Category talk:Human war criminals: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
What's the threshold for inclusion in this category? Take [[Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart (Silurian Earth)]], given the Earth he inhabited is it reasonable to categorise him as a war criminal? Or [[Women in the wood]]. Or [[Eckersley]], or even [[Melody Pond]]. Our [[War crime]] page doesn't even really establish what it is. And even if we're to ignore [[T:NO RW]] for this for a moment, we'd still need to establish ''which war'' and which ''rules of war''. Especially for the non-contemporary wars. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | What's the threshold for inclusion in this category? Take [[Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart (Silurian Earth)]], given the Earth he inhabited is it reasonable to categorise him as a war criminal? Or [[Women in the wood]]. Or [[Eckersley]], or even [[Melody Pond]]. Our [[War crime]] page doesn't even really establish what it is. And even if we're to ignore [[T:NO RW]] for this for a moment, we'd still need to establish ''which war'' and which ''rules of war''. Especially for the non-contemporary wars. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
:Rules of war is even more controversial than it might seem at first glance. In international law people are only bound by court decisions (insofar as they're a party to that court), treaties, and customary law. Customary law is messy and often ambiguous, so the big one here is treaties, such as the [[Geneva Convention]]. But if a country hasn't ''signed'' a treaty, its forces aren't bound by it, and aren't war criminals - unless they violated customary law. Which is often very difficult to adjudicate. This is just a mess of a category, and shouldn't be applied to anyone unless it's explicitly stated in narrative imo. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | :Rules of war is even more controversial than it might seem at first glance. In international law people are only bound by court decisions (insofar as they're a party to that court), treaties, and customary law. Customary law is messy and often ambiguous, so the big one here is treaties, such as the [[Geneva Convention]]. But if a country hasn't ''signed'' a treaty, its forces aren't bound by it, and aren't war criminals - unless they violated customary law. Which is often very difficult to adjudicate. This is just a mess of a category, and shouldn't be applied to anyone unless it's explicitly stated in narrative imo. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
:: Oh, I just assumed it was a violation of [[T:OVER CAT]]: | |||
::: Categories which characterise people as "enemies" or "allies" are strictly forbidden. Any such categories would be opinion only, as characters aren't wholly one thing or another. | |||
:: As most, if not all, of the categorisation was based on connector, and it seemed to me at the time very much an analogous case, being based on opinion. But yes, I suppose it could work if we were to use it only for individuals who were textually described as war criminals. Still seems a bit dicey though. The annoying thing is that the IP user has been replacing other, useful categories with this on at least one occasion, I didn't have time to look through them all. I was going to go through and revert the changes, but I didn't have the energy. {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 09:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:40, 14 July 2024
Threshold for inclusion?
What's the threshold for inclusion in this category? Take Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart (Silurian Earth), given the Earth he inhabited is it reasonable to categorise him as a war criminal? Or Women in the wood. Or Eckersley, or even Melody Pond. Our War crime page doesn't even really establish what it is. And even if we're to ignore T:NO RW for this for a moment, we'd still need to establish which war and which rules of war. Especially for the non-contemporary wars. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rules of war is even more controversial than it might seem at first glance. In international law people are only bound by court decisions (insofar as they're a party to that court), treaties, and customary law. Customary law is messy and often ambiguous, so the big one here is treaties, such as the Geneva Convention. But if a country hasn't signed a treaty, its forces aren't bound by it, and aren't war criminals - unless they violated customary law. Which is often very difficult to adjudicate. This is just a mess of a category, and shouldn't be applied to anyone unless it's explicitly stated in narrative imo. Najawin ☎ 05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I just assumed it was a violation of T:OVER CAT:
- Categories which characterise people as "enemies" or "allies" are strictly forbidden. Any such categories would be opinion only, as characters aren't wholly one thing or another.
- As most, if not all, of the categorisation was based on connector, and it seemed to me at the time very much an analogous case, being based on opinion. But yes, I suppose it could work if we were to use it only for individuals who were textually described as war criminals. Still seems a bit dicey though. The annoying thing is that the IP user has been replacing other, useful categories with this on at least one occasion, I didn't have time to look through them all. I was going to go through and revert the changes, but I didn't have the energy. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 09:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I just assumed it was a violation of T:OVER CAT:
