| Revision as of 16:06, 28 May 2006 edit68.13.108.188 (talk) added 'controversial' tag← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:58, 30 May 2006 edit undo68.162.185.127 (talk) →War crimeNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ::I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and '''after''' it has been established the killings were '''intentional''' and '''without any mitigating circumstances''' they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, '''1''' they may have killed, and '''2''' that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | ::I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and '''after''' it has been established the killings were '''intentional''' and '''without any mitigating circumstances''' they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, '''1''' they may have killed, and '''2''' that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.]<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::''I am not sure what you object to.'' Call it pre-emptive conservatism; I expect this article will be crawling with apologists shortly, and we need to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as ''actually'' doing it. However, I think your latest change is great, and eliminates the problem. — ] 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | :::''I am not sure what you object to.'' Call it pre-emptive conservatism; I expect this article will be crawling with apologists shortly, and we need to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as ''actually'' doing it. However, I think your latest change is great, and eliminates the problem. — ] 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::you're missing the point. whether the story is true or not, the act is a war crime. what is in question is whether they did it or not. the qualifier is in the wrong place. | |||
Revision as of 03:58, 30 May 2006
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
War crime
Any intentional killing of civilians is considered a war crime. I do not understand why we need to be obtuse by including "may constitue." The only thing we can say is they "may" be innocent. However, if they are found guilty of willfully killing civilians, by definition they are guilty of war crimes.
Nomen Nescio 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nescio, I am as keen not to exonerate war criminals as you are. If they did what's alleged and there are no extenuating circumstances (and no, I can't think of anything myself) then yes, a war crime has occurred. However, I think it's very important that we not display any bias in such a sensitive situation, and not pre-judge any court cases which might result. That said, I'll let your reversion stand, although I suspect others might feel the need to change it. — JEREMY 11:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and after it has been established the killings were intentional and without any mitigating circumstances they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, 1 they may have killed, and 2 that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.
Nomen Nescio 11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. Call it pre-emptive conservatism; I expect this article will be crawling with apologists shortly, and we need to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as actually doing it. However, I think your latest change is great, and eliminates the problem. — JEREMY 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- you're missing the point. whether the story is true or not, the act is a war crime. what is in question is whether they did it or not. the qualifier is in the wrong place.
- I am not sure what you object to. Call it pre-emptive conservatism; I expect this article will be crawling with apologists shortly, and we need to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as actually doing it. However, I think your latest change is great, and eliminates the problem. — JEREMY 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and after it has been established the killings were intentional and without any mitigating circumstances they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, 1 they may have killed, and 2 that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.