Talk:Lower Babur

War crimes 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)

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)

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) 09:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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. Let's keep discussion at Khosrow Sofla for the time being to avoid this duplication. -Darouet (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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:Khosrow Sofla.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Recommend that this RfC be closed and consolidated with the virtually identical RfC at Khosrow_Sofla (which appears to be resolved). --Noleander (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lower Babur. 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/20121004071016/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/27/operation-dragon-strike-battle-for-kandahar-begins/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/27/operation-dragon-strike-battle-for-kandahar-begins/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717011806/http://www.themadisontimes.com/news_details.php?news_id=835 to http://www.themadisontimes.com/news_details.php?news_id=835

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)