Talk:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
Template:WikiProject banner shell This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 23:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
violation of NPOV
POV
This is a rather rambling essay, not encyclopedic material.Zantastik 05:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A new start
Now it's totally new. -- Toytoy 08:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Since there was a copyvio notice, you should have created the new version in the /Temp subpage. I have re-added the VfD notice since there is still a vote going on, although I imagine that the votes against the old version will not be applied to the newer one (but again, this could have been avoided by using /Temp). -- Curps 19:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your noticing. -- Toytoy 04:36, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
The scopes
If you agree, I plan to limit the "Consequences" section as brief as possible. The attacks against him is not only based on this book, they are based on Ward Churchill's political and moral ideas. Therefore, we may put details of his book on this page, and people's attacks of his ideas on his biography page. We may avoid unneed content overlapping.
By the way, I don't have the book. If any of you have a copy of that book, please write about other important topics. Thanks! -- Toytoy 06:21, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
"Scholar"
I wouldn't call Churchill a scholar but rather a polemicist. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is a polemic, but he has done scholarly work, of varying quality. --Tothebarricades 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Consequences
Shouldn't the statement "In an extraordinary step, ..." be attributed? Who decides that this is an extraordinary step?
Fair use rationale for Image:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.jpg
Image:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Propaniac (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality → Template:Noredirect — Per WP:NCB: "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name.". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Inaccuracy of some figures cited in the essay/polemic
Is it possible to insert some sort of disclaimer pointing out that the figures Churchill cites in his polemical essay are blatantly false?
The Gulf War did not kill half a million Iraqi civilians, much less half a million Iraqi children under the age of 12. The sources cited in the Wikipedia article on the Gulf War (produced by MedAct, not a pro-war or pro-America organization) indicate that there were up to 21,000 civilian casualties as a result of the war: 3,000 to 15,000 civilian deaths during the war and 4–6,000 civilian deaths up to April 1991. The total figure of 142,500–206,000 deaths includes Iraqi military deaths and civilian deaths from the Iraqi uprising.
He claims that the death toll was augmented by the "periodic bombing raids," presumably the no-fly zone over Iraq. According to the Iraqi government, that killed around 1,400 civilians. He also said that the death toll was increased by the sanctions, but the studies claiming that child mortality rose to 500,000 were debunked, based on clearly altered data from Saddam's Ba'ath government.
He also claims that the aerial bombing of Iraq was a "Class I Crime Against humanity," which simply isn't a thing. There are Class A crimes against peace, Class B war crimes, and Class C crimes against humanity, but there's no such thing as a Class I crime against humanity.