Talk:War crime: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Gareth Leng
imported>Boris Tsirelson
 
(58 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}


== Blanking ==
== Content ruling by the Managing Editor ==
This is not acceptable. I am now referring this to the ME and Constabulary. The article is not scientific and is written to win the argument about terminology. It has no references and NO SUPPORTING FACTS for the claims made in it. Just an opinion piece. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 00:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


:I have also referred it to the Constabulary. It did, in fact, have one reference in  the early draft that was blanked, as well as many wikilinks. I only discovered it was blanked when I was about to add references from the [[International Criminal Court]]
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=War_crime&oldid=100732352 The current version of this article] does not provide the reader with any information about the topic at hand, so it is simply not suitable for the main namespace. I thus rule that the current version be replaced by the following:
<pre>
{{subpages}}
'''War crimes''', along with [[genocide]] and [[crime against humanity|crimes against humanity]], are
serious violations of [[international humanitarian law]] (both customary
and treaty) that have been determined as [[criminal offence]]s with
individual responsibility.
</pre>


:Even an Editor in a group can only mark something for deletion, or perhaps move the contents to the talk page. I am a History and Military Editor. Martin is not an editor in these groups or in Law. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The article should then remain locked until further procedures to allow content development have been worked out. This talk page shall be locked for 24h as well.


:I don't want to revert the blanking, but let me save here what I was about to add:
--[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC) ([[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]])
::The [[International Criminal Court]] has " jurisdiction over [[genocide]], [[crimes against humanity]] and war crimes.  These crimes are defined in detail in the [[Rome Statute]].  In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime. " Its jurisdiction applies to both the direct perpetrators "as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime.  The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute." <ref>{{citation
| http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/ICC+at+a+glance/Jurisdiction+and+Admissibility.htm
| title = Jurisdiction and Admissibility
| publisher = [[International Criminal Court]]}}</ref>
:Given wikilinks to [[Hague Conventions]], [[hostis humani generis]], [[Kellogg-Briand Pact]] and [[Geneva Conventions]], I'd hardly call the article unsourced. Now, it would be one thing to claim ownership, and not take edits, but it's hard to edit that which was blanked. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


:: Martin, I think you are wildly out of line here. Granted the article could be improved, in particular it could be better sourced, but I see no justification at all for blanking it. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:Text replaced on the article page consistent with the above ruling and talk page locked for 24 hours per ME. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Sandy, you are not in possession of the facts, so you will not know why. This has become a serious disciplinary issue involving Howard and the EC. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


:::: Where should I look for "the facts"? [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::This talk page is now unlocked per the above ME ruling. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 04:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


==Ombudsman==
== Citizen confused about the history of [[War crime]] ==
By Article 39 of the Charter, an Ombudsman is available to mediate any dispute. Agreements worked out through mediation shall be binding but may be appealed.


I have been asked to intervene here and on [[Joseph Mengele]].
The Talk page does not help in following the reasons for the events that led to blocking this article. To wit, Martin's reasons for blanking the Main Article are not detailed on the Talk page, and his brief note seen on the History page does not enlighten. David's reversion, possibly based on Martin's lack of detailed explanation, was again reverted.


As far as I am aware, I have no conflict of interest, I have not contributed to either article or to any related article, nor have I formed or expressed any view on the merits of the arguments either formally or privately
Why cannot a Citizen see what's going on by reviewing the Talk page? Perhaps Martin had good reason to blank the article, but if so, he did not exemplify or amplify.  David's justification for restoring also were not justified on the Talk page.


Do those involved in this dispute agree to my intervention here? My role I think would be to summarise the substantive issues raised, make an interim ruling based on the Charter, and pre-existing policy guidelines, and report to the EC.
Nor did Howard, who initiated and begin developing the article, comment on the Talk page.
Are those involved willing that any interim ruling be binding pending future decisions of the EC?
 
[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see this important topic developed, in part selfishly as I'd like to learn about the topic. I don't see any collaborative work being done, and now I cannot add my meager contributions, should I have any.
 
Houston, we have a problem. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
:Yes. It's up to the EC now, since the Ombudsman cannot act. And the EC is minus two people, and another three who are largely absent at this time...[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, we have a lot of problems here. However, a cute Citizen (or even non-Citizen) is able to find [[Talk:War crime/Archive 1|more information in the archive]]. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:29, 16 November 2010

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Acts that violate the laws of war as they applied in the time and place of commission, or that were deemed violations of law, possibly ex post facto, as determined by a competent tribunal [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Law, Military and History [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  1  English language variant:  American English

Content ruling by the Managing Editor

The current version of this article does not provide the reader with any information about the topic at hand, so it is simply not suitable for the main namespace. I thus rule that the current version be replaced by the following: 

{{subpages}}
'''War crimes''', along with [[genocide]] and [[crime against humanity|crimes against humanity]], are
serious violations of [[international humanitarian law]] (both customary
and treaty) that have been determined as [[criminal offence]]s with
individual responsibility.

The article should then remain locked until further procedures to allow content development have been worked out. This talk page shall be locked for 24h as well.

--Daniel Mietchen 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC) (Managing Editor)

Text replaced on the article page consistent with the above ruling and talk page locked for 24 hours per ME. D. Matt Innis 02:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is now unlocked per the above ME ruling. D. Matt Innis 04:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Citizen confused about the history of War crime

The Talk page does not help in following the reasons for the events that led to blocking this article. To wit, Martin's reasons for blanking the Main Article are not detailed on the Talk page, and his brief note seen on the History page does not enlighten. David's reversion, possibly based on Martin's lack of detailed explanation, was again reverted.

Why cannot a Citizen see what's going on by reviewing the Talk page? Perhaps Martin had good reason to blank the article, but if so, he did not exemplify or amplify. David's justification for restoring also were not justified on the Talk page.

Nor did Howard, who initiated and begin developing the article, comment on the Talk page.

I'd like to see this important topic developed, in part selfishly as I'd like to learn about the topic. I don't see any collaborative work being done, and now I cannot add my meager contributions, should I have any.

Houston, we have a problem. Anthony.Sebastian 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's up to the EC now, since the Ombudsman cannot act. And the EC is minus two people, and another three who are largely absent at this time...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we have a lot of problems here. However, a cute Citizen (or even non-Citizen) is able to find more information in the archive. Boris Tsirelson 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:War_crime&oldid=752769"