This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I can read just fine. Can you? Let me cite two instances for you:
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)
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)
A few things to note:
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:
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:
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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 result of the move request was: Not moved. — ΛΧΣ 21 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)
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)
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)
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:
it goes on to say in the next paragraph:
I found this site http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html which says
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I have moved this sentence
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)
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)
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)
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)
Info is needed on the crimes against humanity following Lithuania's independence. Firestar464 ( talk) 06:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I can read just fine. Can you? Let me cite two instances for you:
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)
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)
A few things to note:
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:
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:
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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 result of the move request was: Not moved. — ΛΧΣ 21 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)
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)
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)
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:
it goes on to say in the next paragraph:
I found this site http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html which says
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I have moved this sentence
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)
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)
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)
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)
Info is needed on the crimes against humanity following Lithuania's independence. Firestar464 ( talk) 06:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)