Talk:War crime: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:54, 6 September 2018 editKalHolmann (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,971 edits →See also: Weapons of mass destruction: time to wait for additional input.← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:00, 6 September 2018 edit undoBeland (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators236,625 edits →See also: Weapons of mass destruction Next edit →
Line 54:		Line 54:

	:::::{{ping\|Beland}} subsection '''4.1 Country listings''' contains an internal link to ], which in turn links to ]. It may be that the editors who wrote this article were not unaware of Khabarovsk, yet considered it better dealt with elsewhere. I think that's a wise approach. Broadening our scope to encompass WMD and its various offshoots such as treaties risks losing the focus on war crimes. But again, we have clearly established our respective positions, and ought now to patiently await input from other editors. ] (]) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)		:::::{{ping\|Beland}} subsection '''4.1 Country listings''' contains an internal link to ], which in turn links to ]. It may be that the editors who wrote this article were not unaware of Khabarovsk, yet considered it better dealt with elsewhere. I think that's a wise approach. Broadening our scope to encompass WMD and its various offshoots such as treaties risks losing the focus on war crimes. But again, we have clearly established our respective positions, and ought now to patiently await input from other editors. ] (]) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

			::::::I doubt there was ever a conscious decision not to mention that particular trial; it's certainly on-topic. I wasn't suggesting that it be included in the article, only offering it as a counter-example to dispel the idea that no one has ever been prosecuted for war crimes involving biological weapons. Though thinking about it, given that it's an unusually direct example specifically related to war crimes (not some part of WMD unrelated to war crimes), it should probably be mentioned in the article to avoid giving the impression that this sort of thing has never happened. -- ] (]) 03:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:00, 6 September 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War crime article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Additional information:
/
	No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Human rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law Top‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arbitrary nature of article

Per the multiple issues tag I've added, this article (while it may be eligible for WP:GNG status) is extremely limited in its scope in discerning the broader aspects of the concept 'War Crime', the predominant interest being that of international law.

It also focusses on a few specific examples, employing the use of loaded language such as 'murdered', 'massacre' and other descriptors which have not cited WP:RS for the use of the terminology.

Input by contributors has been sporadic and decidedly WP:BIASED in selection of examples, a lack of transparency as to how certain examples have been selected above other pertinent examples, and there is no indication of the use of a tertiary source for the WP:TITLE of "War crime".

While I consider the subject to be a significant one, the article in itself smacks of WP:POV WP:SYNTH. I will also reiterate previous concerns regarding its being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean ("limited in its scope in discerning the broader aspects of the concept 'War Crime', the predominant interest being that of international law"). I thought the "concept" as described in RS is pretty close to that in international law. In any event, you are welcome to contribute here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on War crime. 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:

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) 09:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

See also: Weapons of mass destruction

Regarding this revert with edit summary: "Article does not mention Weapons of mass destruction. Please explain at Talk:War crime how this relates, and allow consensus to form before including." @KalHolmann: If you search for "biological", "chemical", and "atomic", you'll see that the article does in fact discuss weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't use the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" which make it hard to link to that overview article. That's why I added it to the "See also" section. The War crime article has perhaps the best discussion of whether or not the use of WMD should be considered a war crime, but if someone wants to learn more about the status of WMD in the world today (and thus potential war criminals) then I thought being able to click over to weapons of mass destruction is helpful for readers. Does that make sense? -- Beland (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Beland: no, it does not make sense. The article's Definition section states, "In regard to the strategic bombing during World War II, it should be noticed that at the time, there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft, therefore the aerial attacks on civilians were not officially war crimes." This article is about actual war crimes, not about what you call "potential war criminals," which would violate the policy Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Your new link to Mass killing is better because this article does specifically discuss mass killing. Please, let's not stray too far afield. KalHolmann (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: I don't think the addition of a "see also" link to weapons of mass destruction is an example of Misplaced Pages making a prediction about the future; it's just a link to a related topic. And there's any number of reasons why readers might want more information on that related topic; my explanation above is just an example of one motivation which I happened to have myself while reading the article. Some uses of chemical and biological weapons have been prosecuted as war crimes, and this article does discuss them, so I'm not quite understanding the argument that they are unrelated? Did you want pointers to documentation of such incidents? -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Beland: although this article contains internal links to chemical weapons and biological weapons, it mentions only one individual charged with war crimes for using chemical weapons (Ali Hassan al-Majid) and none charged with war crimes for using biological weapons. Note that in defining weapons of mass destruction, Misplaced Pages includes not only chemical and biological, but also nuclear, radiological, and other weapons. Introducing a link to Weapons of mass destruction would misleadingly broaden the article's scope, falsely implying that war crimes have been proven in cases involving WMD other than chemical. I believe we should limit our "See also" links to what is strictly relevant to this article. Hopefully, other editors will weigh in and we can forge consensus. KalHolmann (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: Well, people have also been sentenced as war criminals for use of biological weapons; see Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. Some people think that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was a war crime (on the grounds of disproportionate civilian casualties) that just hasn't been prosecuted because the using power was a global superpower. This article notes that those bombings and strategic bombings were never ruled war crimes, but it still mentions the controversy despite it not being taken up in an actual proceeding. Anyway, if we want to link to articles on aspects of WMD more closely related to war crimes (not a bad idea, given the length of the list here) perhaps we should be focusing on "the treaties that regulate weapons" the breaking of which during wartime would be considered war crimes, regardless of the treaties that some people argue apply to indiscriminate weapons of any type. In that case, List of weapons of mass destruction treaties might be a better choice. Arms control has a list of treaties which include those that apply to civilian-targeting weapons like land mines. Would those be better links in your view? -- Beland (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Beland: subsection 4.1 Country listings contains an internal link to Japanese war crimes, which in turn links to Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. It may be that the editors who wrote this article were not unaware of Khabarovsk, yet considered it better dealt with elsewhere. I think that's a wise approach. Broadening our scope to encompass WMD and its various offshoots such as treaties risks losing the focus on war crimes. But again, we have clearly established our respective positions, and ought now to patiently await input from other editors. KalHolmann (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there was ever a conscious decision not to mention that particular trial; it's certainly on-topic. I wasn't suggesting that it be included in the article, only offering it as a counter-example to dispel the idea that no one has ever been prosecuted for war crimes involving biological weapons. Though thinking about it, given that it's an unusually direct example specifically related to war crimes (not some part of WMD unrelated to war crimes), it should probably be mentioned in the article to avoid giving the impression that this sort of thing has never happened. -- Beland (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 01:54, 6 September 2018 editKalHolmann (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,971 edits →See also: Weapons of mass destruction: time to wait for additional input.← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:00, 6 September 2018 edit undoBeland (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators236,625 edits →See also: Weapons of mass destruction Next edit →
Line 54:		Line 54:

	:::::{{ping\|Beland}} subsection '''4.1 Country listings''' contains an internal link to ], which in turn links to ]. It may be that the editors who wrote this article were not unaware of Khabarovsk, yet considered it better dealt with elsewhere. I think that's a wise approach. Broadening our scope to encompass WMD and its various offshoots such as treaties risks losing the focus on war crimes. But again, we have clearly established our respective positions, and ought now to patiently await input from other editors. ] (]) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)		:::::{{ping\|Beland}} subsection '''4.1 Country listings''' contains an internal link to ], which in turn links to ]. It may be that the editors who wrote this article were not unaware of Khabarovsk, yet considered it better dealt with elsewhere. I think that's a wise approach. Broadening our scope to encompass WMD and its various offshoots such as treaties risks losing the focus on war crimes. But again, we have clearly established our respective positions, and ought now to patiently await input from other editors. ] (]) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

			::::::I doubt there was ever a conscious decision not to mention that particular trial; it's certainly on-topic. I wasn't suggesting that it be included in the article, only offering it as a counter-example to dispel the idea that no one has ever been prosecuted for war crimes involving biological weapons. Though thinking about it, given that it's an unusually direct example specifically related to war crimes (not some part of WMD unrelated to war crimes), it should probably be mentioned in the article to avoid giving the impression that this sort of thing has never happened. -- ] (]) 03:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)