CZ:Managing Editor/2010/002 - References to war criminals: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce
(this is not a question that should be put to the Managing Editor)
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 
'''moved comments to discussion page'''
:How on earth do you think that this question could fall under the jurisdiction of the Managing Editor?  You, who fought bitterly practically to the last bunker in Berlin to *keep from having* a Managing Editor in the first place! This is clearly, clearly, clearly a matter for the Editorial Council, and no one else. And I certainly don't look forward to the arguments that are going to rage about this matter. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:33, 13 November 2010

The basic question: is it acceptable and objective to use, in general article text, the term "war criminal" to someone for which a great deal of incriminating data was listed, but was never tried and convicted by a court, such as Adolf Hitler or Josef Mengele? If that is unacceptable, should the words "war criminal" be deleted from a direct quote stating an expert opinion?

As a History and Military Editor, I would rule that the usage is acceptable, especially in the often-vague and unprecedented legal situation following WWII. I have not yet so ruled, as I'm the main author of the Mengele article. I'd hate to disturb Russell, another history editor, when he's overloaded with MC matters.

I will introduce the matter as part of a broader Editorial Council discussion of how Charter Article 19, in particular, overrides the older CZ: Neutrality Policy.

Howard C. Berkowitz 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC) moved comments to discussion page