Talk:Khosrow Sofla

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Afghanistan

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

War crime category

Placing Category:War crimes committed by the United States on this article suggests that a war crime was committed by the United States respecting this place. This is a debateable issue. Yes—it has been discussed in the sources, and some people regard it to be a war crime, but that is a far cry from someone being convicted or determining that it without question was a war crime. Categories are not nuanced in this way—it's either in or out. Here, I can't see how we can justify it being in. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the events listed in Wikipedia's List of war crimes involved no trials or prosecutions. The destruction of this village could be, and by cited sources has been alluded to as a war crime (because it could be considered Collective punishment). While Category:War crimes committed by the United States is not called "war crimes possibly committed by the United States," these categories de facto include events that might be strongly considered as such. The strict definition you've applied is yours, but I can't see how it is that of Wikipedia.

Also, thanks for removing the redundancy in the categories. -Darouet (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of these categories. First, this is an article about a place, not an incident or a war crime. Second, the other articles included are situations where either (1) there was a conviction for war crimes, or (2) reliable sources consistently refer to the incident as a "war crime". Neither of these situations apply to the bombing of this place. Even if your interpretation was accurate, your argument amounts to an argument that because everything else is miscategorized, then we can miscategorize this as well. I have not said a conviction is necessary—but this certainly does not meet the legal threshold of clearly being a war crime as the term is defined, even by WP. That it is a war crime may be your opinion, but others disagree. Category:United States military scandals is the more appropriate category and better reflects the disputes about this incident. I think that in a matter such as this, where BLP issues are involved (application of the category essentially calls the living person who ordered the bombing a "war criminal", which is a serious allegation) we need to err on the side of caution. Please let's leave the category off these articles until we can reach a consensus. An RfC may be necessary here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civility here; I'll take some time to think about it. I consider BLP issues very seriously, and there's nothing I dislike more than "prosecution and conviction by Wikipedia," which because of our source policy usually amounts to "trial and conviction by mass media." I don't think this article amounts to that at all, but BLP is still important. -Darouet (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting yourself as an editor who is open to convincing on a WP talk page has pretty much given me a heart attack! (It is a rare virtue I am always impressed to see editors exhibit in the few instances I have seen it.) Sometimes you never know what sort of editor you're going to find on the end of some disputes—there are all sorts of people who have agendas to push and points to make, and they are not interested in listening to anything that might sidetrack that. ... Anyway, I would be interested in hearing the views of others, but I don't know if the RFC will attract any attention. I may be way off base here, but I think that categories that use the terminology of "war crime" have to be applied quite carefully for a variety of reasons. In modern western society, there's not much worse things you can call someone than a "war criminal". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe you are correct in stating that this is a BLP issue, as Wikipedia will be implying that those responsible for events in this category are responsible for war crimes and are therefore war criminals. This particular event is a good example: one source has suggested the destruction of the village was a war crime because it may have violated article 33 of the Geneva Convention, and other sources debate the point. Nevertheless there has been no trial or conviction, and the category doesn't have the nuance carried a simple description of facts.

That said, and perhaps you won't like this, I think we should consider creating a category for "alleged war crimes committed by the United States military." This title would make clear that there are "allegations" but nothing more, and for every article placed in the category there could then be a debate about the source of allegations, perhaps their nature, etc. This is important, I feel, because of the dynamic of these kinds of prosecutions: for obvious reasons American, Russian or Chinese military military officials cannot be brought to any kind of trial regarding alleged crimes unless their own governments decide to prosecute them. This is not the case for military officials in third world countries. Such a category would therefore allow interested readers to study these kinds of cases, while making it clear to all that crimes have only been alleged. Do you have thoughts on this? -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this approach has been considered a number of times in the category system, and from quite early on. Each time, the categories for various "alleged war crimes" or "alleged war criminals" has been deleted by consensus. Two early examples I am aware of are here ("alleged U.S. war criminals") and here ("alleged war crimes"). I'm generally aware that almost all categories that contain the words "alleged" or "suspected" or "disputable" or "purported", etc. are deleted when nominated, regardless of what subject they relate to. There has been a fairly strong move to require that all such information in WP be contained in lists (or in articles about the individual subjects, of course)—because such claims require fairly meticulous sourcing and explanation. (One of the problems is the question of what standard to use for inclusion—who has to allege that an incident was a war crime? Just anyone in a reliable source? Or is there some higher threshold?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just went through the nomination for deletion discussions of a dozen "alleged _ " categories... and I agree with you. This won't solve the problems I listed above, but is a better policy from the perspective of caution. -Darouet (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Application of war crime category

Should Category:War crimes committed by the United States be included on this article? (See section above for background discussion; parallel discussion also at Talk:Lower Babur.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more need for this RfC? It appears from the discussion above that there is no longer any content dispute. If the dispute has evaporated, the RfC should be closed. If the dispute still needs uninvolved input, place a comment here, and I'll give my thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't hurt to have another viewpoint to see if we are on the right track or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP community generally avoids including borderline/alleged articles in categories, because categories do not support a mechanism to provide context or nuance to the reader. Thus, I agree that this particular article should not be in the War Crimes category. That strict rule can be a problem, though, because that means readers browsing categories often miss out on lots of important articles that are not strictly within the category's definition. A good compromise solution is to create a List article called Alleged war crimes or Incidents considered war crimes by victims or similar. That List could include borderline/alleged articles (that a Category cannot) because lists permit each entry to be annotated with context & nuance (and citations). The List article can be placed in the Category. Thus, readers browsing the War Crimes category would see the article List of alleged war crimes, and could click on List, and would see this article in the List; so the article is indirectly included in the Category. --Noleander (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you both - thanks for your input here. I'll consider making such a list when I've time! -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khosrow Sofla. 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).

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) 17:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]