Talk:Trial of Ratko Mladić

Template

Would anyone want to develop a template to put at the bottom of all the indictees pages, to show that indeed they have been indicted at the War Crimes Tribunal, and arranged according to whether Albanian, Bozniak, Croat, or Serb? I always have felt the Serbs have had a bad press in western Europe and the West generally; this will be a way of showing clearly which nationalities have been indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and also highlighting which of these remain stubs, so that more work can be done on them which might otherwise not be, just because the main media don't report as much on them to begin with, thus having a knock-on effect on Wiki.. i.e. if there was a template, Wikipedians would do more research to build articles on each indictee, and the progress of any trial?Eugene-elgato (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Outdated

The article is much too heavily larded with outdated flag salad. All those quotes are are six years old. Comments on the conviction and sentencing would be far more relevant. Sca (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

refimprove tags

First part of the arrest section has two refs, one is broken, and one doesn't actually cover the material. Basically no ref for " His arrest was carried out by two dozen Serbian special police officers wearing black uniforms and masks, and sporting no insignia.". Also section has an FT article behind a paywall, which doesn't dismiss it, but we can do better.

"defense funding controversy" section has one ref, it's broken.

The orange tags actually ARE reasonable.

--CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The first issue I fixed by finding another place that reported the AP piece from the deadlink. The "defense funding controversy" section I have removed as I couldn't find anywhere else that reported these quotes and it was non-essential to the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Flags, lists and quotes

See WP:PROSE, WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:MOSICON. Sections like this are unencyclopedic. --John (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@John: I disagree with the flag point. That's standard on a political reactions section. It does not violate the "genocide-related lists" section because it's not a flag of sides in the actual conflict and cannot be seen as "offensive". See Reactions to the 2017 Catalan independence referendum#Countries, 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt#Response, 2019 Ecuadorian protests#Reactions, 2017 Kurdistan Region independence referendum#Official reactions to the referendum, etc. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi SUM1, you're very unlikely to get any response to your ping to John. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: In which case I'll remove the tag. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Rich Farmbrough already did it. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Rich has removed the flags and I tend to agree with him. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)