Talk:List of people indicted in the International Criminal Court

Flag icons in table
I do not believe that the flag icons are an appropriate addition to the table. An indicted person's nationality does not appear to be relevant for the purposes of this article. For instance, in many cases the individuals who have been indicted did not act at the behest of any government. In fact, they often rebelled against the state of which they are a national. Additionally, the Manual of Style prescribes the appropriate uses of flag icons, and they do not appear to be appropriate on this article as they serve to "emphasize nationality without good reason". – Zntrip 06:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because you "belive" that there is no reason doesn't mean there is none. I put it there initially for purely ID information purpose. Ironically your yourself provided the proof: in that Manual of Style it is EXACTLY stipulated that it is in fact very appropriate to add flagicon when a list consists of people either representing a government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials. In other words, it is in fact even more appropriate than I thought! Thanks for the heads up! :) Loginnigol (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely there's a reason to post either the nationality or the flag to represent which nation the indicted individuals are from. You think it's just coincidence that the geographical region and per capital gdp is way below the median of of all nations. The vast majority of these people acted on the behalf of their government and several of them if not most of them were the head figure of their government. 65.36.21.168 (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any justification in the MoS. Why is it important to point out the nationality? Like I said, in many cases (Uganda, Congo, and others) the individuals that were indicted did not represent any government. I think that the flags are misleading because they suggest a connection between an indicted individual and a state, even when there is no connection that is relevant for the purposes of this article. – Zntrip 07:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is it important? For ID purpose of course! The individuals were all either official representatives of either a government, a former government, an opposition or a (para)military unit or a combination of those. So flags are in fact highly relevant in such situations, as the manual of style advises. Loginnigol (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: I think you are unnecessarily worried about it being "misleading" as only minimal ID data, namely a flagicon is added and not the whole official name of the country spelled out. Loginnigol (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You are repeatedly failing to address my main point. A flag connotes a connection to a government or a state. In the case of many indicted individuals, there is no connection whatsoever to a government or a state. In fact it is quite the opposite, they are fighting against the state of which they are nationals. What purpose does putting the Ugandan flag next to Joseph Kony's name serve? He is not an agent of the Ugandan government and he is not allied with the Ugandan government. He is a Ugandan national, but how is that even remotely relevant? – Zntrip 18:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You said a flag connotes a connection to a government or a state. My point is that as indicated in Manual of style it also connotes nationality. These are not private individuals going about their private business, which is what you insinuate. They may be indited by themselves but they are not indited for an individual act but for acts done as part of a political entity. As such their NATIONALITY is relevant. That's why I thought a flagicon for ID purposes only is justified. Loginnigol (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are so right.
 * It sounds more like that political correctness, and wokeness that's infected the world. Of course it's relevant! Sure that's like telling FBI agents not the profile and please but not the profile. If you don't profile you're ignorant if you don't give the description of the two men or the two women that robbed the store, yes even if you have to say the black and white man or two black men or two white men or three teenagers.
 * You're so right! What they want to do is skew the facts. You put the facts out there the people are smart enough to ascertain or discern what's relevant and who's done what and if it was the entire country and the people or if it was just an individual. For me that was whoever wrote that sounds like they'd be perfect for the media in places like North Korea got to china, russia, Iran.
 * Facts or facts. Omitting them is no different than lying or misinforming or deceiving. 65.36.21.168 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to demonstrate why an indicted person's nationality is important. Everyone has a nationality and it does not always have to be pointed out. If that were the case, every list of people on Wikipedia would have flags next to the names, but that is not the case because nationality is usually not relevant. Can you demonstrate why nationality is relevant for this list? Why is it important to note that Joseph Kony is Ugandan? He fought against the Ugandan government. Why is it important to note that Jean-Pierre Bemba is from the DRC? He had nothing to do with the DRC as he was allied with the government of the Central African Republic. – Zntrip 19:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Acutally I have not "failed" to answer your question. It is you who is choosing to simply ignore my answer and type the same question again and again like a broken record. I have already REPEATEDLY made it clear that these individuals are all members of politico-military entities, you know, stuff that flags were invented for in the first place! And so BECAUSE OF THAT (I'm capitalizing so you have no excuse the next time you type that I "failed" to answer) their nationality is relevant ENOUGH to be noted in the form of a flagicon. Loginnigol (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that for the majority of people listed here, the flags next to their names do not represent the "politico-military entities" to which they have allied themselves? – Zntrip 05:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If the "wrong flag" is next to their name then I fully agree with the correction/replacement WITH ANOTHER flag. Loginnigol (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That is simply not a valid solution. Only eight of the indicted individuals acted as part of the organization of a state. Everyone else acted as part of rebel group or non-state entity, and I doubt that most of them took the time to make a flag. In light of this, the best solution is to remove flags from the list: if they cannot be applied to everyone, I don't see the sense in including them at all. – Zntrip 22:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction, Aggression
First of all: very impressive work (especially with the references)! I may translate this page for the German Wikipedia, if I find the time. The introduction needs some update, though, regarding the Crime of Aggression (but maybe the main author of the article wants to do this?) Erzer (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How should it be updated? The amendments on the crime of aggression are not yet operative. – Zntrip 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 2: "until such time as the states parties agree on a definition". Erzer (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes that needs to be changed. – Zntrip 08:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could move the part about aggression from the footnote to the actual text, too. A potential reader might be interested in this issue but might overlook a footnote (in the German WP, footnotes are mostly used for the actual reference, not for additional notes). Erzer (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea, you should go for it. – Zntrip 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Made a little change (though I am not a native English speaker). Erzer (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries, you didn't make any mistakes and the edit looks fine. – Zntrip 15:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of people indicted in the International Criminal Court. 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/20130424110419/http://www.radiodabanga.org/node/47142 to http://www.radiodabanga.org/node/47142
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209164841/http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-statement-05-12-2014-2.aspx to http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-statement-05-12-2014-2.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926233027/http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/608136 to http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/608136

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Overview
This section refers to "11 situations", but the numbers in column S only go as high as 8 ?!?! Bruce leverett (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are correct that there are several situations under investigation in which no one has been publicly indicted. – Zntrip 20:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Omar al-Bashir in not the only one from darfur nightmare, also: Ali Kushayb, Musa Hilal (leader of janjaweed islamic rapist forces), Ahmed Haroun
www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42141938 www.hrw.org/news/2008/01/20/sudan-notorious-janjaweed-leader-promoted Ali Kushayb, Musa Hilal Ahmed Haroun
 * so far i did not c evidence icc issued arrest warrant for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.219.194 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Monitoring
Is anyone actively monitoring the ICC to keep this page up-to-date? I notice that the February 4, 2021 conviction of Dominic Ongwen has not been reported. Also, there is no listing of Mahamat Said Abdel Kani, accused by the court of war crimes and crimes against humanity and surrendered to the Court by the Central African Republic on January 24, 2021. A reply would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samgmcf (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have updated the "Overview" section and will endeavor to update the rest of the article. – Zntrip 06:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those information could be found on the ICC's website: https://www.icc-cpi.int/cases. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)