but all I found were dictionaries and pages in German, though it looks like "shund" is sometimes used in English. BytEfLUSh | Talk 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

So, I decided to be bold since I don't think that word by itself is controversial here. BytEfLUSh | Talk 22:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

False statements, bad reading of the references, incompleteness

The following discussion 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.

---

---

1. (fix)Section Reaction: The sentence "Former US Ambassador for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp compared Praljak's suicide by poisoning to that of another war crimes convict, Hermann Göring, ..." shall be replaced by Praljak, a convicted war criminal staged publicly his suicide. Like Göring, he drank a cyanide capsule due to the fact that the same type of statement belong to many (>50) around the globe, not just to former US Ambassador, and shall be the first sentence in this section.
2. (fix)I've tried to fix In 2008, Croatian Ministry of Culture deemed that 18 of his works about Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War, and relations between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were not books but brochures of schund literature, by changing were not books but brochures of schund literature to were not books but works categorised and taxed as pap, trash and pornography. The fix was directly supported by the reference
   
   Krešimir Žabec (4 July 2012). "Ministarstvo generalu Praljku: Vaše knjige o ratu spadaju u šund i pornografiju, platit ćete 628.726 kuna poreza!" Translation: Your books belong to šund (pap, trash) and pornography, you shall pay tax in the amount of 628.726 kuna
   
   Further in the text: "Odnosno, ocijenjeno je da Praljkova djela spadaju u šund i pornografiju, na što se mora platiti PDV." Translation: Therefore, the Praljak works were appraised as šund (pap, trash) and pornography for which he had to pay VAT (value added tax)
   
   In addition the schund literature phrase is semanically wrong. The schund is a German word and it's opposite to the literature; therefore saying schund literature is equally meaningless as heiß (hot) ice. The current phrase "wortless literature" equally makes no sense in English language.
3. (remove)Out of context, not a main point: However, ICTY agreed that the bridge was a legitimate military target.[10] In addition to the responsibility and whether it was a legitimate military target, ICTY also examined whether the earlier siege by JNA and Bosnian Serb forces contributed to the bridge's collapse. - these claims are just the Court responses to the Praljak's defense
   
   (remove)False statement: He was acquitted of some charges related to the destruction of Stari Most.[3][6]
   
   The verdict details are here
4. Section Regional reaction.
   (fix)False statement: "All the party caucuses of the Croatian Parliament except the SDP and GLAS issued a joint statement ..." It was about a Croatian Parliament session statement which SDSS, GLAS and SDP members did not attend. Only one IDS MP was present but no information whether he supported the statement
   (add and update)Missing reactions:
   a. After publicly displeased disagreement coming from the diplomatic corps in Zagreb and Brussels, both Kitarovic (the president) and Plenkovic (prime minister) relativized their statements (the details are here, and here)
   b. The action of praising Praljak as an innocent man and hero was orchestrated by the far right.
   c. Journalists(Štefica Galić, for example) and some politicians (Mesic, former president, Pusic, former state secretary) received death threats for not honoring this war criminal as a hero.
   d. Actually a small number of Croats attended public commemoration of the Praljak suicide (the details are here).
   e. Also, there were Croatians who commemorated the victims of the group of war criminals Praljak belonged to.--Taribuk (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

1. This should be and was discussed in the specific discussion above, not here. Disagree because 1) Stephen Rapp probably first made such comparison 2) in the section are cited specific and notable personalities 3) not better replacement 4) should not be the first sentence in the section because the ICTY's viewpoint is more relevant, as well such comparison is just a comparison.
2. This should be and was discussed in the specific discussion above, not here. The deduction is cherry-picking out of context one source while ignoring the other, and that the other categorization was also reliably cited. It is ridiculous to mention that his works on war are pornography because it totally misses the point that due to this works classification as shund (worthless) it belongs to the same category like other works including pornographic literature i.e. it does not belong to pornography.
3. Not out of context. Not a false statement as this charges were exactly related to the consideration whether the bridge was or not a legitimate military target.
4. If there was or not some other additional party then make a minor edit. As well on recantation. The consideration by some leftist journalist in which invent some far right "orchestration", as well these internet death threats (comments on news articles, Facebook etc.) in the heat of the moment, are irrelevant to the scope of the article and section. Do not understand what is meant by this small number, as the specific number in the Lisinski is reliably cited. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: The comments above are a spam, therefore shall be ignored. This user demonstrated poor knowledge of English, does not read references in its entirety, makes baseless statements like "Stephen Rapp probably first made ...", "leftist journalist in which invent some far right "orchestration"", " should not be the first sentence in the section because the ICTY's viewpoint is more relevant" (what it has to do with reactions?), etc--Taribuk (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I friendly advise you to read WP:FAITH, to comment on content and not make false accusations which belong to WP:PERSONAL. With such approach your initiative, even if in good faith, will only be slowed down or ignored.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief, please can we have a short statement of the problem, just after the {{rfc}} template, with a signature (or just a timestamp if preferred). See this version of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies to see why. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Everything written under this rfc is aimed to enforce the neutrality in the article content. There are several problems (under common title: False statements, bad reading of the references, incompleteness), not just one, and each problem is prefixed by short tag saying what shall be done. In addition, I've removed the quoted text related to the ICTY verdict (there is a link to the verdict description) and rearranged the rfc text in order to make it more readable.--Taribuk (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies to see how it appears in the RfC listings? No way is that brief. It also starts with a mess, and items 2, 3 and 4 are mis-numbered. If people see that, they're not likely to want to contribute to the discussion here. I suggest that you precede item 1 above with a short general summary of the issues under discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I saw that it's misnumbered (at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies) but its not my problem. Wikipedia software developers have to fix their tools presenting there my original text; my rfc text numbering here is correct and readable. The rfc text is as brief as necessary. The text briefness is dictated by the rfc content, not by someone's arbitrary opinion.--Taribuk (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Taribuk, please read the RFC policy link that was mentioned before. Your RFC statement is neither brief nor neutral. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise. - I think it would be best if we follow this suggestion and come up with a brief neutral statement. I'll try to think of some improvements later. BytEfLUSh | Talk 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How about this (still not good, but somewhat better IMHO):

• As a reaction to his suicide, comparing him to Göring, which option should be used?
  • A) Former US Ambassador for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp compared Praljak's suicide by poisoning to that of another war crimes convict, Hermann Göring, ...
  • B) Praljak, a convicted war criminal staged publicly his suicide. Like Göring, he drank a cyanide capsule
• According to Croatian Ministry of Culture, his works... :
  • A) were not books but brochures of schund literature
  • B) were not books but works categorised and taxed as pap, trash and pornography
• Should either (or both) of these be removed:
  • However, ICTY agreed that the bridge was a legitimate military target. In addition to the responsibility and whether it was a legitimate military target, ICTY also examined whether the earlier siege by JNA and Bosnian Serb forces contributed to the bridge's collapse.
  • He was acquitted of some charges related to the destruction of Stari Most.

I have no idea how to format the regional reaction question. Maybe some other editors will help with this, and of course - to improve the above. BytEfLUSh | Talk 02:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Upon further policy/essay reading, perhaps it would be better to split this into several RFCs, maybe one at a time. I'm not against asking for third party opinions in any way, but you might want to consider closing this RFC for now until we, at the very least, come up with a brief and neutral way to submit it. That way we will be more likely to get comments and opinions from other editors. BytEfLUSh | Talk 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This RfC is not properly formed. I would also strongly suggest closing it immediately and opening another one, this time hopefully conformant with WP:WRFC. GregorB (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. @Taribuk:, this is my last warning, stop to make such edit in which discriminate constructive comment as "spam" or do not consider it as "serious", as well ignore other editors advice. Nobody WP:OWN this discussion (RfC), talk page, or article to the point they can decide such things.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Taribuk:, I will assume good faith here. I believe you really are trying to improve the article, but you're not helping by redacting comments from fellow editors who are trying to help. Multiple people have told you that the RFC statement doesn't follow the guidelines, but you keep insisting that we are only spamming your RFC. Tell me one thing - is your RFC neutral? When some uninvolved editor reads it - could they guess which options you prefer? If the answer is yes, well... The RFC statement is not neutral. BytEfLUSh | Talk 02:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose no.1. It is not necessary to compare Praljak to anyone who drank poison. You are deliberately trying to insert bias by comparing him to Göring. This comparison doesn't bring any new fact to the article. 141.136.247.140 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts on this:

1. The word staged can imply faked in this context and the proposed sentence isn't appropriate for the Reaction section anyway. Also, you claim there are more than 50 reliable sources for this - can you post a few of those here? Sources in English, please.
2. No strong opinion, though I believe that pap, trash and pornography is mentioned as a broad legal term under which the books are categorized - it doesn't mean that the books themselves are pornographic. I haven't read his books (and even if I had, it'd be WP:OR) and I might be wrong, but IMHO we should leave pornography out of it.
3. 1) That statement is directly supported by the reference and details an event that happened during the war. How is it taken out of context? 2) Statement is directly supported by the reference. I don't see any problems with it.
4. I really have no opinion on this one. BytEfLUSh | Talk 03:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Several of these sources were posted in discussion "Change request: Like Göring" above.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

   Thank you, but I already saw most of them. What I asked for are a selection of reliable sources in English. If it's a widely recognized fact that Pralak took his own life with Göring as his role model, most mainstream media would air/publish the fact. Besides, let's assume there are credible sources to this claim -- in which part of the article should it be thrown into, and what would you propose? BytEfLUSh | Talk 05:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose 1 and Comment Extremely difficult to follow RfC .... but I see no reason to make the "Goring" connection at all, especially as the US commentator was mainly making the point that Goring's suicide did not 'upstage' or de-legitimise Nurenberg, neither would Praljak's do more than be a temp distraction to the work of this court. There is no explicit comparison between the two suicides or the two suicidees, which the offered text implies. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2018 (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.

List of crimes he was found guilty of

There should be a list of crimes he was found guilty of in the end, after the appeals process (when he killed himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.51.175 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Deprived of or deprived by?

The current article contains:

"Former ICTY judges Wolfgang Schomburg and Richard Goldstone commented that "it is a tragedy that someone in such a situation has taken their own life".[35] Goldstone added: "In a way, the victims are deprived of this deed. They did not get full justice."[36]"

If my understanding of English is correct, this would imply that the victims are deprived of suicide, whereas most probably Goldstone said or meant to say that they were deprived of justice.

I did encounter another source [25] citing (or rephrasing) him in the same way, but I seem to know that journalists (among others) are allowed to rephrase (or translate) as long as the ostensibly intended message is not harmed. (I take it that someone should not be caught on an act of misspeaking.)

So, is my knowledge of English insufficient to understand that "to deprive (of something 1) of (something 2)" can mean "to rob (of something 1) by (something 2)"? Or does the text merit rewording as: "Goldstone added: "In a way, the victims are deprived by this deed. They did not get full justice.""Redav (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)