Talk:Crime against peace

message: Why is this being used to push anti-Bush propaganda? Jtrainor 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant POV pushing

message: Article says: "No legal authority exists for the definition of the terms "territorial integrity", "political independence" and "sovereignty". However, their face value would seem to disclose the following:" (definitions follow). This would seem to me to be a textbook example of original research. Comments? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: This section has largely been created by a new user who appears to be one of the authors of the cited source (Gauger et al.). It also discusses the work of coauthor Higgins.  An independent secondary source is needed to establish that these sources are worthy of note. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that one looks strange to me. Ecocide is something very much different. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. "Crime against peace" is by definition a conspiracy to commit war of aggression. Ecocide is destruction of environment, not necessarily during the war. Therefore, according to quoted sources, ecocide was never officially considered a crime against peace. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'crimes of peace' in that article is based on the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind, which was the only draft code to include a 'crime against the environment'. The authors must've either: (1) assumed ecocide was thus a crime against peace because it is supposedly not a crime against security of mankind, or (2) just shortened the phrase crimes against peace and security of mankind to 'crimes of peace'. In any case ecocide is not refered by this name in any official (UN) documentation.Perudotes (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecocide section 

message: Obviously, we must provide some examples. I restored some of them sourced to an academic secondary RS:  
. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nothing more than blatant POV and cherry-picking in violation of WP:NPOV. No tribunal to date has defined those "examples" as such, nor did most scholars. The source is the notoriously biased, factually incorrect and much-criticized introduction by Stéphane Courtois, who is infamous for his strong political bias, and is reflecting his personal POV. Do not add cherry-picked "examples", let alone those taken from such dubious and controversial sources like that and not universally accepted by scholars, as it would ruin the neutrality of the article and make those "examples" look like crimes against peace par excellence. 119.17.193.5 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: it is considerable that with the enlargement of the concept of peace,after the end of the  cold war ,obviously the domain of this crime(Crime against peace )increase too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.222.60 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development in Crime against peace