Talk:Cowardice

Removed extraneous reference in opening sentence
I removed reference to Dastard, Dastardness, Dastardliness in the opening sentence. OP equated these terms to Cowardice -- they are not equal. Even the linked Wiktionary entry for Cowardice does not link these terms directly. Dastardliness is specific a specific manifestation of Cowardice, a "mean, mean-spirited cowardice", or cowardice with malicious intent. Also, if you want to make references to similar terms, don't do it in the opening sentence. 67.160.119.38 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Completely misses the point
Completely misses the point - doesn't even mention - that these issues turned on their heads can put things right again: the commonly held belief is just more brainwashing of the "sheeple" and the divergent act is actually one of prudence. A mention of this in our new age of approaching enlightenment is necessary. We're not all of us are members of emasculated militaristic nations continually desperate to find new enemies with which to wage war.

The section on cowardice as regards the London attacks seems more like the writer's political opinion than a further clarification of the topic. Sorry if I'm wrong. The Ephialtist 13:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Unclear and Incomplete
From the article:
 * Cowardice is not fear, but rather a submission to vice...An example of cowardice would be to refuse to testify against a crime lord, merely because one might risk death.

Merely? And it is a vice to not want to die? This article reads quite strangely to me. Also, there is no mention of "cowardice" as a legal term, ie: the word is most commonly associated with military court-martials, which this article doesn't mention. 70.20.163.248 09:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very important. The message of this piece is akin to charge of the light brigade: be stupid and get shot at. This is not the way people think anymore. Thank goodness. This article was supervised by a TLA.


 * While I didn't take out the other portions of the article (I may go back and edit that one para for POV when I feel a bit more secure in POV issues), I did put in a legal definition of cowardice as regards the US military.Pat Payne 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is a) a dictionary entry and b) entirely POV. Both are violations of WP policy. -- 68.6.40.203

POV trouble again?
From the article:


 * Someone who kills a defenseless person is also considered a coward.

This seems to be using badly disguised weasel words, showing a POV. Whilst I, and many others agree, this is not encyclopedic. Thoughts?

Legal Defintion
I just removed the "legal definition" because a reading of UCMJ subchapter X, section 899, (http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/SUBCHAPTERX.html#892.92) shows that this section defines "misbehavior before the enemy", one part of which is "cowardly conduct". Cowardly conduct, as such, is never defined. Claiming that list items #1 through 4 and #6 through 9 constitute a definition of cowardice or cowardly conduct (list item #5) is as logically flawed as claiming that the other 8 articles constitute a definition of list item #4 (which would have ludicrous implications such as causing false alarms being part of the definition of casting away one's arms or munitions. In fact, items 1 to 9 are all different points (not each other's definitions) and my suspicion is that cowardly conduct, due to its rather vague/subjective nature, serves as the catchall for any act no one thought to list explicitly before it happened... If anyone knows of an actual legal definition of cowardice from any source (military or otherwise), it would be great to have on the page.

--BadLeprechaun (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Major rework
This page as it currently stands does not cover the subject matter in any sort of satisfactory manner. Hence I have taken the following steps I have introduced difinition more corcordant with its everyday meaning and seperated the old introduction into a new catholic paragraph. I have reintroduced sections on military law as it is relevant however I have not attempt to produce a legal difinition. I have removed the terroism section as it is not relevant to a discussion of cowardice. I have added major reconstruction template. I have revised the links to other articles to be more appropriate. I ask only this firstly please attempt to develop the article do not simply take the safe option and revert back and lable as vandalism I know my work is extremely rough it is meant to provide a start point to move towards an improved article. I know the working is very rough but expand out on the points and in a week we will have a far better article then what was originally here. Secondly if you feel reverts are needed again I stress my own work is very rough and easily improved upon then do a full revert look at what was there and what has been added and carefully change as appropriate, please do not revert terroism section it simply does not belong here. I sorry that I've taken to it with all the subtlety of a butcher but lets work to bring it up to standard now, this was a refocus back onto the topic I'm the first to admit my editing skills so please do a better job. Also apart from expanding on whats there and bringing it up to code we need paragraphs on cowardice from other cultural, social or philosophical perspectives anyway have fun. --219.89.8.32 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Slovik
I removed the link to Eddie Slovik. It is hardly becoming of an encyclopaedia to single out one instance of wartime desertion, and a highly debated one at that, as an example of cowardice. The Slovik article linked to, and the references within it, made it clear that Slovik was not an unreconstructed coward, and certainly not the only coward of the Second World War. Jjgull (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gendered word? Comment
I was trying to think of recent or historical usages of this word in reference to females. It seemed to me, that the word was related to to fleeing or avoiding battle -- something that in the time the word may have first been used (1000-1100?) to modern times has, officially, been the sole domain of men. I.e. it seems like it is a dereliction of a duty that has excluded women since before the word was created.

It's an example of fear in the place of someone or something that is supposed to be "brave" and "fearless". Can you imagine a cowardly ant or cowardly lamb? Cowardly lion, though would seem extremely shameful, but cowardly Amazon, would just be mixing a relatively modern concept with a word predating it by a millennia or more.

I was thinking about several words related or connected to this one and think they come out of the concept of chivalry that seemed to be cooked up in the late 1st millennia or early 2nd millennia. As one person pointed out in the talk section -- cowardice might easily be called bravery if it leads the attacked group to survival in spite of odds or perceptions. Certainly, those who are *demanding* the action (those who are demanding some "brave" and, likely, foolish action in war) would wish to demean anyone who has not laid down their life on command. But most certainly, the one ordered to lay down their lives would most certainly be male -- i.e. a woman could never be considered cowardly, as it would never be her duty to lay down her life (historically, modern gender related-changes to the contrary). I believe that in hyper-masculine cultures (esp. their militaristic subcultures), cowardice is a failure to live up to synthetic, hyper-masculine values that were created to manipulate a portion of the population to lay down their lives for those in power.

Can one think of it as being a natural state of an animal in nature? I.e. could cowardice exist outside of the expectations of a hierarchical, militarized society?

Astara Athenea (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 3 December 2017
A protected redirect, Coward needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT cowardice


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Cowardice

The Redirect category shell template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much again, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Happy Holidays!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  02:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 January 2018
Please categorize Coward (not cowardice) as Category:Pejorative terms for people. Dpleibovitz (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)