Talk:Nuremberg principles

wikisources
I think this article should be a commentary as is for example Geneva Convention (1929). The text of the Principles ought to be on Wikisources and cited from here as needed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is over a year since I suggested that I have now added Copy section to Wikisource to the section. --PBS (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings PBS,

I appreciate your efforts but please read the below viewpoint. Thank you.

REASON ONE

I appreciate your efforts to keep things organized on Wikipedia by using Wikisource whenever necessary. I can understand how the example of Geneva Convention is a good candidate for Wikisource because it is so long and has so many sections (articles). Those articles are more easily accessed through the convenient linkable Table of Contents (“display articles”) on the Website of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

However the Nuremberg Principles are not nearly as long. In fact they do not even fill a single screen.

The Geneva Convention is 9,733 words, which is 25 times longer than the Nuremberg Principles (388 words). Such a vast difference in size means that they must be treated with completely different strategies of accessibility.

If the single screen displaying the Nuremberg Principles were put on Wikisource, then this would mean less accessibility, not more accessibility, as was the case with the individual articles of the Geneva Convention. This single screen of Nuremberg Principles would be less accessible because it would require an extra two to three mouse clicks to access it.

Studies have shown that vistors to websites will be less likely to access something that is more than 3 clicks away.

Wikirank shows that the Wikipedia's "Nuremberg Principles" are accessed 16, 214 times in 90 days.

If you would put that single screen of Principles a further 3 clicks away, then you would reduce that number by thousands of visitors. This reduction may even be perceived by some people as a subtle form of inadvertent, unintentional censorship on the “life and death” issue of war crimes.

REASON TWO

Notice how the convenient links within the text of Nuremberg Principle number six acts as a table of contents to other Wikipedia articles. This fulfills the purpose of Wikipedia to act as a linkable wealth of information. If you remove the Principles from Wikipedia, then you are removing that convenient table of contents. Besides principle number six, this occurs elsewhere in the list of Principles, also.

REASON THREE

You would also be breaking the existing links which have been made towards the Nuremberg Principles individual headings from other Wikipedia pages. The practice of changing or removing headings is discouraged by Wikipedia policy.

For the above reasons, please understand my “good faith” act of removing your Wikisource tag. I did so to prevent harm the harm which could come from losing these valuable principles from Wikipedia. My aim is to help, not to hurt. This is a "life and death issue" of war crimes. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. Two heads are better than one.

(I am sorry I did not respond to your discussion post earlier, but I wasn't aware of the full implications of what this would mean.)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

REASON FOUR

There is a section in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which simply "reproduces the articles of the Declaration." The section is called Human rights set out in the Declaration. If the practice of reproducing is acceptable in that much longer list of articles, then I am assuming that it is acceptable here also.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see two problems with the current construction:
 * The current format makes it difficult to enforce because it is not clear that parts of it are a quote. See for example this edit made today to the genocide article to text clearly in a quote with a hidden comment warning next to the word so that an editor can clearly read that the word is not a typo!
 * Including the text of the principles stifles development of cometary on the principles, I think a better solution is that used in the Geneva Convention (1929) article (but having started that article I am aware of the retort "he would say that, wouldn't he") -- PBS (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you constructive criticism. I have corrected the problem by clearly framing the principles in quotation marks. This will leave the rest of the sections open to commentary and won't stifle commentary.Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada
Greetings Franamax,

1. After the quote, your citation directed the reader to the “Federal Court Decision.” From there the reader had to click on a button (at the top of that Decision) called “SEE REPORTED DOCUMENT” in order to eventually be led to the actual document which contains the actual quote.

Some readers may be unaware that they must take this second step in order to see the quotation in the actual document which contains it.

The purpose of all the precision in footnotes is to be as HELPFUL AS POSSIBLE to the reader who wants to see the quote in its original container. That’s why a footnote citation customarily directs the reader DIRECTLY to the document quoted.

In keeping with that purpose of footnotes, I have put the most direct link immediately after the quotation.

2. But the broader document (The Federal Court Decision) is also helpful for context, so I have kept it, but simply put it in a different place. The reason it does not technically belong directly after the quotation is because it doesn’t contain the quotation. (Thank you for supplying it originally.)

3. A third footnote, the one from the press, also contains the exact words of the quotation, so I have also put it directly behind the quotation (it’s legitimate location). But, since it is not a primary source, I have put it second—behind the primary source.Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BR, maybe you're a little confused here. The Federal Court Decision is the document that contains the actual quote. The decision is the thing the judge writes, everything else quotes that. The reader doesn't have to take any second step, they just have to scroll down the page. That reference is all that's required to footnote Mactavish's words.
 * The other two references (the "Report" and the Now article) are derivatives of the Decision, they contain background and commentary useful to the reader and are best placed right where I put them, footnoting the ruling, not the quote. The quote needs just one source to prove it exists, and that proof lies in the Decision.
 * Thanks for your tips on what footnotes are for, I'll change it back now to the version that does best help the reader. Franamax (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And of course WP:PSTS has to be considered. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I tried to find the quote and I couldn't.  Which paragraph is it? (It's a long document to wade through). Please help.ThanksBoyd Reimer (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Paras (157) and (158), same as in the report document. The report contains the decision, the difference is that the decision is primary, i.e. where the quote actually came from. The report is secondary, as it essentially quotes the decision. Franamax (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add that to the footnote for the benefit of readers who may have had just as much trouble finding it as I did.Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

NATO
Nato pledged to enforce the principles in order to protect civilians from harm. Specifically, NATO demonstrated a willingness to summarily execute any head of state suspected of failing to protect a civilian from harm. More could be written about NATO and the Nuremberg principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.29.9 (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nuremberg principles. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324194828/http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-05-18/news_story5.php to http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-05-18/news_story5.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605061945/http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=153504&archive=25%2C38%2C2006 to http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=153504&archive=25,38,2006

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuremberg principles. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721042813/http://csc.lexum.org/en/bulletin/2007/07-11-16.bul/07-11-16.bul.html to http://csc.lexum.org/en/bulletin/2007/07-11-16.bul/07-11-16.bul.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)