Talk:Cowardice

Completely misses the point...- doesn't even mention..."sheeple"

Completely misses the point - doesn't even mention - that these issues turned on their heads can put things right again: the commonly held belief is just more brainwashing of the "sheeple" and the divergent act is actually one of prudence. A mention of this in our new age of approaching enlightenment is necessary. We're not all of us are members of emasculated militaristic nations continually desperate to find new enemies with which to wage war.

The section on cowardice as regards the London attacks seems more like the writer's political opinion than a further clarification of the topic. Sorry if I'm wrong. The Ephialtist 13:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Unclear and Incomplete

From the article:

Cowardice is not fear, but rather a submission to vice...An example of cowardice would be to refuse to testify against a crime lord, merely because one might risk death.

Merely? And it is a vice to not want to die? This article reads quite strangely to me. Also, there is no mention of "cowardice" as a legal term, ie: the word is most commonly associated with military court-martials, which this article doesn't mention. 70.20.163.248 09:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Very important. The message of this piece is akin to charge of the light brigade: be stupid and get shot at. This is not the way people think anymore. Thank goodness. This article was supervised by a TLA.

While I didn't take out the other portions of the article (I may go back and edit that one para for POV when I feel a bit more secure in POV issues), I did put in a legal definition of cowardice as regards the US military.Pat Payne 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is a) a dictionary entry and b) entirely POV. Both are violations of WP policy. -- 68.6.40.203

POV trouble again?

From the article:

Someone who kills a defenseless person is also considered a coward.

This seems to be using badly disguised weasel words, showing a POV. Whilst I, and many others agree, this is not encyclopedic. Thoughts?

Legal Defintion

I just removed the "legal definition" because a reading of UCMJ subchapter X, section 899, (http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/SUBCHAPTERX.html#892.92) shows that this section defines "misbehavior before the enemy", one part of which is "cowardly conduct". Cowardly conduct, as such, is never defined. Claiming that list items #1 through 4 and #6 through 9 constitute a definition of cowardice or cowardly conduct (list item #5) is as logically flawed as claiming that the other 8 articles constitute a definition of list item #4 (which would have ludicrous implications such as causing false alarms being part of the definition of casting away one's arms or munitions. In fact, items 1 to 9 are all different points (not each other's definitions) and my suspicion is that cowardly conduct, due to its rather vague/subjective nature, serves as the catchall for any act no one thought to list explicitly before it happened... If anyone knows of an actual legal definition of cowardice from any source (military or otherwise), it would be great to have on the page.

--BadLeprechaun (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Major rework

This page as it currently stands does not cover the subject matter in any sort of satisfactory manner. Hence I have taken the following steps I have introduced difinition more corcordant with its everyday meaning and seperated the old introduction into a new catholic paragraph. I have reintroduced sections on military law as it is relevant however I have not attempt to produce a legal difinition. I have removed the terroism section as it is not relevant to a discussion of cowardice. I have added major reconstruction template. I have revised the links to other articles to be more appropriate. I ask only this firstly please attempt to develop the article do not simply take the safe option and revert back and lable as vandalism I know my work is extremely rough it is meant to provide a start point to move towards an improved article. I know the working is very rough but expand out on the points and in a week we will have a far better article then what was originally here. Secondly if you feel reverts are needed again I stress my own work is very rough and easily improved upon then do a full revert look at what was there and what has been added and carefully change as appropriate, please do not revert terroism section it simply does not belong here. I sorry that I've taken to it with all the subtlety of a butcher but lets work to bring it up to standard now, this was a refocus back onto the topic I'm the first to admit my editing skills so please do a better job. Also apart from expanding on whats there and bringing it up to code we need paragraphs on cowardice from other cultural, social or philosophical perspectives anyway have fun. --219.89.8.32 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Slovik

I removed the link to Eddie Slovik. It is hardly becoming of an encyclopaedia to single out one instance of wartime desertion, and a highly debated one at that, as an example of cowardice. The Slovik article linked to, and the references within it, made it clear that Slovik was not an unreconstructed coward, and certainly not the only coward of the Second World War. Jjgull (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)