Talk:Perfidy
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: Parts of this page are restricted Parts of this article are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. If it is unclear which parts of the page are covered, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
untitled
editWasn't Skorzeny found not guilty because an American commander had ordered something very similar, and they decided to interpret the law narrowly so that we would not have to (a) hang our man beside Skorzeny or (b) hold an obvious double standard? I have heard this story, but I do not have a source to verify it. If it is true, it should be included. -RR63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.51.187 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Does not follow
edit"The issue of whether the donning of enemy uniforms in order to approach the enemy without drawing fire was within the laws of war was established ... In its judgement the Court noted that the case did not require that the Court make findings other than those of guilty or not guilty, so consequently no safe conclusion could be drawn from the acquittal of all accused.[1]"
How can the issue have been established if the court said explicitly that no conclusion could be drawn from its judgment? Jasonfward (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that needs rewriting. The link to the source was broken. I've fixed it so you can have look through it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Perfidy in Dante's Inferno?
editIn Dante's Inferno, one of the condemned is a soldier turned monk. The pope is at war, and seeks the advice of that monk. The monk advises the pope to make a false promise to lure the opponents out. The opening of the monk's lament appears with the poem The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. SlowJog (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is confusingly phrased. If it refers to the Inferno part of Dante's famous Divine Comedy, it needs a clear reference to the specific circle of Hell and and location in the original text. But that famous text predates the birth of T.S.Eliot by more than 500 years, so maybe this refers to a very specific recent adaptation that incorporates elements from later works for flavor. 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:1DC3:B330:52E0:BECE (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's bad phrasing, SlowJog should have said 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' references 'Divine Comedy', as mentioned here: The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock#Epigraph, along with how this relates to perfidy. Chabala (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Partisan Warfare
editWouldn't the partisan warfare, people pretending to be civilians, while carrying out military-type of operations, not also fall under perfidy? --105.4.7.70 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The Clone Wars
editI understand what the anonymous editor was trying to do because perfidy is uncritically committed several times over the course of the Star Wars: The Clone Wars cartoon series, but that's something to be expounded on in the article on the show, not simply added to the See Also of this article without context. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)