Ray,
I'm not *ignoring* the fact that nearly all the 100-odd signatories to the Rome Treaty
are either democratic or at least somewhat free. If that fact isn't in the Wikipedia,
though, I wish you would put it in -- with an appropriate footnote. (I seem to recall
reading it online somewhere yesterday, on a pro-ICC website.)
Nor is my vituperation "uninformed", as you put it. America has put forth
detailed reasons as to why it objects to the ICC. I think all those reasons should be put
into the [[ICC]] article, balanced with the corresponding reasons of why ICC supporters
favor the court. The article has begun to do that, but my impression is that the article
is slanted in favor of the ICC, and that the pro-ICC rebuttal to America's anti-ICC
objections are presented as definitive. I would prefer for the article to be neutral.
As in,
America fears that the ICC will do X, Y and Z.
Supporters of the ICC call these things unlikely or impossible.
(Or something like that.)
What you said about the "appearance of a troll" has, itself, the appearance of a
personal attack. But I don't mind. It reminds me about [[Sam Gamgee]]'s amusing
poem from The Lord of the Rings. (Although I confess I am a bit worried about going
outside my cave during daylight: I might turn into stone :-)
Your personal attacks won't change my attitude toward you. I respect your
contributions, even when we disagree -- as we obviously do on this issue. The challenge
is, how can we work together to make an article which is both informative and neutral?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:08 AM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedians as war criminals
tarquin wrote:
I found Rick Wilson's remarks incoherent, and still can't be sure of
whether he is for or against the court... His claim that Wikipedia is
somehow complicit in Bush's war crimes makes no sense at all, whether
you're for or against the ICC.
Ed's uninformed vituperation is a gross distortion of fact. He tends to
ignore the fact that it is the democratic countries that have been most
supportive of the Court, and a challenging array of rogue states, who
consider themselves above the law, have opposed it. It does have
jurisdiction against citizens of non-participating states, but I would
hardly expect those countries to comply with extradition orders. The ad
hoc courts set up by the United States are nothing more than lynch mobs
with a veneer of procedure. The extraterritorial applications of a
country's laws is as much resented by people world-wide now as it was
when the tea was thrown into Boston Harbor.
Ed's approach to this subject has all the appearance of a troll.
Eclecticology
____