S Vertigo,
If I read your message correctly, and I might not language being the poor method of communication that we have.
You appear to be saying that words are difficult, "tricky".
That murder is locally defined, which might be the case. Though I dont see why the local definition criterion should be limited to murder. Please lets stay on an even keel about this...there have been governments that have legalized actions that later have been widely characterized as murder. Indeed 20 century Europe offers examples of this. Is Wikipedia to adopt the local definition in these examples? We might argue that the local definition has changed since then, but then could we describe the acts as murder if they were not locally defined such at the time?
Sincerely, Lance6Wins
--- "S. Vertigo" sewev@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that
appears
in wikipedia is: Murder is the crime of
intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse.
Exactly - though the word excuse doesnt work well. Better to say 'without lawful reason,' or cause. Excuse already implies a defiance of an existing law. Keep in mind now that "law" is also a tricky word; human law requires context, or juristiction. So, according to a local variety of "law," it's "murder" to do that here, but if youre over there, 'go right ahead.' Is this act called "murder" in Palestine? I dont know. But even if it was, its a very close call. I would say that its not our place to pass judgement; that if "murder" is the judgment of a local "law" for an event, then we can report that.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask
if
the individuals that shot the boy had lawful
excuse.
There is no lawful excuse for murder. "Murder" is a term which carries a meaning of wrongfulness, while other terms are used for killings which are "justified," or "lawful." Is murder the term generally used for cases of "collateral damage" or "assassination" or "targeted bombing?" etc. etc. While I agree that its valid to 'call a spade a spade,' having any pretense of a consistent general policy would require a preference for the use terms that do not carry such a judgement.
The reason is that these terms just dont work in an international discussion context, because 'just cause' is always an issue of POV, unless the "law" we are all talking about is in place, active, global, and applicable equally. Currently neutrality is the only such law, othet than the law of force; sometimes called 'tyranny,' juristiction by 'right of might' is very weak, IMHO, if there are mechanisms and means by which people are free to communicate clearly.
'Cerely S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com