Talk:Crimes against humanity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rome Statute and Israel

Supporters of Israel should carefully read the Rome Statute defining "war crimes". Several of the clauses SEEM to apply to the Israeli army (IDF) and the actions it has taken to suppress anti-Israel terrorism in Gaza and the West Bank. It makes me wonder if the Rome Statute was created specifically to target Israel.

Is the ICC anti-semitic?

Please read the external link, and comment here. --Ed Poor 07:37 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)

Seems a little off-topic? In any case, I can't see anything in Article 8 which particularly egregiously suggests Israeli actions... the ones about targetting civilian areas or destroying property have an "unless really necessary" rider. Anything in particular in mind? Please comment on the Talk:Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court page. Ben@liddicott.com 14:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hague convention of 1907

I don't think this is accurate, I don't remember having read that term in the Hague convention of 1907, even though, that was what it meant. The first official and general usage of the term, is the allied joined declaration of May, 28, 1915: “crimes against humanity and civilization for which all the members of the Turkish Government would be held responsible together with its agents implicated in the massacres.” in “Crimes Against Humanity”, 23 British Yearbook of International Law (1946) p. 181

William A. Schabas, writes in Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 16-17

The wartime atrocities committed against the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire had been met with a joint declaration from the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia, dated 24 May 1915, asserting that '[i]n the presence of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the allied Governments publicly inform the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for the said crimes all members of the Ottoman Government as well as those of its agents who are found to be involved in such massacres'. It has been suggested that this constitutes the first use, at least within an international law context, of the term 'crimes against humanity'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Two Minor Modifications.

I am adding a mention of the treatment of Palestinian civlians by the Israeli government as well as editing the Vietnam entry to place blame on all sides of the conflict. The United States was not the only guilty party. The RSVN, the NLF, and the DRVN were all just as guilty of crimes against humanity.

I've removed that inflammatory and one-sided item on "treatment of Palestinian civlians by the Israeli government". For now, I will stay away from political commentaries here. Please don't turn this page into another Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is inflammatory and one-sided. Regardless of political attitudes, the Israeli governments treatment of the Palestinian is cruel and has been decried by the united nations and many world governments.
as back up to the above I present the following: On 19 October 2000 a Special Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a Resolution set forth in U.N. Document E/CN.4/S-5/L.2/Rev. 1, "Condemning the provocative visit to Al-Haram Al-Sharif on 28 September 2000 by Ariel Sharon, the Likud party leader, which triggered the tragic events that followed in occupied East Jerusalem and the other occupied Palestinian territories, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians." The U.N. Human Rights Commission then said it was "[g]ravely concerned" about several different types of atrocities inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian People, which it denominated "war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity."
In operative paragraph 1 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission then: "Strongly condemns the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in violation of international humanitarian law by the Israeli occupying Power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian civilians...including many children, in the occupied territories, which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity..." And in paragraph 5 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission:"Also affirms that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime against humanity;..." Article 68 of the United Nations Charter had expressly required the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council to "set up" this Commission "for the promotion of human rights."
- Taken from http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine50.html
I see, those bloodthirsty Joos again. Please read the articles concerning the conflict, esp. Israel and the United Nations, describing serious problems with the UNHRC and its need to reform. I invite you to register if you are planning to contribute. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I have, I know this, and I also know that the Israeli state has blood on its hands just like everyone else. Now, please stop trying to make it look like the jews have only suffered and never caused suffering themselves. You are the one being one sided here so please stop.
Exactly, "like everyone else": so why you insisting on including only Israel here but forgetting "everyone else"? Comparably to real crimes against humanity (mentioned and unmentioned), this small conflict is too politicized and propagandized. We have more than plenty articles describing intricate and sensitive details of the conflict (and you're welcome to improve them) but instead you simplistically include the side that defends itself and don't include "everyone else", and after that you have the nerve to say that I am "the one being one sided here"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The reason why I'm only including Israel here is because I was looking over the article, saw a very clear pro-Israeli bias, and mentioned it. Now, I am putting my entry back. It is 100% accurate. It is an alleged crime agaisnt humanity put forth by the United Nations. According to the context of the artical it fits. Please do not delete it again!

The problem here is the declared purpose of the list: "List of alleged crimes against humanity". This sets an extremely low bar.

It may not be clear that Israeli treatment of Palestinian civilians is a crime against humanity, this question is hotly disputed. However it is clear that it is widely alleged to be a crime against humanity. As such it belongs in this list.

We may want to consider whether a list of allegations belongs in an encyclopedia.

Ben@liddicott.com 09:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Now why I may not agree with the sucide bombing being a crime agaisnt humanity (I personally see it as terroist action and a crime against peace), I am not going to remove it because I have a personal agenda. Thank you for being reasonable Ben. PsyckoSama


List headings are contentious, could do with more distinctions.

The list headings are inconsistent and contentious. Grouping the Allied and Axis powers seems to hold US and UK responsible for things the USSR did which were outside the scope of the alliance. Other actions, (Dresden, Hiroshima) on the other hand are within the scope of the alliance.

While the actions of the Germans and Japanese in WWII are more comparable, they weren't planned jointly and grouping them together seems to serve no purpose.

Attributing actions to "The US and it's client states" seems like an excuse to attribute Pinochet's actions to the US. Not sure this grouping serves any NPOV purpose.

There could also usefully be made some more distinctions, based on scale, actors, and intent.

  • Scale: Pinochet's actions are certainly great crimes against the victims, but in terms of scale they are not comparable with most of the items in the list.
  • Actors: It should be made clear whether the actor is a state or a rogue element thereof, for example Mai Lai was covered up by the state, but it seems pretty clear that rogues were to blame. Likewise war crimes in Iraq from 2000 on, unless the war itself is considered a crime against humanity.
  • Intent: For example Germany made war in order to commit some their alleged crimes, i.e. specifically in order to exterminate and enslave the slavic peoples and occupy slavic lands. Similar observations apply to Japan. However most of the the allies' alleged crimes (Dresden, Hiroshima) were done with the purpose of better prosecuting the war (whether justified or not).


There is a lot of use made of the word "alleged". Mostly any controversy is around whether it is a crime (context, intent, think Hiroshima), or whether it amounts to a crime against humanity (scale).


If nobody objects or has a better idea, I am going to replace the existing categories with a straight chronological order.


Ben@liddicott.com 10:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I agree. "Allegations" are not particularly encyclopaedic. Would it be better to restrict the article to discussing what constitutes a crime against humanity, and move the list to List of events that have been described as crimes against humanity? That way we avoid the highly POV issue of determining what is and is not a crime against humanity. Anilocra - {hi!) 15:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absent any more comments I am going to do this real soon now. Ben@liddicott.com 30 June 2005 13:24 (UTC)


I agree with Anilocra. This article should be only on the definition of crimes against humanity. The (contentious) should be moved to a seperate article instead. This will clean up the POV issues. --Hurricane111 21:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

POV

The listings of "alleged" crimes against humanity are inherently POV and original research, as well, unless citations are provided. Anyone can allege anything is a crime against humanity; if my neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, I can yell "crime against humanity," which makes it an allegation, even though no objective source would say it's a valid one. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree I am going to remove it. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:verifiability both of which are policies, and the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources. If a new list is to be constructed then each entry should have Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe, per an ethics and human rights class, a crime against humanity is objectively defined as an act so harmful/heinous/evil/etc. that's by it's commission, all of humanity is harmed, as a result of it's scope. I'll have to dredge up an old notebook to find a citation, so that's forthcoming. But comments are helpful in the mean time. -wren

Allied crimes against humanity

As is well known to Philip Baird Shearer, there are sources provided at the talk page of Dresden bombing and there is discussion at other related articles about possible allied crimes against humanity. Thus, it should be noted in this article. Get-back-world-respect 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the statment you added that: "There has never been a trial determining whether the term applied to acts of allied forces." --Philip Baird Shearer 11:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you ask me for a source that there has never been a trial determining whether Philip Baird Shearer is a vandal who ignores talk? If there was no trial there are no sources. Please do not tell me that you suspect that there might have been a trial. I cannot think of any reason why you might be asking your question other than trying to remove any statement about the fact that some people regard area bombing as a crime against humanity and no trial has ever decided upon the question. Get-back-world-respect 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." The policy also says:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You need to provide a source for the statement "There has never been a trial determining whether the term applied to acts of allied forces". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I already replied to this, it is completely ridiculous. And your continuous practice to simply erase information for pretexts like this one is offensive. Get-back-world-respect 19:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


3rd opinion

Hello. A request for a 3rd opinion has been made on this topic, regarding whether GBWR's statement should be deleted. Third opinion is as thus:

I believe that the statement should be deleted. The obligation to provide a source lies upon GBWR...if a source cannot be found, then the statement should be deleted. Furthermore, I'd suggest that attacking PBS in defense to being called out on not having a source is rather low and bad etiquette. If you need help finding a source, I'd suggest WestLaw or LexisNexus, both of which have a list of trials. A search result from such reputable databases is generally considered to be a source of itself. For next time, it should be mentioned that a third opinion was already provided above by user RussBlau. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I regard it an offense of etiquette that someone shows up as a third opinion, which should be neutral, who repeatedly insulted me and even listed me as a "vandal", claiming administrators shared your view athough they expressly did not. You obviously did not even try to understand this discussion as you ask for sources for something that does not exist. Get-back-world-respect 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to attack me, or are you going to continue to defy what is now a 3 to 1 opinion.? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just note that you are not a neutral party after calling me a vandal. Plus, as PBS knows very well, other users disagreed with him about the same question e.g. here and here. Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh what? Both of those links are to an article called "Arthur Travers Harris". That's not this article. The only question the 3rd opinion was on, was whether or not a trial ever happened, and the lack of a cited source to the claim that it did not. I'm not talking about the issue of what constitutes a war crime or any of that. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the matter of my neutrality, I fail to see how one incident makes me a non-neutral editor. Or is there some consipracy out to get you? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As Philip Baird Shearer knows very well, sources were already provided for the claim that area bombing is seen by many as a crime against humanity: google finds thousands of pages with "crime against humanity" and Dresden. [1], [2] [3] This comment was made by 84.59.76.132 at 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) at the discussion page of Dresden bombing.
Even a blind man would see that someone is not neutral who accuses one side of a conflict to be a vandal. And the Harris conflict is to exactly the same question: Is area bombing seen as a war crime or crime against humanity by many or not. The fact that there never was a trial about the question is not even disputed by PBS, he just tries to get it out of the article by claiming that there is no source that there was no trial which is as ridiculous as claiming there is no source for him not being accused of vandalism. Get-back-world-respect 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point.....the statement is about whether there was ever at trial about it. I don't care whether area bombing is seen as a war crime or crime against humanity. That wasn't what the questions was at WP:3O. The question was whether there's ever been a trial for it. Go back and reread my original comment. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to gramatically incorrect versions just for the sake of reverting is obscene. Get-back-world-respect 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Was an error, meant to revert only the trial statment.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that's why I thought you opposed mentioning area bombing at all. As to the trial, I am sorry but I really do not understand this, no one says there ever was a trial. So why argue about it? The statement is just to show that the question remains controversial as there never was an official decision about it. Get-back-world-respect 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


So cite it then. Like I said earlier, WestLaw and LexisNexus search results are considered viable sources in themselves. If the search results show that there has never been a trial, then there you go, you've now got a source. By the way, I removed the 3O entry, as since there are now more than 2 parties involved, it wouldn't qualify for relisting. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you read? No one says there was a trial. How do you want to find a source for something that never happened? It is not even controversial that there was no trial, it was only controversial whether it should be noted. And as you are not a neutral third party, the request for the 3rd opinion is to be kept Get-back-world-respect 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


I can read just fine. Can you? Let me cite two instances for you:

  1. "WestLaw and LexisNexus search results are considered viable sources in themselves. If the search results show that there has never been a trial, then there you go, you've now got a source." You can't just say "no one" says there was a trial unless you attribute that to a source, otherwise your comments are not verifiable. Please read WP:V for further information.
  1. According to the WP:3O page: "This page is meant only for disagreements involving precisely two people" This disagreement involves three people. You, PBS, and myself. Actually, 4, that guy I cited earlier.

So, stop accusing me of not knowing how to read. I've made it as plain as day for you to see. If you continue to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, we're going to have problems. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are asking for a source on something that does not exist. Very rarely do people write journal articles about things that do not exist. The only reason why PBS argued the way he did was to get area bombing out of the article. As you refuse to see this and the fact that you are prejudiced against me I cannot help you any more. Furthermore, you did not cite any fourth person. There has not been anyone editing the article or the talk page except the three of us since PBS asked for a third opinion. Get-back-world-respect 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


And you question whether I can read. Please see my original comment : "For next time, it should be mentioned that a third opinion was already provided above by user RussBlau."

Russ's statement: "The listings of "alleged" crimes against humanity are inherently POV and original research, as well, unless citations are provided. Anyone can allege anything is a crime against humanity; if my neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, I can yell "crime against humanity," which makes it an allegation, even though no objective source would say it's a valid one. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)"


As for the source: Stop saying it doesn't exist. I showed you exactly where to do the search. Either do the search and prove your point, don't do it and your comments do not meet WP:V. You can't have it both ways, and you do not WP:OWN this article. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First you say the question is whether a trial existed, than you refer to a user's comment from five months ago when the ridiculous question had not yet been brought up? Get-back-world-respect 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I reviewd this dispute per WP:3o. It no longer qualifies for a 3rd opinion. Please instead file an RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

4th opinion

A few things to note:

  1. You can't say something you can't verify, even if it's negative. If a newspaper article says there has never been a trial, or there is some other way to determine such a thing, then it can be said and referenced. Otherwise the statement should be deleted. It is up to the person making the statment to cite a source, not the person deleting it.
  2. It's not "citing a source for something that does not exist." What you would be citing the source for is the statement that there has never been a trial, which would reference a person who has researched this and shown it in some way. This is sufficient to make it verifiable. Fagstein 01:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But there is no one who even doubts that there never was a trial. Get-back-world-respect 01:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Where's your source that nobody doubts this? Fagstein 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal or political decision

GBWR, if one believes there is such a thing as "terror bombing" then all side in WWII carried out such attacks. If it had been a crime against humanity then Axis forces could have been tried for terror bombing as part of an aggressive war. As they were not it may not have been a political decision but a legal one. You need to provide a source which says that excluding prosecutions of "terror bombing" as crime against humanity was a political decision and not a legal one. Here is a legal one which says that aerial bombardment was not a war crime:

In examining these events [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.[4]

Here is the wording from the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals that says crimes against humanity could be linked to a war of aggression:

"from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity"[5]

This wording would have allowed a prosecution of members of the Axis powers for terror bombing as a crime against humanity if it had been seen as such without having to prosecute members of the Allied forces.--Philip Baird Shearer 01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to provide a source which says that excluding prosecutions of "terror bombing" as crime against humanity was a political decision and not a legal one because I never asked to have this information in the article. It is my personal opinion that there were political reasons but I do not ask to have this article reflect my personal opinion. All I want to be covered is that the widely held opinion that area bombing by both parties of WWII was a crime against humanity - and could easily be interpreted as such by the Nuremberg Trial definion as you agree yourself - was never decided about in a trial and therefore remains controversial. Get-back-world-respect 01:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit at 01:51, 12 February 2006 was mine. The paragraph starts The term has been criticized for being extremely vague and for being politically defined. For example... you addition is to the for example sentence so it is an example of "politically defined". --Philip Baird Shearer 02:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

People say that it is vague and politically defined. People also argue that this is shown by the fact that Soviet persecutions were not treated as such crimes. People also argue that area bombing was a crime against humanity. If you want to avoid the extremely farfetched assumption that this also indicates vagueness or political reasons go ahead but do not remove the statement that there are people who see it as a crime against humanity and that there was no trial that decided about it. Get-back-world-respect 02:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
What people? Who? Give a source, and then you can add it to the article. Fagstein 08:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a Curtis LeMay quote something like 'if we had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal', speaking about the fire-bombing of Japanese cities. Should be easy enough to find. HTH. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Sources for terror bombing being called a crime against humanity were already provided above: google finds thousands of pages with "crime against humanity" and Dresden. [6], [7] [8]. Here is an additional one: [9]. Due to the nonsensical discussion about sources for a trial that never happened and that no one honestly dounbts to never have happened this page has become a real mess. Get-back-world-respect 14:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Source for claim that terror bombing was not tried as a crime against humanity for political reasons: [10]. Get-back-world-respect 14:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article and I do not see which part says that "terror bombing was not tried as a crime against humanity for political reasons". Please quote the relevent sentence here. --Philip Baird Shearer

Title is Only Losers Get Tried for War Crimes, goes on So far, the U.S. has always ended up on the winning side and therefore hasn't had to accept responsibility for more than two centuries of its own atrocities...many of them against civilians. Should people who refuse to understand sources edit an encyclopedia? Get-back-world-respect 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that "terror bombing was not tried as a crime against humanity for political reasons". Bombing was carried out by both sides. So it is not relevant that "Only Losers Get Tried for War Crimes". The loosing side could have been tried for aerial bombing if it had been a political and not a legal decision. You need to find a reference that says that Axis personnel were not tried for aerial bombing for political (and not for legal) reasons. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Terror Bombing - not a neutral term

I would like to suggest that the term 'Terror Bombing' is not neutral, since it is straight from the Nazi propaganda, or the way the Nazi leadership referred to their own use of this military tool See extract from Goebbels Diary halfway down. I suggest to use the term 'Area Bombardment', as used here. Andreas 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Fagstein 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the fact that there never was a decision about area bombings or Allied crimes against humanity in general

All encyclopedias I have at home as well as this one I know from the internet [11] [12] write the same about war crimes: There were trials against the Axis powers after WWII, there were trials against the US after Vietnam, there were other trials, but not a single one is mentioned about area bombing or crimes against humanity of the Allies in WWII at all. As lists are provided and what we are talking about is missing although the few cases can be listed without problems with space and no one really has doubts about it anyway, the statement that there were no trials about area bombing or crimes against humanity by the Allies in general can be included again. I regard it as really silly to ask for a source for something no one honestly doubts. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The law changed after WWII. The Nazis would have won, had the present Geneva Conventions been followed. If they had not been, FDR, Stalin, and Churchill would have died in prison for war crimes. Area bombings is a newer concept for the Geneva Conventions. Crimes against humanity (Kellog-Briand Pact) was invoked only once, and specifically the possible war crimes of the Allies were excluded from consideration. Technically, the UN Charter of 1947 gave exclusive jurisdiction for the Kellog-Briand Pact to the UN. The International Criminal Court recently tried to take jurisdiction from the UN, but recently gave this attempt up. Raggz 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rome Statute is Not Binding International Law

The Rome Statute is not relevant to this page, because the Rome Statute does not apply to most of the world's people.[1] The UN Security Council is the only judicial authority enforcing crimes against humanity world-wide[2], and this article does not make this clear.

The Rome Statute only applies to nations that recognize it.[3] It only applies to crimes against humanity that (1) occur within nations that recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court OR (2) are referred by the UN Security Council[4]. If the Security Council refers an issue to the ICC, the Security Council might or might not also recognize the Rome Statute because the United Nations Charter and not the Rome Statute governs crimes against humanity trials. The United Nations is not a party to the Rome Statute.

If a nation that has agreed to the Rome Statute were to be tried for a crime against humanity, one option that this nation might choose would be to declare the Rome Statute invalid. In such a case, only the UN would have jurisdiction. So, for most or all crimes against humanity trials the Rome Statute is irrelevant, unless the UN decides to apply it. The Rome Statute has never been invoked by the ICC, only by the United Nations. It is of regional interest, particularly within the EU, and so is irrelevant globally. This article should focus on the only judicial authority with global jurisdiction, because this article should not reflect a regional perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raggz 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rome Statute is relevent to this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem including the Rome Statute briefly, but the reader should be referred to that article rather than spend a page or two here duplcating a topic that is of no relevance to the majority of people.
We do not have the luxury of making that interpretation. We record history, not what is relevant at this moment. —Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
My concern is that if we get into the ICC too deeply we will need to duplicate other pages. The ICC has jurisdiction for crimes against humanity, but does not have relevance for quite a bit less than half of the world. It should be mentioned briefly, but not so that we need werite a new ICC article. Raggz (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

The International Criminal Court

The article says "In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in The Hague (Netherlands) and the Rome Statute provides for the ICC to have jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."

This statement is misleading. It should say something like: "In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by the Rome Statute. It provides has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes where the nation involved is a party to the ICC treaty - or when the Security Council of the UN exercises UN jurisdiction and refers the crime to the ICC." All international crimes against humanity trials as of 2007 were referred by UN jurisdiction and none were conducted under Rome Statute jurisdiction. The prior relationship between the United Nations and the ICC was terminated, except for trials initiated before the relationship was terminated. Presently the treaty appears in the opening sentence and contextualy

The ICC page or Rome Statute page should be consulted for greater detail on either topic. Raggz 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "The prior relationship between the United Nations and the ICC was terminated, except for trials initiated before the relationship was terminated." --Philip Baird Shearer 00:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I recall that the UN web page says. Well, the part before the comma. The second half comes from the ICC web page, (but I could be mistaken). The ICC appears to be in a terminal phase with no more UN referrals likely - and with jurisdiction that any member-nation or non-member may reject. I have no problem with it being in the article, but it (and the Rome Statute) is not central to the majority of the people in this world. The UN is the international human rights authority and UN policies, not the treaty of Rome, define the present state of international law in regard to human rights. We might wish otherwise, but we need to describe what the present state of international law in regard to human rights actually is. Raggz 05:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We need not do anything of the sort. Encyclopedias record history, and that is the issue. We do not delete the past in favor of the present. —Viriditas | Talk 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We agree then, accuracy is important? "In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by the Rome Statute. It provides has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes where the nation involved is a party to the ICC treaty - or when the Security Council exercises UN jurisdiction and refers the crime to the ICC." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose that we remove the entire section labeled "United Nations." Almost everything in there refers to the ICC, which is not a part of the UN. Instead, I can just add a few (properly sourced) lines to the ICC section, with a link to the appropriate page. Comments? Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

Wow, I came to this page wondering, "were crimes against humanity ever mentioned in a random episode of Battlestar Galactica?"...and, to my shock, the answer is yes!

Seriously, as great as Wikipedia is, things like this sort of reduce its credibility. Thunderbunny 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Raggz (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I have removed the entire section as irrelevant. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe has no jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. For this reason all of the text below should be moved to the Council of Europe Article.

Yes and no. The CoE is responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights and its includes the European Court of Human Rights. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes and No? Is the CoE primarily of interest within the EU or a minority of nations - or does it have broad global application? It is the former from my POV, but I am open to claims of global interest in the CoE, I had never heard of it before and know nothing of it.
The United Nations and it's organs are the international judicial authority for crimes against humanity. The article gave me the impression that the CoE has an important global role with crimes against humanity. I am unaware of any prosecutions for this by the CoE? What actions were taken in the Balkans?, Raggz 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
primarily the Council of Europe is responsible for behavior of the counties in Europe that are treaty members, This is done thorough the European Court of Human Rights. This is defiantly not the same organization as the EU, because it includes far more European countries. It also has a global influence through its Committee of Ministers which includes observer status for the Holy See, Japan, US, Canada and Mexico. For example see this FAQ where the "Protocol on the Criminalization of Act of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed Through Computer Systems" is discussed by the us DOJ who conclude that "The United States does not believe that the final version of the protocol is consistent with its Constitutional guarantees. For that reason, the U.S. has informed the Council of Europe that it will not become a Party to the protocol." --Philip Baird Shearer 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
So why is the Council of Europe on the human rights page? Are there human rights enforcement issues that have been addressed or are being addressed? As far as I know, the Council of Europe has a policy on human rights and nothing else? Is this policy remarkable, is it of global interest? Raggz 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Most of the text in the CoE section just seems to refer to the ICC. I propose removing the CoE section in its entirety. If we DO keep it, it should be more explicitely in reference to the European Court of Human Rights. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Wikiproject templates international law and law

I've added this article to WPs international law and law for, what I hope, are obvious reasons. Though I've rated this article as top imporatance for IL, I've left the importance for law and quality for both blank. IMHO (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And I find IL doesn't note importance level. I've left a question about that on that WP's page. IMHO (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OR list

I reveted an edit by IP address 82.131.65.194, because the list was origial research -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If a list of WIKIPEDIA articles is origial research, these articles have to be removed! If these articles are correct encyclopedic entries of individual crimes against humanity, I can't see a reason to revert these entries on the basis of WP:OR. I revert the revert until a solid reason for the revert is presented. --Swen 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
See the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) the last thing we need to do is create a list that is a "list of crimes against humanity in the opinion of Wikipdia editors". If you want to suggest a set of crieria for a list (for example a list of people found guilty of crimes against humanity, or some other criteria based on reliable sources, then it would be possible to create a list. --PBS (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
OK! The real reason is, it doesn't make sense to start a list of individual crimes against humanity because this list would be endless and each one is under angry debate. That's not WP:OR but a good reason. --Swen 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)

"crime" or "crimes"?

Usually the first words of an article reflect its title, so shouldn't this article be called "Crimes against humanity"? I think this is by far the more common usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1.4 Ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals

I don't see any [obvious] reference in this article to most all non-Western power-backed 'ad hoc' tribunals, such as the one dealing with the U.S. & allied war on Vietnam, or the one on the (fairly) recent East Timor outrage, etc., etc. And I will assume the worst about this too, frankly: knowing the nature of contribution to such more-or-less high-profile english-language articles like this one.

So AFAIC: this article will lack true "NPOV" until it becomes far more inclusive, comprehensive and systematic about crimes against humanity from all sides -- even including "non official" (i.e. non-Western power) ones.

Pazouzou (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, this article only links to the major international trials for crimes against humanity, as these are where the international law of crimes against humanity developed and not much work has really be done on the article. It still has gaping holes, obviously - and I agree though that hybrid tribunals and national prosecutions for crimes against humanity do need to be included, as well as something on current and historical allegations of crimes against humanity. (though this is not a NPOV issue so much as a comprehensive coverage issue). Please feel free to add material about these issues to the article. Ajbpearce (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reevaluating article

Not sure why this article was rated B-class, re-read it today - it is very haphazard and sketchy in its coverage and not at all to that standard. For an important subject the coverage here is woefull - I have re-rated it start class Ajbpearce (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Crimes Against Humanity

A new article is needed for U.S. Crimes Against Humanity.

Using nuclear bombs, using nuclear bombs on civilians, "making" military coups all around the world, torturing and murdering communists, assasinating or commissioning the assassinations of notable idividuals who resist or sturgle with western imperialism, invading Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., causing the deaths of more than more than a million people "only" in Iraq, supporting Khmer Rouge ...

--98.196.235.55 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement on abortion dubious?

"The Nuremberg tribunal also denounced abortion broadly construed as a crime against humanity."

The cited reference is a political commentary published in 2009 rather than something concrete like transcripts from the proceedings. This is obviously a hot-button topic but I don't think a statement this charged can be considered NPOV. 75.101.52.14 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The source says, "Abortion, as a "crime against humanity", was not simply limited to the practice of forced abortions but extended to voluntary abortions as well". It is sourced to writings by John Hunt.[13] Although this is a reliable source, it is in conflict with John Hunt's writing, which apparently misinterprets the original source. Hunt writes, "all eight of the former prosecutors disagree with my conclusion that all abortions were condemned at Nuremberg." (Hunt, John. "ABORTION AND THE NUREMBERG PROSECUTORS: A DEEPER ANALYSIS" in Life and Learning VII, p. 199)[14] We should not begin with the idea that abortion is a crime against humanity and search for sources that support that view. TFD (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. — ΛΧΣ21 03:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity → Crime against humanity – Per WP:PLURAL, it is a Wikipedia naming convention to "only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form," with a few specific exceptions. In a reply, I'll link to an archive of news articles using "crime against humanity" in the singular (since external links break the "requested moves" template). The war crime article provides a good example of how a term that is often used in the plural can be titled in the singular. Pdxuser (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is that archive of news articles using "crime against humanity" in the singular: [15]. Also, while "crimes against humanity" is a common phrase, that isn't one of the exceptions for using a plural title. And while there is a WP:COMMONNAME convention, that's more of a license not to be tied to technically official titles that are obscure and pedantic, such as Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, versus Lady Gaga. I don't think that applies here, particularly given that WP:PLURAL is much more specific to the issue of plural versus singular. Pdxuser (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is not about one crime but all crimes against humanity. These are discussed as a group by a four to one margin. The only time the singular is used is when only one is being discussed, such as, apartheid is a crime against humanity, or genocide is a crime against humanity. Each of the crimes against humanity are different from each other, there is no one crime against humanity that the article could be about. Apteva (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the article is not about one particular crime doesn't mean it can't adhere to the convention, a la war crime. And the popularity of plural versus singular is not a factor in the convention. There is nothing grammatically problematic, for example, with stating that "A crime against humanity is a particularly odious offense that constitutes a serious attack on human dignity, a grave humiliation, or a degradation of one or more human beings." It's not as though crimes against humanity can only be committed en masse, that no one act can be a crime against humanity. You can also look at an example like spice. Spices are much more often discussed in the plural, and the spice article isn't about any one spice but rather many different spices, yet the title is nevertheless singular, as per the convention. Pdxuser (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
One could say that felonies, misdemeanors, summary offences, war crimes, hate crimes, etc. are all classes of crimes, but they're titled in the singular. WP:PLURAL says "classes of specific things" can be pluralized, then lists examples of very well-defined classes of specific things. But the definition of what constitutes a crime against humanity is not so specific: it changes, and the number of enumerated crimes changes, based on which treaty or organization you consult, just as what constitutes a felony or a war crime changes based on which authority you consult. And there are serious disagreements over which historical acts were or were not crimes against humanity. The article is unable to definitively list either the types of crimes or the individual crimes that are crimes against humanity, so I don't think it fits well with WP:PLURAL's examples of classes of specific things. I'm not trying to be unnecessarily quarrelsome, by the way, I just want to have a good discussion. Pdxuser (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
It appears all the news stories you use to support your position are all using the term "crime against humanity" in a figurative sense, and not in the technical sense, as used in this article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's an archive that narrows it down to articles mentioning a court or tribunal: [16] Pdxuser (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Apartheid

Apartheid was listed as a crime against humanity for specific and peculiar political and historical reasons. Other instances of the "systematic persecution of one racial group by another" have not, and are not, being defined as crimes against humanity. Ironically Apartheid did not even meet the definition of "systematic persecution". Has there been any effort made to remove this UN classification from Apartheid, or add other instances of persecution?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question re. Julius Streicher

Is a racial or political "pornographer," such as Julius Streicher, still guilty of "crimes against humanity"? As publisher of Der Surmer, he was executed specifically incitement to genocide. Or has this crime been redefined out of existence? 68.111.71.197 (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Streicher was convicted as a journalist, and not as a pornographer. The nature of the Nazi political system ensured that anyone who published politically-charged material did so only with the consent of the government. Material of similar vileness is legal, paradoxically, in some democracies... but note well: people can challenge it. In the United States a KKK group might publish horrific diatribes against Jews and non-whites, but you can be sure that the ADL, the NAACP, and other groups sympathetic to the minority in question will refute it.

Jews had no right recognized in law in Nazi Germany to publish anything contrary to such vile defamation as Der Stürmer disseminated. A Jewish entrepreneur could have retorted that as a capitalist he could never be a Bolshevik. Any rabbi could have explained that the Blood libel was an indefensible hoax because blood of any kind is never kosher as food. A Jewish historian might have argued that the best thing possible for Jews in Imperial Russia would have been a German victory over the tsarist state and that many Jews saw the German army of World War I as liberators. Forged passages from the Torah could have been shown as the forgeries that they are. In effect the material of Der Stürmer became, if not command, permission or justification for horrible deeds against Jews.

Had an honest discussion of the claims of Streicher been possible in the Third Reich, Streicher might not have been a war criminal. It's hard enough to imagine that Streicher himself would have ever "fallen" for the reputable and necessary practice of allowing others to refute the libels of a whole people, Streicher could put his paper anywhere; the Jews were silenced.

A case in Rwanda demonstrates that someone who makes appeals to commit genocidal acts can be tried as a war criminal and receive the severest punishment for doing so.--Pbrower2a (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting and succinct rebuttal. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hague (IV) 1907 Convention

The term was first used in the preamble of the Hague Convention of 1907, and subsequently used...

I looked through the Hague Conference of 1907 and could not find the phrase "Crime against humanity" please could someone point out in which of the 13 conventions of that year I-XIII the phrase occures and where? Philip Baird Shearer 03:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A week gone by and no answer so here are some more details:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

it goes on to say in the next paragraph:

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood. Article (1) says "Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention." (2) apply "only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention"

I found this site http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html which says

The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the "laws of humanity," as reflected throughout history in different cultures.

The phrase seems to be "laws of humanity" and civilized peoples ... what are civilized peoples?

Also very importantly is the phrase "belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations" So it would seem that the treatment of a power's own na tionals are not covered by this treaty. So if a Nation were to kill a sub-ethnic or economic group within its own nation then Hague IV has nothing to say about this. Philip Baird Shearer 12:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As much as I hate to disagree with a source as Cherif Bassiouni, its first use was actually in the preamble of the 2nd 1899 Hague Convention, which reads in part:
Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience; (you can find the text at https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=BD48EA8AD56596A3C12563CD0051653F )
It is also known as the 'Martens clause' and basically was meant to remind all parties that even if certain conduct fell outside the material scope of a provision, they would still be bound by the spirit of the convention i.e. what we might now consider 'humanitarian considerations'. It is not a codification of the 'customary law of armed conflict'; neither are big parts of the 1899 and 1907 Conventions (indeed some parts were quite novel at the time, others could hardly be called custom but rather utopian thoughts). All in all I think the crimesofwar link is a bad source because for the section because of its brevity, it seems to be written in quite a hurry, and because as an introduction it is too generalized and thus not fit for use as a source. As I myself am in quite a hurry I can't really re-read any other sources, but for those with time to spare here are some suggestions:
Lippman - Crimes Against Humanity - Third World Law Journal 1997
Luban - A Theory of Crimes Against Humanity - Yale Journal of International Law 2004
Moir - Crimes Against Humanity in a Historical Perspective - New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 2006
Schwelb - Crimes Against Humanity - British Yearbook of International Law 1946
Also civilized peoples should be read in conjuncture with 'principles of international law'. It is basically an artifact from the past when the west would divide the world between 'civilized peoples' and 'uncivilized peoples' i.e. those deemed 'savages' and not fit to rule themselves. It can still be found in art. 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the ICJ (the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations). Although the last part is now quite redundant. But in the heyday of Colonialism it is not too hard to see how the colonial powers would not want to be bound by the principles found in the laws and customs of those they ruled.
You are also quite right in that 'the treatment of a power's own nationals are not covered by this treaty' back in 1907 the treatment of one's own nationals was deemed to fall within a State's sovereign space, no matter how atrocious.
Finally, all the different 'paragraphs' in the preambule should be read seperatly. Thus, there is not necessarily a nexus between the laws of humanity and the sentences that follow (e.g. on article 1 and 2). The different paragraphs in the preamble are basically general statements in whose light the treaty should be read.Egishnugal (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crimes against humanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Crimes against humanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Tokyo Trials: Additional reference needed

The problem here is that the only reference is in Japanese. It is not the case that Class C crimes were not applied at all, further explanation is needed, and the statement that “the lives of Asian civilians were considered to be worth less…” is not to my knowledge claimed in any of the historical writings in English. Yoshinobu Higurashi is a well-known historian of the Tokyo Trials and it seems unlikely that he would have made such a subjective statement. Joel Mc (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Tokyo Trials: The Three Classes of Crimes

There seems to be a discrepancy between this page and the page on the Trials themselves on what crimes each of the three are.

The listing here is:

"Class A" (crimes against peace), "Class B" (war crimes), and "Class C" (crimes against humanity), committed during the Second World War.

While on the other pages it is:

"Class A" crimes were reserved for those who participated in a joint conspiracy to start and wage war, and were brought against those in the highest decision-making bodies; "Class B" crimes were reserved for those who committed "conventional" atrocities or crimes against humanity; "Class C" crimes were reserved for those in "the planning, ordering, authorization, or failure to prevent such transgressions at higher levels in the command structure".

"Class A" seems consistent between the two, but "Classss B" and "C" seems swapped. I don't know the material enough to know which might be correct.68.15.187.71 (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Crimes against humanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Crimes against humanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone found citations for these claims?

I have not been able to find citations for the following claim.

This was because the values of lives of Asian civilians were considered to be worth less than the lives of Caucasian or Jewish civilians.

I suggest that this line be deleted, due to being a somewhat controversal and unsourced claim. --Rainythunderstorm (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crimes against humanity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

First usage

I have moved this sentence

The term was first used by George Washington Williams after he witnessed the brutality of King Leopold's Congo (1885-1908), in which 10 million people were to lose their lives.

Here because it lacks a source for first usage and it gives a specific number of dead which is also not sourced. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for incorrect format, but I've just found the phrase "Crime against humanity" in the 1860 Republican Party Platform. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1860 Perhaps this is an earlier first use of the phase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.152.38 (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC) URL updated. Mcljlm (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I found another old use of the term. On June 4 1854 in Boston, Theodore Parker gave a sermon, 'The New Crime Against Humanity' [17]. It refers to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the kidnappings of Thomas Sims and Anthony Burns

Ddermott (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

For earlier uses see below "Crime against humanity was a common phrase in the 19th century and used earlier" section. Mcljlm (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Crime against humanity/crimes against humanity used in the 19th century and earlier

One thing which Google books is good for is finding earlier dates for a phrase than one cited in more recent books. For example by putting in search dates from 1750 to 1850 it is easy to see that there are lots of earlier publications that use the term "Crime against humanity" many to do with the slave trade. Restricting the search to 1750 to 1810 and the earliest book returned is Public characters, [Formerly British public characters] of 1798-9 - 1809-10, Published 1804. pp. 526,527 "offensive war is a high crime against humanity and Christianity." by Dr Knox from a sermon he gave in Brighton in 1793, almost 100 years before George Washington Williams sent his letter to the King of Belgium. --PBS (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article's #1.2 "First use" include the use by Vicesimus Knox despite it being mentioned above? Mcljlm (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The Google books list mentioned above also includes The moral and religious miscellany; or, Sixty-one aphoretical essays, on some of the most important Christian doctrines and virtues, by Hugh Knox, published 1790 and taking a Google books search further back [18] leads to The Practical Works of the Late Reverend and Pious Mr. Richard Baxter: In Four Volumes ; with a Preface, Giving Some Account of the Author and of this Edition of His Practical Works, Volume 1 published 1707.Mcljlm (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The phrase “crimes against humanity” appears in "Reflections on the political and moral state of society, at the close of the eighteenth century", published 1800, p.16 by John Bowles [19]. Mcljlm (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for revision

Given this article's flag indicating insufficient citations, as well as brief information in certain sections and few examples, I have chosen this article as a potential candidate for revision. If you would like to see my proposed changes, please check out my user page and feel free to make any suggestions or comments. - Ddegenhart (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Lithuania

Info is needed on the crimes against humanity following Lithuania's independence. Firestar464 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimes_against_humanity/Archive_1&oldid=1215271285"