Talk:War crime: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:27, 28 July 2006 edit89.1.194.223 (talk) →POV ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:50, 27 September 2024 edit undo2001:8003:e46d:2300:7414:db4b:da4b:adfc (talk) →Edit recommendation
(207 intermediate revisions by 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	==Move 2003==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	Any objection to moving this to ]? ] 04:39, 22 October 2003 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=C\|B1=n\|B2=n\|B3=y\|B4=y\|B5=y\|Culture=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject International relations\|importance=Mid\|law=yes\|law-importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Top}}
			}}
			{{Archive basics
			\|archive = Talk:War crime/Archive %(counter)d
			\|counter = 1
			}}

			==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
	I have no preference between "war crime" and "war-crime" as a title, but if you move it, be sure to change all the links in pages on "What links here". -- ] 05:34, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
			] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-31">31 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-07">7 December 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].

			{{small\|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 12:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
	I have a definite preference. "war crime" is a noun, "war-crime" a modifier, as in "war-crime tribunal". ] 20:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			== Arbitrary nature of article ==

			Per the multiple issues tag I've added, this article (while it may be eligible for ] status) is extremely limited in its scope in discerning the broader aspects of the concept 'War Crime', the predominant interest being that of international law.
	==George H.W. Bush==
	"Condemnation" is not charging. We're talking about people who've actually gone to trial here. ] 06:14, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

			It also focusses on a few specific examples, employing the use of ] such as 'murdered', 'massacre' and other descriptors which have not cited ] for the use of the terminology.
	You're going to need a better source than an off-handed comment by Chomsky to place someone in a shortlist of of war criminals. I can't find a primary source for this or even a decent secondary source. The International Court of Justice (World Court) does not list any case whatever involving the U.S. and Panama and a search of their site does not even mention Bush's name. Further, even if there were a case (which there isn't) the WC decides complaints between nations, it doesn't try individuals. ] 04:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

			Input by contributors has been sporadic and decidedly ] in selection of examples, a lack of transparency as to how certain examples have been selected above other pertinent examples, and there is no indication of the use of a tertiary source for the ] of "War crime".
	: Quick gives: , , , , ... I guess that WC archives don't go back to 1986. ] 05:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

			While I consider the subject to be a significant one, the article in itself smacks of ] ]. I will also reiterate previous concerns regarding its being used as a ]. --] (]) 04:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
	::I've done a lot of research in my life and have discovered that all you need is one bad citation that is then picked up over and over, especially by partisans, which describes the sources you're giving, some of which don't even mention the alleged incident and none giving a primary source. If six people repeat a lie it doesn't make it less a lie. The point is I went to the primary source, and it just isn't there. -- ] 05:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
			:Not sure what you mean ("limited in its scope in discerning the broader aspects of the concept 'War Crime', the predominant interest being that of international law"). I thought the "concept" as described in RS is pretty close to that in international law. In any event, you are welcome to contribute here. ] (]) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
			::{{reply to\|Iryna Harpy\|My very best wishes}} ] is still somewhat limited in its scope; for instance, it doesn't mention ] or the ]. ] (]) 15:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
			:::This is wrong page because it is about the concept in general. Such info can be included to page ], but it is already seems to be included there, see and other sections.] (]) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::The International Court of Justice Records go back to 1947 with UK vs Albania. I'll comment that Chomsky seems to "know" many things that noone else has heard of. If you see him say something, you should look for a primary source. -- ] 05:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	''''
	What's the source you're refering to? Could you put a link here, please? If not, I'll pick it up in a little while. ] 11:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:Original cite came from the now-banned ]. ] 04:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
	::? I can't see him ever editing the article? ] 05:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	::Meeler, please provide evidence for this assertion. ] 11:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			I have just modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	== Should there be a list of (percieved?) war crimes? ==
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221161712/http://cil.nus.edu.sg/1949/1949-geneva-convention-i-for-the-amelioration-of-the-condition-of-the-wounded-and-sick-in-armed-forces-in-the-field/ to http://cil.nus.edu.sg/1949/1949-geneva-convention-i-for-the-amelioration-of-the-condition-of-the-wounded-and-sick-in-armed-forces-in-the-field/
	Should there be a page listing cases which appear, or are possibly perceived by many individuals, to be war crimes?
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419104833/http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2083 to http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2083
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231051315/http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/quarter-giving-no.html to http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/quarter-giving-no.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080114162221/http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406030617/http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/ to http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207221121/http://www.crimesofwar.org/ to http://www.crimesofwar.org/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501184018/http://www.sc-sl.org/ to http://www.sc-sl.org/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	I think this would be a worthwhile project. For one thing, its not information collated elsewhere. For another it might make people think. I'd like to add this, but solicit other opinions first. ] 16:18, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	* Page now added ] ] 16:18, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
	== Definition is incorrect ==
	There are a number of inaccuracies with this article. First off, it defines war crimes incorrectly. If it, unfortunately, not true that "Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." The laws of armed conflict ('international humanitarian law' or IHL) consist of many rules that bind the behavior of '''states''', but only some rules are considered serious enough that they lead to criminal prosecution of '''individuals.''' It is that subset of violations of IHL that can be considered war crimes. Also, the article refers to war crimes as being part of human rights law; as described above, they are part of IHL, which is actually a separate body of international law, though of course they have complementary interests.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 09:30, 25 November 2004 (UTC{{{3\|}}})</small><!-- -->

			== See also: Weapons of mass destruction ==

			Regarding with edit summary: "Article does not mention Weapons of mass destruction. Please explain at Talk:War crime how this relates, and allow consensus to form before including." {{ping\|KalHolmann}} If you search for "biological", "chemical", and "atomic", you'll see that the article does in fact discuss weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't use the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" which make it hard to link to that overview article. That's why I added it to the "See also" section. The ] article has perhaps the best discussion of whether or not the use of WMD should be considered a war crime, but if someone wants to learn more about the status of WMD in the world today (and thus potential war criminals) then I thought being able to click over to ] is helpful for readers. Does that make sense? -- ] (]) 19:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	Agreed. The errors above should be fixed. In addition, I don't know that the distinction between internal and international armed conflict is necessary any longer. Violations of IHL committed during a purely internal armed conflict may not be considered Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions, but they will almost certainly fall under Common Article 3 (of the Geneva Conventions) or as violations of the laws and customs of war (previously customary international law, but now codified in the Rome Statute).<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC{{{3\|}}})</small><!-- -->

			:{{ping\|Beland}} no, it does not make sense. The article's Definition section states, "In regard to the strategic bombing during World War II, it should be noticed that at the time, there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft, therefore the aerial attacks on civilians were not officially war crimes." This article is about actual war crimes, not about what you call "potential war criminals," which would violate the policy ]. Your new link to ] is better because this article does specifically discuss mass killing. Please, let's not stray too far afield. ] (]) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	== Moved from ] ==
	<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #eeffee; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #AAAAAA;"><!-- Colour blue the sectio from anothe page-->
	:''The discussion below has been copied here by ] at 10:56, 22 December 2004

			::{{ping\|KalHolmann}} I don't think the addition of a "see also" link to ] is an example of Misplaced Pages making a prediction about the future; it's just a link to a related topic. And there's any number of reasons why readers might want more information on that related topic; my explanation above is just an example of one motivation which I happened to have myself while reading the article. Some uses of chemical and biological weapons ''have'' been prosecuted as war crimes, and this article does discuss them, so I'm not quite understanding the argument that they are unrelated? Did you want pointers to documentation of such incidents? -- ] (]) 20:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	Nowhere in this article is any mention of a count of deaths of Iraqi police, soldiers and recruits. Nor is there a count of civilian deaths caused by reactionary forces operating in Iraq. I've scoured the internet and find nothing. Maybe these victims are not important?!
	Also, the statistics at this site would mean more if there were some comparisons (or links to such), such as the number of civilian deaths caused by the Allied D-Day invasion in combating Fascism, that is, to recent wars. According to the above statement, the Allies would have been responsible for French deaths, oddly insinuating that the war against Hitler would have been somehow illegal. Also, the statistics seem for many here more important than the idealogy behind the "insurgents". No interest in that, ....? ] 19:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
	: Firstly, killing traitors and collaborators is part of any liberation move. Also, it's pathetic to use comparisons with WWII in order to support the Iraq war propaganda. It shows how desperate the imperialist aggressors really are. And the ideology behind the freedom fighters (or "insurgents" like you call them) is to liberate their country from a violent foreign aggressor and illegal occupier, nothing more, nothing less.
	:Certainly there have been criticisms of the allies for bombing German civilians, yes. ] has described the principles of the ] thus:
	'' ... you have to ask yourself what was called a "war crime"? How did they decide what was a war crime at Nuremberg and Tokyo? And the answer is pretty simple, and not very pleasant. There was a criterion. Kind of like an operational criterion. If the enemy had done it and couldn't show that we had done it, then it was a war crime. So like bombing of urban concentrations was not concidered a war crime because we had done it more than the Germans and Japanese. ... Bombing Dresden is not a war crime because we did it.''
	: And that formed the basis for the UN conventions, for the Geneva convention; the trials an Nuremburg, etc. However, it can be argued that every president has violated those rules: (Search for "I've done that in print a couple of times.") From his point of view, it's then not surprising that the President disregards the UN.
	:This doesn't belong here. I'm going to post it here then move it to ].
	: ] 10:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
	:There's no lack of interest, it's just not the subject of this article. There's lots of info about the insurgents at ]. As for certain counts not appearing in this article, the problem is, they don't exist (as you've seen by scouring the internet). We can't give counts that aren't known. ] 22:30, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
	</div>

			:::{{ping\|Beland}} although this article contains internal links to ] and ], it mentions only one individual charged with war crimes for using chemical weapons (]) and none charged with war crimes for using biological weapons. Note that in defining ], Misplaced Pages includes not only chemical and biological, but also ], ], and other ]. Introducing a link to ] would misleadingly broaden the article's scope, falsely implying that war crimes have been proven in cases involving WMD other than chemical. I believe we should limit our "See also" links to what is strictly relevant to this article. Hopefully, other editors will weigh in and we can forge consensus. ] (]) 21:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	== Heads of state? ==

			::::{{ping\|KalHolmann}} Well, people have also been sentenced as war criminals for use of biological weapons; see ]. Some people think that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was a war crime (on the grounds of disproportionate civilian casualties) that just hasn't been prosecuted because the using power was a global superpower. This article notes that those bombings and strategic bombings were never ruled war crimes, but it still mentions the controversy despite it not being taken up in an actual proceeding. Anyway, if we want to link to articles on aspects of WMD more closely related to war crimes (not a bad idea, given the length of the list here) perhaps we should be focusing on "the treaties that regulate weapons" the breaking of which during wartime would be considered war crimes, regardless of the treaties that some people argue apply to indiscriminate weapons of any type. In that case, ] might be a better choice. ] has a list of treaties which include those that apply to civilian-targeting weapons like land mines. Would those be better links in your view? -- ] (]) 23:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
	The reference to heads of state seems incorrect. Tojo, for instance, was surely not the head of state in Japan -- that would have been the Emperor. Similarly for the German example.

			:::::{{ping\|Beland}} subsection '''4.1 Country listings''' contains an internal link to ], which in turn links to ]. It may be that the editors who wrote this article were not unaware of Khabarovsk, yet considered it better dealt with elsewhere. I think that's a wise approach. Broadening our scope to encompass WMD and its various offshoots such as treaties risks losing the focus on war crimes. But again, we have clearly established our respective positions, and ought now to patiently await input from other editors. ] (]) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
	] 03:12, 3 April 2005 (UTC)

			::::::I doubt there was ever a conscious decision not to mention that particular trial; it's certainly on-topic. I wasn't suggesting that it be included in the article, only offering it as a counter-example to dispel the idea that no one has ever been prosecuted for war crimes involving biological weapons. Though thinking about it, given that it's an unusually direct example specifically related to war crimes (not some part of WMD unrelated to war crimes), it should probably be mentioned in the article to avoid giving the impression that this sort of thing has never happened. -- ] (]) 03:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
	== Peace Crimes ==
			:::::::@] What about the second degree murder charge being used on programmers due to automation of drones for example, and genetic enhancements? ] (]) 20:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::{{reply\|72.83.128.234}} I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you point me to some sources for more information on the both of those? -- ] (]) 20:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

			== I dont believe the subsection "Saudi Arabian-led Military Intervention in Yemen" (under the section "History") is relevat ==
	''Recently there have also appeared testimonies of "peace crimes" committed against the Nazi children in the peace time after the war, after 1945, as part of the victors' celebration. These peace crimes reflect the complexity of justice when the winners' mentality dominates in international criminal tribunals.''

			The content briefly discusses the humanitarian impact of the war in Yemen, but I do not believe it is relevant to the history of war crimes. If one wanted to keep this paragraph in that section, it should make mention of explicit war crimes that have been found by an appropriate war crimes court - all the other sections refer to courts and the war crimes that the courts found. Since there hasn't been such a court as far as I know (i could be wrong), I think that this section should be removed. Could somebody please chime in and advise?
	Does this belong? What are "Peace Crimes"? Why blur the distinction between War Crimes and other acts of barbarism in the middle of an article on war crimes? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:54, 12 April 2005 (UTC{{{3\|}}})</small><!-- -->

			] (]) 01:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
	== NPOV ==

			== Add page about Chinese war crimes ==
	I'm concerned that the last paragraph may not be NPOV, because it seems to imply not merely that the dropping of the atom bombs and the treatment of the East Timorese may have been war crimes, but that they were. ] 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
			Theres should be a page about Chinese war crimes. It has a claimed 3000+ years of history and it is littered with war crimes. The page ] was deleted thrice in 2007, but it should be added. -] (]) 10:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
	: It has been edited, but I'm not sure if such alleged examples should be mentioned at all. ] 00:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

	== ~~George~~ W. ~~Bush~~ ==		== Include Sri Lankan war crimes ==

			Please include a non biased entry about Sri Lankan war crimes during the internal conflict within the country by both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, which resulted thousands of Tamils civilians get brutally killed by bombardments, torture and so on.
	I've noticed that there have been multiple instances where someone has put George W. Bush's biography at I removed the link, just thought that you might want to keep an eye on it. - ] 11:13, 9 December 2005
			mention the Sri Lankan war criminals list as well for furthur references. ] (]) 15:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

			== Semi-protection edit request ==
	== Is the Hussein trial a war-crimes tribunal? ==

			I think we need some protection in this article, as some people may be biased and say that a certain country did a lot of war crimes because they hate them. ] (]) 17:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
	I was under the impression that Hussein is being tried locally under Iraqi law, not as part of a UN-sanctioned war-crimes tribunal. --] 06:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

			== Edit recommendation ==
	:No, it is not a war crime tribunal. The murder of your own civilians by the government is murder, not a war crime. It's also being described as "crimes against humanity." That may be an accurate statement, but it doesn't have much legal meaning.

			In the “United Nations” section, the last bullet point should read “ Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.
	:Also, as a technical point, the UN does not have to sanction war-crimes tribunals. -- ] 07:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

			Currently, it is missing “overall military advantage anticipated”. Due to semi-protection I cannot fix it myself. ] (]) 07:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
	It should be noted that Hussein's trial is not taking place at the Hague. As a side note the proceedings are similar, but not the same as the Hague's as well. ] 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

			Hello
	== Recent Event Section ==
			Shouldn't the list of heads of state wanted for war crimes, now include the Israeli prime minister? As I understand it, there's still an active ICC warrant on him and his defence minister, for war crimes in Gaza.
	I'm putting back in the links to the recent events in Iraq. Mr Adequate, if you have any objections to this, don't just delete the links as that violates Misplaced Pages policy. You must justify why it is "not appropriate" to have these external links. And your justification has to be better than that you don't like the wording or format, cause that can be changed. Every article about ongoing wold events has a recent event section, and the links I have provided are highly newsworthy. Furthermore, video by definition is not biased in any way. Video cameras record the actual events that happen by reading the actual photons and sound waves produced. So no bull about the camera lying.
			Ps: sorry, I don't know how to site references.
			] (]) 00:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	Futhermore, both America and Britian have equated the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq. Regardless of whether or not you or I agree with them, it is clearly true that the two are influencing each other. So these links do provide important information about the so called war on terror. In fact, the video shows exactly why "they" hate "us".
			]

			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 26#Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	If you want to present your own personal point of view and biases go ahead. But do NOT delete the objective, hard video footage that I'm putting back on the page. Add your own links if you want to paint a rosey picture of the war on terror. But leave the undesputable facts in! I will take this up with administrators if necessary. And quite frankly it makes Misplaced Pages look bad if there is blantant censorship in an article.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 05:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC{{{3\|}}})</small><!-- -->

	::I have to agree with ] on this one. This is an inappropriate place to add such material, I would suggest another location on wikipedia.

	::Although this one single event may consitute a war crime, the article tends to focus on large, international events, such as entire wars, or the dropping of the atomic bomb.

	::Although to the individuals involved, the acts of Imperialist US and British troops when they attack civilians is a war crime, I don't think anyone here could agree that those acts are on the scale of say Indonesia's slaughter of East Timor or the dropping of the atomic bomb. The bombing of Iraqi water plants during gulf war I is probably a "war crime" as defined in this article, or the torture memos of Bush is a "war crime" as defined in this article, or Guantanemo Bay and the Secret worldwide prisons is a "war crime" as defined in this article, or the sanctions against Iraqis which killed 500,000 people may be a "war crime" as defined in this article.

	::But a couple of soldiers beating the shit out of some civilians, and even killing them, although a war crime, does not effect the same number of people on the same scale as the events above.

	::I think what ] may be saying is that the title, although not explicitly listed as ], if you read the article, the title is '''implicitly''' ]. Does this make sense.

	::Listing every single event in a war which happened between individual soldiers makes the article weaker because it delutes the defintion of "War crime".

	::Don't get me wrong, the events you listed should be heard, and punished, but they unfortunatly have no place here on ]. I suggest making a link under "see also" on this page, and adding your comments and links on another wikisite, focusing on this shameful event.] 09:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

	===Invasion of Iraq:Investigation of "War Crimes" Complaints===

	Given the controversy which any mentions of "war crimes" in relation to the invasion of Iraq has generated during the progressive development of this article overtime, I thought it necessary to go into considerable depth about the nature of the complaints made to the prosecutor of the ICC, and to quote at length from his reasoning. Proividing a summary or account of the matter would be more appropriate given that now this section somewhat dominates the article . However to do so at this stage would simply generate another bout of editing, and re-editing, as the rival factions objected to one interpretation or another. I trust, in time, a synopsis may be considered more acceptable, and the more detailed account here can be transfered to an article specifically dedicated to that subject on its own.

	It is worth noting in the context of the material presented, that the Prosecutor's investigation was of a preliminary kind, with a view to deciding whether he would go to the court in order to seek authority to carry out a full investigation. . One of the advanatges which the prosecutors report or conclusion at this stage presents, is that it did not involve "naming" individuals as prospective or putative "war criminals". In so far as this section of the article does not name individuals, I hope that it may restrain individuals who might otherwise be moved to edit, and re-edit it.

	Finally it is worth noting that the prosecutor's investigations were principally concerned the actions of nationals of parties to the statute. The United States is not a party to the statute. However, some of the communications complained that nationals of state parties may have been accessories to crimes committed by nationals of non-States Parties . Under the ICC statute this is a "war crime" founded on accessorial liabilty In footnote 10 of his letter he says

	<blockquote>the available information provided a reasonable basis with respect to a limited number of incidents of war crimes by nationals of States Parties, but not with respect to any particular incidents of indirect participation in war crimes.</blockquote>

	This means he did not find a reasonable basis to proceed against nationals of state parties on the basis of complicity in war crimes carried out by non state parties. It is not a finding that war crimes were not carried out by non state parties. He did not express a conclusion on that matter since that was not within his competence.] 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UCT)

	::Hello ], your comments, although probably valid, are too detailed for me to devote massive amounts of time too when this is simply a hobby. If I read and dissected your above message, it would feel must to like work or school work.

	::That said, I am going to remove myself from the war crimes wikipage, and let you and others edit away.

	::The word "war crimes" is a POV magnet, and like the entries about American imperailism, it does not foster analytical study, but converts for and against.

	::See: ]--although looing at it for the first time in months, it looks like other wikiusers have completely watered down and destroyed the original entry I added from the book Benevolent Assimilation. (Grr...more "work")] 16:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

	See ] for more details and references on this issue --] 10:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Winners ==

	Have the winners of wars ever been convicted of war crimes? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 07:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC{{{3\|}}})</small><!-- -->

	:Yes often. They are usually held under a court martial, and those found guilty are usually guilty of breaches of their own military code. See also ] usually the losers, if guilty of war crimes are also found guilty of crimes by their own legal systems. --] 10:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

	== POV ==

	I am taking out the line the US led invasion of Iraq was illeagle. That is POV and adds nothing to the article.
	I also took out the line that accuses Israel of using using phophorous weapons because it had no source.
	This article is full of bias and seems more than happy to blame the US and Israel with out even contemplating to list any of the crimes of their enemies.
	--]

	== Jurusdiction? ==

	Interesting term; shouldn't this be ]? I've changed it, but if I were mistaken, feel free to undo...

Latest revision as of 00:50, 27 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War crime article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Culture Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force

Human rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as High-importance).

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christopher Bonney.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary nature of article

Per the multiple issues tag I've added, this article (while it may be eligible for WP:GNG status) is extremely limited in its scope in discerning the broader aspects of the concept 'War Crime', the predominant interest being that of international law.

It also focusses on a few specific examples, employing the use of loaded language such as 'murdered', 'massacre' and other descriptors which have not cited WP:RS for the use of the terminology.

Input by contributors has been sporadic and decidedly WP:BIASED in selection of examples, a lack of transparency as to how certain examples have been selected above other pertinent examples, and there is no indication of the use of a tertiary source for the WP:TITLE of "War crime".

While I consider the subject to be a significant one, the article in itself smacks of WP:POV WP:SYNTH. I will also reiterate previous concerns regarding its being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean ("limited in its scope in discerning the broader aspects of the concept 'War Crime', the predominant interest being that of international law"). I thought the "concept" as described in RS is pretty close to that in international law. In any event, you are welcome to contribute here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy and My very best wishes: This list is still somewhat limited in its scope; for instance, it doesn't mention war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jarble (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is wrong page because it is about the concept in general. Such info can be included to page List of war crimes, but it is already seems to be included there, see and other sections.My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on War crime. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I dont believe the subsection "Saudi Arabian-led Military Intervention in Yemen" (under the section "History") is relevat

The content briefly discusses the humanitarian impact of the war in Yemen, but I do not believe it is relevant to the history of war crimes. If one wanted to keep this paragraph in that section, it should make mention of explicit war crimes that have been found by an appropriate war crimes court - all the other sections refer to courts and the war crimes that the courts found. Since there hasn't been such a court as far as I know (i could be wrong), I think that this section should be removed. Could somebody please chime in and advise?

QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Add page about Chinese war crimes

Theres should be a page about Chinese war crimes. It has a claimed 3000+ years of history and it is littered with war crimes. The page ] was deleted thrice in 2007, but it should be added. -Artanisen (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Include Sri Lankan war crimes

Please include a non biased entry about Sri Lankan war crimes during the internal conflict within the country by both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, which resulted thousands of Tamils civilians get brutally killed by bombardments, torture and so on. mention the Sri Lankan war criminals list as well for furthur references. 175.157.126.48 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection edit request

I think we need some protection in this article, as some people may be biased and say that a certain country did a lot of war crimes because they hate them. 216.107.236.98 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit recommendation

In the “United Nations” section, the last bullet point should read “ Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.

Currently, it is missing “overall military advantage anticipated”. Due to semi-protection I cannot fix it myself. 2A01:E0A:4BF:1A10:CED:3067:6F82:1DF5 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Shouldn't the list of heads of state wanted for war crimes, now include the Israeli prime minister? As I understand it, there's still an active ICC warrant on him and his defence minister, for war crimes in Gaza. Ps: sorry, I don't know how to site references. 2001:8003:E46D:2300:7414:DB4B:DA4B:ADFC (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

"Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 26 § Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 01:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: