Talk:War crime

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
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]
 Subgroup category:  Politicomilitary doctrine
 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:

'''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)