CZ:Managing Editor/2010/002 - References to war criminals: Difference between revisions
< CZ:Managing Editor | 2010
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: 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 neve...) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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? | 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. | |||
Howard Berkowitz | Howard Berkowitz | ||
Revision as of 17:04, 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.
Howard Berkowitz