Talk:United States war crimes/Archive 2

Attribution of claims
Jesse,

I said I'm staying out of this for a while but you did make one promise that I'd like you to keep as soon as is practical.

You did say, "Non-judicial allegations will read something like 'Professor X said that event Y constituted a war crime for reasons A, B, and C.'"

It currently attributes a lot of this stuff to nameless figures like "some commentators" or vague phrases like "seen as an amnesty law." The actual reasons A, B, and C, may or may not matter all the time. What's most important is to say who made these claims. If they're notable then their names should be on the record.

I realize it's still early, but you do need to add the names at some point.

As for the rest of the content, some of it is incorrect even by your standards. But I'll stay out of that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll point out two glaring errors in the new material.
 * (1)The statement As a reaction to the September 11, 2001 attacks the U.S. Government adopted several controversial measures (e.g., invading Iraq, introducing "unlawful combatant" status, conducting "extraordinary renditions", and "enhanced interrogation methods"[26]).
 * uses 3 references as sources. Searching all three for a claim within, concerning extraordinary rendition, finds the term- and not even the partial of word "extraordinary", cannot be found in any of the three references, as I knew it shouldn't.
 * Extraordinary Rendition was a policy initiated by the Clinton Administration, (specifically approved by Al Gore) and used multiple times before Bush even took office. Even HRW says so
 * (2)The statement  Dave Lindorff contends that by ignoring the Geneva Conventions the US administration, including President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, is culpable for war crimes. The source is counterpunch.org, questionable by itself, but just who the heck is David Lindorff and why should his opinion on this carry weight? Turns out David Lindorff"is an investigative reporter, a columnist for CounterPunch, and a contributor to Businessweek, The Nation, Extra! and Salon.com."
 * Mr. Lindorff holds no academic credentials nor has ever served in any official capacity or professionally in the fields of international law, law in general, foreign policy, or anything related to military nor government.
 * The inclusion of that seems to have been on the grounds we found some guy who said some inflammatory **** that we agree with. This is not a reputable source reporting what some expert said, it is the word of a politically motivated journalist himself in an op-ed piece seeking to build support for the impeachment of Bush.
 * If that first edit does not soon transform into Bill Clinton and Al Gore being named as war criminals, someone's POV slip is showing. Batvette (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied and pasted it from another article, and have not had time to go through everything. If anyone's "POV slip" is showing, then it's the author of the content. If there is a problem, fix it, rather than making bad faith accusations. I'm not asking you to approve of or leave untouched any of my contributions, but I'll say that at least I'm contributing something rather than doing nothing but getting engrossed in political arguments on talk pages. Fix problems, rather than complaining about them, and explain yourself in your edit summary. If someone disagrees, they'll revert you, and then we can all discuss it here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you of bad faith. I even said "I realize it's still early."  It was just a friendly reminder.  Your cut and paste explanation is perfectly understandable.  But you did say attribution would be given when you explained to everyone the direction you want this article to take.
 * It wouldn't do for me to make the changes. Aside from the fact that I don't approve of the new purpose of the article, it would be silly to expect me to edit a portion of the article that I believe is factually wrong.  Nor do I want to get into an argument with you about what the real facts are.  You'll just pull out the WP:NOTAFORUM line again.
 * If you believe this stuff, and the people you're quoting believe this stuff, then you should feel confident to put their names up there for all to see. These are charges of war crimes.  You shouldn't be making them at all if you can't stand behind them.
 * Batvette raises a fair point about the sources but I reject the idea that we should ignore some opinions based on their not having law degrees. There are some notable people in the "human rights" field who do not have law degrees.  We said any notable people.  If we're going to open it up to mere opinion then this is the kind of stuff we get.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you (notice the indentation). I agreed with much of what you had to say. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrtayloriv, you have lowered the standards so far that now we can introduce the views of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly. TFD (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove anything you don't feel is a reliable source, or find a more reliable source. Fix any problems you see. Feel free to discuss here if you have any specific problems or questions.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied and pasted it from another article, and have not had time to go through everything. If anyone's "POV slip" is showing, then it's the author of the content.
 * As far as I was concerned with the critique, you were the author of the content in the article and were responsible for its accuracy. Curious, what article did you copy and paste that claim from, so I can go correct it there as well?
 * This statement that you "hadn't had time to go through everything" in an article which publically declares real, living persons to be war criminals is somewhat flippant. Without further berating you for it (or pretending to be your parents-LOL) I would hope you realize the seriousness wikipedia treats this precise matter.
 * at least I'm contributing something rather than doing nothing but getting engrossed in political arguments on talk pages. Fix problems, rather than complaining about them, and explain yourself in your edit summary. If someone disagrees, they'll revert you, and then we can all discuss it here.
 * That is completely contradictory of the tag on this very page, stating:
 * "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them" and I really have little desire to get into edit wars. It's better for those who actually use wikipedia for a reference- (you know, those who would benefit from our contributions) that each article does not significantly change at the whims of arguing editors each time they visit it anyhow. It's probably time to take this to a higher level in some form, since you do seem unwilling to compromise about the content you wish to add. Several editors, not just myself and Randy, have expressed ourselves about the way the article was headed, you went ahead and did what you wanted anyway and that "hadn't had time to go through everything" comment pretty much displays your disregard for the process of working with other editors. Further note that I raised the issue of Hiroshima with plenty of advance notice, you said nothing- I did the edit as you now suggest I should operate- and you simply reverted it.
 * I like to have a friendly relationship with other editors here, let's try to keep it that way. However if you can't differentiate between including serious content about actual war crimes with some NPOV balance- and creating an article which, regardless of AGF, still appears to promote ideological or political agenda, with references to often frivolous events some pundits hope to portray as a war crime-there is going to be a problem here.
 * A note to Randy, I wasn't suggesting that people MUST be lawyers it is just usually expected that a person writing an opinion piece has notability in a related field, or is a journalist quoting an individual with notability in a related field- perhaps I am mistaken on that? The reference in question has that journalist referencing a supreme court decision, yet fails to offer substantial detailed quotes from the decision, so we are left to assume he has the legal expertise to interpret the document for us- but I failed to see anything in bio that qualifies this. His description of virtually the entire administration as war mongers was the final straw that caused me to say "alright, this source is unacceptable". Any arguments?Batvette (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I was concerned with the critique, you were the author of the content in the article and were responsible for its accuracy. -- Had you read my edit summaries, you would see that this is not the case, and that I was in fact questioning it's accuracy and reliability, in some cases.
 * Curious, what article did you copy and paste that claim from, so I can go correct it there as well? -- Command responsibility
 * That is completely contradictory of the tag on this very page, stating "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them" -- This is a perfect case of when to apply WP:IAR. "Discussions" here have gone nowhere for months. Any addition is opposed on the grounds of supporting baby-killers or fascists. I added content to start the ball rolling and get people discussing content, rather than arguing politics. And apparently it's working because we're doing that now. I'm going to keep adding content. I welcome you to question reliability of the sources, or question whether certain content should be included, and to check it's correctness. I'm sure I'll make mistakes, and I welcome you correcting them. I want my edits to be changed, added to, removed. Doing so will eventually result in a high-quality article, rather than a perpetual stub article with a political discussion forum attached to it.
 * It's probably time to take this to a higher level in some form -- Go right ahead, if you think that's necessary. Personally, I think that would just be a further time-wasting disruption that will prevent everyone here from working on the article. But I'm pretty sure the outcome is going to be that they're going to tell everyone to calm down, provide high-quality reliable sources, stop making personal attacks, and stop soapboxing and arguing and work on the article.
 * since you do seem unwilling to compromise about the content you wish to add. -- Not at all. In fact, I've welcomed you to make changes, remove things, etc. and only asked that you provide reliable sources and stop making personal attacks and trying to argue politics with me. I am fine working with other editors. But I want to be working with them, not debating politics with them.
 * Several editors, not just myself and Randy, have expressed ourselves about the way the article was headed, you went ahead and did what you wanted anyway -- Yes, after asking repeatedly for people to stop soapboxing and holding political debates and to focus on specific problems and reliable sources, and failing to get any response other than vague political diatribes and comments about how this article was going to go downhill like United States and state terrorism and be written by a bunch of left-wing extremists who use children as human shields ... etc. etc. etc. ... I decided that it would be a more productive use of my time to just start adding content to the article, in order to force the discussion to be centered around content.
 * and that "hadn't had time to go through everything" comment pretty much displays your disregard for the process of working with other editors.  -- could you explain the logic behind this statement?
 * I like to have a friendly relationship with other editors here, let's try to keep it that way. -- Then perhaps you should stop being rude and abrasive, making personal attacks, and accusing other editors of pushing a POV. It's going to be hard to have friendly relationships if you're doing that. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jrtayloriv, you are using the same standards of sources about which we both complain on the Chavez article. TFD (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD -- I don't think I am. How do you mean? I think that people are misrepresenting what I am saying. I would ultimately like to have high-quality sources (suitable for WP:BLP -- ideally scholarly, government, or respected NGO work) for all criminal allegations in the article -- this is what I've been saying all along. This is mostly what I've added, so far, with the exception of the bit I copy/pasted from the other article. All of the low-quality sources in the section I copy/pasted can be replaced with one of the numerous sources I've added below. I've already tagged several questionable sources in that section for removal. The only reason I think they are worthy of staying around is because almost all of them point people to more reliable reports/books/papers that are suitable sources. They are there, tagged for possible unreliability, to assist people in finding better sources. And as I've said, I'd welcome suggestions for better sources from other editors -- I can't fix everything myself instantly (especially when I'm dedicating so much time to this talk page, instead of fixing problems). I'm trying to find more sources as we speak, rather than going back and forth here. If you'll look at the bottom of the article in the further reading section, I've provided a fairly decent sized list of high-quality sources that people could start working from. What is it that you see that is wrong with my standards? I do respect your opinion, because you are managing quite well to keep a cool head (although you've made jabs a few times, I'd say it's still admirable given the amount of tension here), and you tend to at least back up your arguments with sources. What do you see a problem with, and how do you suggest we fix it? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm about to be off Wiki for a few days, so if I don't respond, that's why) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, before you continue dropping the victim card about your person being attacked, it would help to have a clue about what is defined as such at wikipedia- No_personal_attacks Calling an editor out for his behaviour in editing using no additional insults or slurs upon his person is NOT a personal attack. Neither is pointing out the hypocrisy inherent to complaining other editors being here for agendas and soapboxing, (thus you feel you no longer need to work with them and even sought to interrupt their exchanges with other editors) However detailed review of your recent edits show that as you explained the incorrect and questionable material was lifted from another page AND was explained as questionable in your edit summary, HOWEVER that is in itself a peculiar way to edit- adding content you recognized as questionable or even erroneous and stating so and leaving it to others or yourself at as later time to check or rectify. It's not dishonest in practice but seems to imply a practice of reinforcing a POV across multiple articles to ensure a consistent view gets told. As this did here, it leaves the Bart Simpson factor to use- "I didn't do it". A couple more relevant points- (1)I don't see Randy beleaguering points about Baby Killers or any of that, they were metaphors used to make points but now it's being used to dismiss valid editing concerns on the article. Did he call YOU a baby killer? I don't think so. (2)Who is debating politics? Discussing legal definitions of war crimes and whether frivolous allegations about serious crimes by living persons should appear at wikipedia is not discussing politics, though if politics came up maybe it's because politically motivated content is being introduced? (Lindorff's reference a perfect example, there is no reason that article exists but for political purposes) (3)could you explain the logic behind this statement Certainly, after having lengthy discussions about what should be considered appropriate as far as legitimate allegations for this article, you went ahead and added a large section, which contained content that was exactly what was stated to be inacceptable, and the statement displayed an attitude that it wasn't worth your trouble to even read thoroughly what you were adding. (4)finishing on noting that what seems to be "fixing problems" in your mind appears so far as to clearing any hurdles before you in adding content which can portray the actions of the US as war criminals, the only standard being someone said it. Not that it will stand up in court, or that the person saying it has authority or perspective on the matter, or isn't grinding a political axe. This, I repeat, is problematic. This is a page about war crimes, not pursuing the degradation of persons you can associate with them. Batvette (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, before you continue dropping the victim card -- There is no "victim card" (this is exactly the type of sarcastic and abrasive tone I'm talking about), and I've got thick skin. I don't care, although it's a waste of my time responding to it. The reason I pointed it out is that you were talking about how you try so hard to have "friendly" relations with other editors, and that mean ole me was preventing you from doing that (that I'm victimizing you ...). You can keep accusing me of being a POV, tenditious, hypocrite, who is terrible at working with other editors -- I think it's ridiculous, but it doesn't "hurt" me, or make me go in the corner and cry. But please don't say these sorts of things and then start complaining about how you want to have friendly relations with me.
 * Calling an editor out for his behaviour in editing using no additional insults or slurs upon his person is NOT a personal attack. -- It's not. But you've also called me a hypocrite, said that I'm not here to improve the article, that I'm only interested in pushing a POV, and that I am terrible at working with other editors. I don't care about your criticisms of the content -- as I said, I want you to criticize the content. I want you to do as TFD just did (thank you, thank you, thank you) and ADD CONTENT that you feel balances out the article. I'm fine discussing this, but I'd like you to avoid taking the focus off of the article with these sort of vague personal attacks.
 * Neither is pointing out the hypocrisy inherent to complaining other editors being here for agendas and soapboxing -- There is nothing "hypocritical" about asking editors who are soapboxing to stop, and focus on the article.
 * HOWEVER that is in itself a peculiar way to edit- adding content you recognized as questionable or even erroneous and stating so and leaving it to others or yourself at as later time to check or rectify. -- I don't think so. As I've explained above, I figured that adding content to provide scaffolding for people to work on would start moving us towards working on the article. It turned the discussion to content, rather than political arguments, which is what I had hoped it would do. There is a bunch of content in other articles that we can use, and I plan to do more copy/paste/repair just like I have done here. You can help if you like. And by the way, you are misconstruing what I said. I did not think the content was questionable or erroneous. I thought that the reliability of the sources for a BLP was questionable. The things that were found to be erroneous (if I recall correctly -- if not, correct me here) were that I needed to change the phrase introducing "unlawful combatant" status to applying "unlawful combatant" status and the uncited (and unimportant) statement about travel plans being cancelled (which I removed).
 * I don't see Randy beleaguering points about Baby Killers or any of that, they were metaphors used to make points but now it's being used to dismiss valid editing concerns on the article. Did he call YOU a baby killer? I don't think so.  -- First off, I never claimed that he called me a "baby-killer", so I don't even know why you felt the need to bring that up. Yes, he regularly refers to extremists, fascists, vigilante partisan fools, etc. etc. etc.. But that's not the primary point. What I was saying is that besides this sort of cheap rheotoric, and long-winded arguments based on original research, he does not contribute reliable sources or specific suggestions for changes. He just argues. And argues. And argues. And for months, these arguments have prevented progress from being made on the article. That's the main point, which you completely ignored.
 * Who is debating politics? -- A year ago, it was everybody here, including myself and Randy2063. Now, it's primarily Randy2063. This entire page has been, as I said, nothing but a stub article with a political forum attached to it. Look at the talk page above you, and note how many sources are provided, and how many specific suggestions for change are made.
 * Discussing legal definitions of war crimes and whether frivolous allegations about serious crimes by living persons should appear at wikipedia is not discussing politics -- I never made the claim that discussing if frivolous allegations were being made was "discussing politics". Again, don't set up straw men, and put words into my mouth. Discussing legal definitions of war crimes can be appropriate in some cases, and not in others. Having arguments on this talk page where people are debating with each other about whether they think something is a "war crime" and citing passages from international law as a legal argument is debating politics, and using this talk page as a forum. This is what was happening, and this is what I was referring to.
 * After having lengthy discussions about what should be considered appropriate as far as legitimate allegations for this article, you went ahead and added a large section, which contained content that was exactly what was stated to be inacceptable -- Mostly, no. Most of it is reports from international organizations, legal experts, etc. The few things that weren't, I have removed or tagged as unreliable
 * and the statement displayed an attitude that it wasn't worth your trouble to even read thoroughly what you were adding. -- No, I didn't say I didn't read thoroughly what I was adding. Another straw man. I said that I planned to repair it later, and wanted to use it as a means to focus discussion on content.
 * "fixing problems" in your mind appears so far as to clearing any hurdles before you in adding content which can portray the actions of the US as war criminals, the only standard being someone said it. -- Another vague, unsupported bad faith accusation. "Fixing problems" in my mind, is going through reliable sources, finding what they have to say about the U.S. and war crimes, and accurately portraying this in the article and repairing any places where this has not happened.
 * Anyhow, as I've said -- I'm going to be off-wiki for a few days. I hope that everyone here can take a lead from TFD and myself and continue adding content to the article, backed by reliable sources, and fixing any problems you encounter along the way. Look! It's improving before our very eyes ... -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a lot I can say which will penetrate your thinking, it's all been argued already, but point out that my hesitation to further engage you is motivated by you saying But you've also called me a hypocrite right above the paragraph where you reprint the "offensive" "personal attack" of-
 * Neither is pointing out the hypocrisy inherent to complaining other editors being here for agendas and soapboxing
 * I have no desire to be further patronized by such sophomoric debate tactics when they have been repeatedly pointed out and continue anyway so blatantly that you'd make another false accusation and then reprint the evidence directly below while trying to make another non point. (noting I have thoroughly inspected this reply to preclude anything that can be twisted or perverted into a victimization claim to divert attention from the topical issues)Batvette (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead needs expansion
AT the moment I think the lead is not informative enough, and could do with a knowledgeable person to boost it by several paragraphs, outlining the salient disputes, and enlarging on the ramifications now stated in the first sentence. Take this as a suggestion from afar. — Zujine |talk 03:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Move request (August 2010)

 * 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: superseded by move request below. - GTBacchus(talk) 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

War crimes and the United States → American war crimes &mdash; If we look at Category:War crimes committed by country the only title that fails to follow the schema is the article about the USA. For consistency a move is proposed. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose For all the reasons I have given at Talk:German war crimes. The United States does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and continues to deny that it has carried out any war crimes, which in any case is a highly ambiguous term. While I personally do think American armed forces have violated the rules of war, it is misleading to talk of "American war crimes" when the Uniited States has yet to be convicted of such. This situation means that the USA cannot be compared to countries like Germany and Japan, which have admitted carrying out war crimes during WW2. City  of  Destruction  22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking out my "strong oppose". I've had a look at a few other war crime articles, including British war crimes, and am starting to rethink my opposition to this move. However, my concerns above do remain. City  of  Destruction  22:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The current title is mealy but the proposed title misrepresents the article a bit. Per Wikipedia, crimes are "breach[es] of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction."  Maybe "alleged" needs to be appended in this case.  —   AjaxSmack   00:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support on the basis that consistency is important and having a special title for the US article is a bit stinky in terms of WP:Systematic bias. There may be cases featured where the existence of a "war crime" is disputed or technically dubious, but that is likely to be the same for all countries. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "...Having a special title for the US article is a bit stinky in terms of WP:Systematic bias." True.  Then maybe some of the other articles' titles should be reviewed as well.  But, in this case there has been no prosecution, conviction, or admission of any war crime.  (Compare with the cases of German war crimes, &c.)  Likewise, there's no article on George W. Bush's war crimes for similar reasons.  These are included in the more neutral sounding Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and other articles.  —   AjaxSmack   02:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear, even in German war crimes, that everything mentioned was successfully prosecuted as a war crime. George W. Bush's war crimes isn't comparable because he is not a country. Article titles in this area which are "more neutral sounding" may be a reasonable idea, but I am not in favour of applying this only to the US. I think global NPOV and the need for consistency is more important than any other consideration in this case. --FormerIP (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But, in this case there has been no prosecution, conviction, or admission of any war crime. -- Doesn't matter. There has been a large body of scholarship on the subject. The fact that the U.S. refuses to submit to international law, and doesn't admit to war crimes, does not mean that we should avoid reporting what reliable, scholarly sources have to say on the matter. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, there's no article on George W. Bush's war crimes for similar reasons. These are included in the more neutral sounding Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and other articles. -- Efforts to impeach George Bush are not the same as war crimes. The impeachment process is part of domestic law. War crimes are violations of international laws of war.  The only reason that George W. Bush's alleged war crimes doesn't exist, is because somebody hasn't taken the time to write it. There are plenty of reliable sources to warrant the creation of such an article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * having a special title for the US article is a bit stinky in terms of WP:Systematic bias -- How so? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The same argument for the "softer" title in this case could be made for any country. The fact that editors have only seen fit to soften the title in the case of the US seems like it could be an example of systematic bias (ie most editors are American, which has skewed the neutrality of the way in which the articles have been named). --FormerIP (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- A very large body of scholarship exists on this topic, but before it was renamed to it's current title, disruptive editors continuously used the title as a means of preventing said scholarship from being mentioned in the article (claiming that if the title implies that a war crime was committed, then the only things that warrant inclusion are things that have gone through a court). I don't think there should be anything in the title implying that the United States was convicted in a court of war crimes, or admitted to committing war crimes, otherwise they will argue that the analysis of scholars, judges, international law experts, etc. "doesn't count" and can't be included because it's not "an official ruling" (nevermind that there are no official rulings, since the U.S. doesn't submit to international law...) As you can see from the "Further reading" section, or from a quick Google Books/JSTOR search, there is plenty of high-quality expert analysis that has been written on the matter, and the current title is about as neutral as can be, and does not imply that the U.S. committed any war crimes. I don't see any reason to change it.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I wasn't aware of the history of excluding material before based on the "strong" title.  —   AjaxSmack   17:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support --in the interest of impartiality,adherence of continuity to the larger subject, and not using wikipedia for political soapbox. Batvette (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain (a) what isn't "impartial" about the current title, (b)how the title is "using Wikipedia for a political soapbox"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support for consistency with similar articles about other countries. No reason why America should be a special case.--RegentsPark (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there is a large amount of scholarship that is going to be included in the article claiming that war crimes were committed, and we have numerous editors, who are very concerned that even if we attribute these claims and point out that they are merely allegations, that such a title might confuse readers into thinking that these attributed opinions constitute a legal ruling. The current title is neutral, and in no way implies that the U.S. committed any crimes. This resolves their concerns, so that we can stop arguing on the talk page about what the title implies (because we now have a title that implies nothing), and get to work on the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there is a large amount of scholarship that is going to be included in the article claiming that war crimes were committed,
 * And yet all of your recent edits you added to this end had references from media sites, most of which politically slanted and oriented, NOT from academia or "scholarship" as you are falsely portraying. Please stop treating other editors in such a patronizing manner by assuming we think "counterpunch.org" is "scholarship". Batvette (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer the the move suggestion or the alleged war crimes .... suggestion. The current title is unclear and should be changed. It could, for example, include US actions on war crimes (for e.g., the Nurenberg trials and various other war crimes related legislation and action on the part of the US. I presume that is not the intention of this article. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am starting to agree with such a title as well, per your and AjaxSmack's reasoning. Your example of the Nuremberg trials was particularly apt. So perhaps we should start a new RfC under Allegations of United States war crimes, once this one is finished. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * support the name itself is a bit misleading, like spaghetti and meatballs, or sonny and cher, describing to separate things as if they were one. without convictions, these are merely accusations, not crimes.  Darkstar1st (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How is the name "misleading, like spaghetti and meatballs"?
 * How does it imply that the United States is the same thing as a war crime?
 * -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Jrtayloriv's opinion above. The proposed title does not accurately reflect the content of the article and can be used to prevent addition of content that doesn't meet the stringent requirements of a war crime.  Without a "softer" title, the article will be a editing battleground.  I prefer something along the lines of Allegations of... or Accusations of United States war crimes.  For those concerned with consistency, consider moving other country articles to a similar title if there has been no adjudication of war crimes.  —   AjaxSmack   17:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not necessarily be opposed to Allegations of United States war crimes, pending further discussion. However, for the reasons I stated above (concision, neutrality, and prevention of WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc.) I prefer the current title, and nobody has given any reason other than consistency with other titles to justify changing it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Update -- actually regentspark has now provided another (good) reason for a move, albeit not to the currently suggested title. Namely, he pointed out that the current title is somewhat ambiguous and would seem to imply, for example, that discussion of the Nuremberg Trials would fall within its scope. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no divergence from naming conventions. The "Country war crimes" format does not extend to actual articles, only categories. There is no "Israeli war crimes" or "Italian war crimes" articles, simply categories. The same is true for this article. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * support but it should "United States War Crimes"--to clarify that the subject is the US, not Americans generally. The title makes sense because it reviews sources on this topic.--NYCJosh (talk) 06:15, 3 September 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.

Criticism of Jrtayloriv
The following lengthy, off-topic conversation was moved out of the above RfC
 * note the editor above (Jrtayloriv), a primary editor of the article in its current and past forms, describes other editors trying to balance the strong POV he injects as "disruptive" and implies that the allegations he insists on injecting are scholarly and qualified legally- yet of the many references he used in the recent controversial edits, virtually all were from media, not peer reviewed academia sources, and most even from sources with well known political agendas. Batvette (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks, and try to stick to discussing the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from unfounded allegations to distract from your weak position on topical issues. Anyone ELSE who would like to see this editor's track record on this can refer to the section immediately above this, precisely, "you called me a hypocrite" while his education in the matter of No_personal_attacks has been made, the victim card is still being dropped rather than discuss the multitude of faults of his editingBatvette (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks, and try to stick to discussing the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. wiki policy is clear on No_personal_attacks (Note the article also states falsely accusing someone of personal attacks is in itself a personal attack)If you wish to display petty, cheap and immature debate tactics rather than discuss the faults inherent to your edits, go right ahead, it can only serve to discredit the person continuing to engage in said behaviour. ANYONE WHO CAN READ ENGLISH KNOWS WHY THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK.Batvette (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TO BE CLEAR from the wiki policy page- "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks,".
 * I trust your education in the matter is now to be assumed. Batvette (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your language was by no means civil, and involved my personal character when you said (falsely) "describes other editors trying to balance the strong POV he injects as "disruptive" (see above)" (without any diffs to back it up -- since they don't exist, of course). This goes along with your numerous other character attacks and bad faith accusations on the talk page, such as fixing problems" in your mind appears so far as to clearing any hurdles before you in adding content which can portray the actions of the US as war criminals, and talking of my (imagined) disregard for the process of working with other editors, etc. etc. Anyhow, I'm sure your uncivil and SHOUTING tone is coming through loud and clear to everyone here. Please calm down and try to discuss the topic at hand -- namely, reasons why the article should or should not be moved to the suggested new title. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please disclose the school you attended which taught you that the statement "describes other editors trying to balance the strong POV he injects as "disruptive" is descriptive of your person and not your actions. Batvette (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making a false claim about what I have said is disruptive -- nowhere did I claim that "other editors trying to balance the strong POV I inject is disruptive". You have not provided diffs for any of your allegations. You are implying that I am trying to "inject a POV" into the article, rather than trying to write a neutral and improved article, which is a bad faith accusation. Of course, I've already explained this to you, at least once in the discussion preceding the RfC. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder if the insistence on your POV editing is so intent there may not eventually be good grounds on having your account blocked from editing this article. Batvette (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you'll look at the references that I added in the Further Reading section, you'll see that the majority are written by scholars or legal experts. The section to which you are referring, with Counterpunch cited, as you know (and are oddly failing to tell people here) was pulled from another article, which I did not write. And I subsequently removed it, once it had been replaced with a more high-quality source. Please stop misrepresenting me. You can make all sorts of dishonest claims about what I consider scholarship, but the reality is that I think scholarship is work by academic experts knowledgable in the topic being discussed.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. -- I highly doubt you'll have very much success getting me blocked from editing this article, considering that I'm one of two editors who is actually working on the article and providing reliable sources, instead of doing nothing but arguing and debating politics on the talk page. But I wish you the best of luck. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.P.S -- Although you might succeed in getting yourself blocked for being disruptive and incivil. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for actually posting a personal attack. Now you know what one looks like. You didn't criticize any of my actions or behaviour, you insulted who I am- that I am an uncivil and disruptive person. Batvette (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did criticize your actions and have, unlike yourself, backed up my criticism of your behavior with specific quotations and examples and precise explanations of how they are disruptive and uncivil. This entire conversation being included in an RfC/Move discussion was disruptive, especially since you have already said everything here numerous times on the talk page. Arguing endlessly on talk pages, without suggesting improvements or providing sources is disruptive, especially when coupled with personal attacks and bad faith accusations against other editors. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The sites in the further reading section have little bearing on the quality of the references used for article content, I suppose one could put the Holy Bible in further reading to counter all the slanted media he used to reference his content, it would not fool anyone. As for misrepresenting you, '''counterpunch.org was the reference used twice in edits made by your account and anyone can go to the article history and see this. you are responsible for content you introduce to the article, do not attack or accuse other editors of less than honorable behaviour for holding you responsible for that content not meeting encyclopedic standards. Moreover, at this time virtually all the material added by your account in the war on terror section is still from media, most of it from politically aligned sources-not the scholarly sources you describe '''. This is part of a pattern of behaviour that is against wiki policy here. I just wanted to make the grievances about your actions here clear so other editors can easily recognize what appear to be a well practiced set of tactics to obfuscate POV editing, should they continue. Observing a repetitious pattern with the result being an article with the same POV slant of a year ago is not violating AGF on my part- there is no reason to assume good faith when little is displayed. Finally toward the article, the complaint remains- '''The article was renamed with an ambiguous title to facilitate insertion of material questionable in content which appear to be politically motivated. This is not consistent with war crimes articles on other nations. There is no current criteria for inclusion other than inserting any claim by any person, notable in a field or not, willing to declare an allegation of a war crime, not even particularly specifying what the war crime was, and despite one editor's claim the references for the above are scholarly, virtually all are from media sites, most political. Given that these events would be committed as alleged by actual living persons I caution editors to remember wiki policy on Biographies_of_living_persons when declaring someone is a war criminal.'''
 * 1) The consistent tactic of feigned victimization for any civilly worded criticism of the content you introduce or actions discussing same as personal attacks, even paraphrasing editors comments to make them personal attacks when they clearly were not. (example, "you called me a hypocrite") Not a single instance was a comment directed at your person, but toward the action engaged in. You have described language as uncivil, copy and paste the language (do not paraphrase) if you dispute the civility.
 * 2) The consistent bleating of "please refrain from political debate and discuss changes to the article" when editors are doing just that-to avoid discussion of your controversial edits.
 * 3) Assuming superiority due to editing "contributions" of questionable material over those who are discussing changes first, despite a tag on the talk page stating This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them,.
 * 4) The insertion of clearly POV material by your account then feigning no responsibility for the edit nor its reference being questionable, as it came from another article- and even accusing other editors of dishonesty for calling you on it.

Batvette (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already responded to each of the things you just repeated in the discussion preceding the RfC, so I refer you to my responses there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone else is offended by Jrtayloriv's writing style in Wikipaedia talk pages. Well THERE'S a shocker. I agree with most of what Jrtayloriv has to say, but his communication style (which usually consists of citing WP policy ad nauseum) is about as attractive as roadkill. And I see that he's still editing other peoples' posts. BlueRobe (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory article renaming
Unomi unilaterally changed the name of this article from "War crimes committed by the United States" to "War crimes and the United States." I generally applaud being bold and I understand the idea behind the move but the new name is flawed. The new title has a scope to include any interaction the US has ever had with war crimes or even the perception thereof. As it stands now the inclusion of the US prosecuting others for war crimes fits in the scope of the article.

The obvious point of the article is to create an entry on war crimes committed by the United States. That's been the point since it was created. There are a lot of questions about what is and is not appropriate for inclusion in such an article but in order to have a real discussion about that the article must first have a solid scope to frame that discussion. The current, ambiguous name doesn't do that. Barring any objections in the next day or two I'm going to move the article back to its old name. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving the article to War crimes committed by the United States is not a good idea. A war crime is not a well-defined term and, with a title as specific as the one you propose, one with the term 'committed' in it, we'd be forced to include only those war crimes that are recognized by some authoritative body. That, I think, will leave out a lot of meaningful discussion on events that are at the margin (not recognized as war crimes by an authoritative body but are discussed as possible war crimes by mainstream academics, or even by a minority of academics). I would prefer a title that does not include an unequivocal term such as committed in it. Allegations of American war crimes would be ideal, but I think United States war crimes is also acceptable. (In other words, I'm objecting to your move proposal!) --RegentsPark (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, first off I'm not advocating renaming the article, I'm saying the article should be moved back to "War crimes committed by the United States." It was the original name of the article and is the name used without issue for two years. It has only had its current name for the past week after it was changed by a single editor without any discussion or warning.


 * Secondly, the strength of the article's original title was that it was concise and descriptive, exactly what one wants in a article title. The scope and purpose of the article was much more clear and much less ambiguous. The idea that because a particular concept may not be well defined we need to make the scope of an article dealing with it even more ambiguous doesn't wash. An article with the scope of "Allegations" of US war crimes has the odds stacked against it from the beginning. In addition to being a POV-fork it's going to attract fringe material and become a magnet for edit warring.


 * The best option we have is to restore the original title of the article and work together to reach a consensus on what does and does not belong in an article about US war crimes. Simply vaguely tying two subjects together with a conjunction in order to lower the bar for the inclusion of material is lazy and irresponsible. We can do better. TomPointTwo (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark -- I actually like your title United States war crimes very much. It's much more concise than War crimes committed by the United States, and as you pointed out is more neutral as far as implication. I would support such a move. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While not my first choice I think that would be an acceptable compromise. Either way I'd like to see a couple more days for input from other editors before we make the move so that when we do it's the result of discussion and reasoned consensus. I want to minimize the chances of having to revisit this in the near future so we can instead focus on actual content. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We should have consistency for articles about different countries. I do not like titles that imply the U.S. or any other country has committed war crimes, and also note that many war crimes are committed by individuals acting independently.  TFD (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * agree. two errors here, 1st using the country name imply you are indicting the whole country, not the regime, or the army, or a general.  2nd, until a conviction, they are "alleged".  for the record, i could name many alleged crimes committed by us leaders, and very few deny such, but in the spirit of wp, lets be accurate to the letter.   Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD & darkstar, I'm unsure of what it is you're advocating. Could either of you offer a more concrete solution or are you contending that the article be named "War crimes and the United States?" TomPointTwo (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * alleged war crimes committed by us military officers? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They aren't all military officers (for instance, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and several other people who authorized torture have also been accused of committing war crimes). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that claiming that United States war crimes implies that the entire U.S. committed a war crime is a bit far fetched. Do you really believe that someone will be confused into thinking that from the title? There is really very little room for confusion. And more importantly, it's commonly used by reliable sources (see for instance, which has books using "United States war crimes" and "American war crimes" and "War Crimes Committed by the United States"). "American war crimes" is no good, because the term "American" is vague -- it good mean people from the Americas, or people from the United States. "War Crimes committed by the United States" is not satisfactory, because it seems to confuse editors that don't understand WP:V. United States war crimes is concise, neutral, and clear and leaves no room for new editors to get confused. We can get ridiculous and do something like Allegations of the commission of war crimes by people employed by the United States government, but I think that's unnecessary (as do most of the scholars who write about this).-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. The convention for classifying subject matter by nation is not new; there is no reason to change it here. I do part ways with the rejection of "Committed by" because I believe there is an important semantical difference but if I'm alone on that then I can live with simply "US war crimes." TomPointTwo (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * whatever you name it, unless the word "alleged" is included, the article will be inaccurate, as there are no convictions sourced. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've already stated a simple compilation of allegations against the US of "war crimes" would be a POV-fork and prone to fringe material and edit warring, not to mention unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there is nothing that has been suggested that would call for violations of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing and neutrality guidelines, or of the inclusion of fringe viewpoints. We will neutrally present whatever can be found on the subject in high-quality reliable sources, as has been repeated numerous times already. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you now advocating for the inclusion of the word "alleged"? Good Wikipedia article's subjects do not need to be prefaced with "alleged". There is no need for a qualifying adjective here; to include it lowers the bar for any material put in by declaring upfront that it need only be an "allegation" and steers to article toward being a POV-fork. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not advocating for the word alleged. Where did you get that idea? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Confusion on my part, sorry. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion as to what constitutes a "real crime", but as far as the article title this opinion is irrelevant. There are plenty of reliable sources saying that crimes were committed, regardless of whether they went to court. That's what we go by on Wikipedia -- what reliable sources say, not editors' personal opinions or original legal research. If reliable sources are claiming that a crime was committed, we will include this opinion and attribute it to the author. The title does not imply that every allegation listed within is valid, and it is the term used by most reliable sources. Find me a book called "Allegations of war crimes committed by the United States", and then compare them to the link I've provided above (and the sources I've added in the Further reading section) which simply say "United States war crimes", "American war crimes", etc. -- never "alleged". (On a side note: There is an analogous situation with murder that might help you understand why many scholars feel comfortable calling them "war crimes". If I were to kill someone and have the case thrown out of court (perhaps because I'm very wealthy drug lord, send death threats to judges, and have a good lawyer), there would likely be many authors that said that I committed murder regardless of whether I got convicted. They would say that the corruption and inadequacy of the legal system does not mean that I did not commit the crime, but simply that I didn't get convicted of it. This is not relevant as far as Wikipedia policy, and has no bearing what we choose for the article's title, but I just thought it might help you understand why almost all of the reliable sources we've got don't use the term "alleged" anywhere, and just say "United States war crimes")
 * The title does not imply that every allegation listed within is validare you really comfortable publishing invalid "allegations"(your word this time)?  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your response was not coherent enough for me to understand what message you were trying to convey. If you are implying that I have contradicted myself by using the word "allegation", you should re-read and understand my above posts. I never said that claims by reliable sources that a crime was commited are not "allegations". What I've said is that in addition to being allegations, some of them are also crimes that were committed. For instance, I can make an allegation that Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial murderer AND it can ALSO be true that he was a serial murderer -- i.e. that he committed the crime in addition to my allegation. So instead of saying Allegations of war crimes committed by the United States and crimes that went through some sort of legal process, we'll just say United States war crimes, and make it clear through attribution and writing style when something was an allegation (and who made the allegation and why), and when it went through some sort of legal process. Again, re-read my posts if you think that I've claimed that allegations made in reliable sources are not allegations. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the very book titles of the reliable sources you present is flawed, example: "american war crimes" if this is to mean usa, then what about the several other countries also in america, such as canada, mexico, cuba, brazil. imagine saying Asian war crime meaning pol pot, but including Israel or Mongolia?   Darkstar1st (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you think about whether the titles of the sources listed are valid. They are reliable sources, your opinion is not. And I can easily imagine saying something like "Japanese war crimes", especially since the results I linked to also have a reliable source titled "Japanese war crimes". Your example of "Asian war crimes" is exactly why I am opposed to "American war crimes", and believe "United States war crimes" is appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i think i offended you, apology.  I never said that claims by reliable sources that a crime was commited are not allegations  therefore, the title is flawed by excluding the word allegation.  notice how the news always says "alleged shoplifter", even though they then play the tape of the guy sticking the beer in his jeans?  the guy is not a "shoplifter" until he is convicted.  your sources may be reliable, but they are still wrong.  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to go re-read my responses above. You are repeating the same invalid argument, regarding the word "allegation", that I just responded to. You obviously did not understand what I was saying -- perhaps you should go back and read it again. Especially read the sentences following the one you just quoted, which respond directly to what you just repeated. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And (again) whether you think reliable sources are wrong is irrelevant -- you are not a reliable source, and your criticism of their work holds no weight unless you back it with reliable sources. Please read and understand WP:V and WP:OR so I can stop repeating this to you.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous to provide political op-ed commentaries from pundits at The Nation, Counterpunch.org, Salon, etc, with their partisan rhetoric about high officials being possibly criminally liable for prosecution for war crimes and defending the publication of some really specious allegations in an encyclopedia as coming from high quality sources. The entire war on terror section remains entirely referenced upon media pieces, many or most from partisan op-ed commentaries. While such sources may meet wiki minimum standards a compilation of them hardly constitutes an NPOV article, or would be considered encyclopedic, especially in a subject of this seriousness. Perhaps the problem isn't the differentiation between allegations and actual crimes, but that we are injecting politically charged material in an article where it's not appropriate. If I were to kill someone and have the case thrown out of court (perhaps because I'm very wealthy drug lord, send death threats to judges, and have a good lawyer), there would likely be many authors that said that I committed murder regardless of whether I got convicted''. They would say that the corruption and inadequacy of the legal system does not mean that I did not commit the crime, but simply that I didn't get convicted of it. '' What if you were wrongfully accused of a crime, ostracized and isolated from society as you awaited trial, spent your life savings on counsel that snatched you from the gallows at the last hour, but while acquitted you had to live the rest of your life shunned by the world who didn't see you as innocent but got off lucky? Justice works both ways, after Michael Jackson's trial many wanted to run around calling him a child molester anyway. I vehemently opposed this as it makes a mockery of the system and those we do convict. Thus holding allegations to the same weight as convictions we do trivialize those events which were clearly more serious. Batvette (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Batvette (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the news sources, as I've already repeated ad nauseam, I'd like to replace them with scholarly sources such as the ones I've listed in the further reading section, (such as Jordan J. Paust (2007). Beyond the law: the Bush Administration's unlawful responses in the "War" on Terror. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521711203). I haven't had time to improve the article though, and go through and replace the sources with better ones, because I've been forced to waste all of my time arguing with people on the talk page. Secondly, as far as sources such as The Nation -- if a Nation journalist is accusing Rumsfeld of a war crime, their opinion does not warrant inclusion here (note that this only applies to accusations of criminal activity against a BLP, for historical facts, etc surrounding the event, the Nation is perfectly acceptable if other higher-quality sources can't be found). On the other hand if a Nation journalist is quoting a UN official or international law expert, who is making an accusation of criminal, then the expert's opinion is notable and should be included with attribution -- the Nation is a reliable source to back the fact that they said this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * international law expert, is making an accusation synonym of alleged  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I've already responded to this, and each time you repeat it, I'm going to point you to the first response. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * your words. if you consider an accusation the same as a crime, i think i am done here, cheers!   Darkstar1st (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't. See above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * great! i will change the title to reflect your views.  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do that, the title will need to be United States war crimes (because my views are that we should stick with a neutral, concise title that matches with what the reliable sources call it, and which accurately describes the topic being discussed). If you don't name it that, you need to go back and re-read what I've written, because you are misunderstanding something. However, I'd suggest that you stop being disruptive and discuss the title with everyone else here, rather than changing it before consensus is reached. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * no, i think i will go back to my earlier statement that i am done here. rereading your words has shed no light, you agree allegations are not crimes, but insist on titling the article that way.  if anyone else can understand what you meant, i will let them change the title, i give up.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 I haven't had time to improve the article though, and go through and replace the sources with better ones, because I've been forced to waste all of my time arguing with people on the talk page. Since all the arguing has largely been about the questionable sources and content you added, as well as the sensationalized direction you seem intent on steering the article toward, I'd have to declare bull**** in the third degree to that excuse. If the references you provide in see also support language you comprise the article with, reference them. Filling the article with politically charged material, referenced from media sources with clear agenda and bias, and then saying "I'd like to use these quality references instead someday" is one of the funnier things I've seen pulled here at wiki. Batvette (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd look at the talk page and the archives, and then determine if "all the arguing has largely been about the questionable sources and content you added" is true. As for the rest of your statement, I really could care less what you find funny, and I've already responded to this non-argument multiple times. Got any ideas for how to improve the article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to steer us back to the title question, does everyone agree with "US War Crimes"? Or would "US Gov't War Crimes" be more specific and acceptable?--NYCJosh (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "United States war crimes" seemed to be the general consensus. I was just about to move it actually. Feel free to do so yourself if you're in agreement. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur and will do the move now -- it's clearly the consensus. Thanks to everyone who stuck on topic and discussed the move for helping to work this out.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't do the move, since United States war crimes already exists. We'll have to have an admin do it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (September 2010)
War crimes and the United States → — Consensus was reached on talk that this should be new name for article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support definitely a better title, that the current one, and the previous proposal. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - Shall I close the move discussion above, from August, and let this be the only one in the queue at WP:RM? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say yes -- the former conversation seems to have died off, with a general consensus that United States war crimes was the best title. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support provided the articles War crimes and Japan and War crimes and Italy and all similar titles are also moved to "whatver nation war crimes". All or none. Flamarande (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The following articles are all the similar articles that I found; there may be more:
 * British war crimes
 * German war crimes
 * Serbian war crimes
 * Category:Serbian war crimes
 * War crimes and Italy
 * War crimes and Japan
 * Category:Japanese war crimes
 * Category:Croatian war crimes
 * Category:Israeli war crimes
 * Category:North Korean war crimes
 * Category:Soviet World War II crimes in Poland
 * Category:War crimes by the United States during World War II
 * It would seem sensible to treat all of them the same way, and perhaps to advertise that discussion at all of those talk pages. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support because it needs to be consistent and a little less biased. Sandman888 (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the move on the basis that [real or alleged] war crimes committed by the U. S. seems to be the central subject of the article. The current title suggests a much broader topic which would have to cover [real or alleged] war crimes committed against the United States, the history of American involvement in developing the definition of war crimes under international law, the willingness (or otherwise) of the American authorities to submit members of their armed forces to the jurisdiction of international courts, and so forth. Certainly that could make for an interesting article, and a little of that is already covered. But as of now, United States war crimes seems to be the more appropriate title. I would not oppose a move back if the article were to be significantly expanded and its focus broadened. Ian Spackman (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that the move to "United States war crimes" will require the article be policed to remove all unproven allegations in order to maintain NPOV. Only those events defined as war crimes by legal authority and for which convictions have been upheld by court of law could be included (and section would need to be maintained for war crimes allegations for which legal authority has cleared the US of wrongdoing). Scholarly/third party opinion (see discussion on Dresden, below) could not count if we're going to maintain NPOV. For an analogy, consider if someone wanted to create an article "Murders committed by OJ Simpson". There are non-legal sources to the moon claiming Simpson was guilty of certain acts, and a court judgement on a wrongful death suit. But no court of law has ever found him guilty of the crime of "murder" itself. My two cents. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand WP:V and WP:NPOV. We will include all claims by high-quality reliable sources that war crimes were committed by agents of the United States government. Whether certain subsets of the editors here choose to deem those "proven" is irrelevant. We will neutrally present what the reliable sources have to say on the matter, and we will attribute the views expressed to the sources cited. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "and the great Jimbo Wales has spoken...." oh that's right he didn't. Consensus dictates content, not a single editor.
 * I'm pretty sure the consensus of editors concerned with the discussion of this article has been that it adhere to the formatting of the other articles on other countries, anything less loses continuity and tends to appear biased. (of course I can't speak for all, this just seems to be the sentiment I was seeing expressed.) I'm not sure how one can "neutrally" present allegations, this is why crimes are given the due process of court proceedings. Allegations are the prosecution's case, the arguments of the defense are the balance. The only way the article can be NPOV is if every allegation that is introduced is accompanied with an explanation by the appropriate legal entity defending them as to what they believe happened. If this is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, maybe we should merely closely adhere to the formatting of existing articles on other nations. Batvette (talk) 20:04, 9 September 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.

RFC/User Conduct for User:BlueRobe
Editors with an opinion about User:BlueRobe's conduct in the above dispute may find it useful to comment at Requests_for_comment/BlueRobe. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The War on Terror: defenses
I have removed an apologist section added by The Four Deuces. The rest of this section is a list of claims that US troops or officials may possibly have committed war crimes during the 'war on terror' engagements; the addition of a section regarding a Canadian politician's opinion on torture and civil liberties is incompatible with this format. For the purpose of disclosure, I disagree with the statements. But the point is they belong in an article discussing philosophy or whether civil liberties should be curtailed, not as an addendum to a list of possible charges. (to summarize: 'but maybe torture is OK' is not appropriate for a list of torture claims) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.35.16 (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Although Michael Ignatieff is a leading Canadian politician, he is also one of the foremost experts on human rights in the world, his book was published by the Princeton University Press and he was at the time director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, as well as the official biographer of Isaiah Berlin. That makes his book a more reliable source than any other used in the section and his opinion notable.  TFD (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Just one question for you though, TFD -- was Ignatieff talking about this in the context of war crimes and the U.S.'s war on terror? I'll pick up a copy later from the library, but I don't have access right now. Anyhow, the source is clearly notable and of the highest quality, and it should stay. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The book is called The lesser evil: political ethics in an age of terror and he does discuss what he considers to be legal in the war on terror. I do not know if he mentioned "war crimes" but he did say that the Geneva conventions did not apply to the war on terror.  TFD (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for explaining that. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed an apologist section added by The Four Deuces.

It's not necessary to create a username to edit at wikipedia, but if you're going to label other editors in such a provocative light displaying obvious POV, it would help to do so for some accountability. On the issue itself, one would be hard pressed to determine how to apply Geneva protection as non combatants to people fighting in civilian clothes, hiding amongst the civilian populace, killing their own for maximum effect, in direct conflict with all of Geneva's tenets. But then that would make one a terrorist apologist, wouldn't it? Batvette (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Batvette, I believe the issue is the US govt's refusal to recognize the applicability of the Geneva Conventions' provisions on combatants, not non-combatants. Please try to understand the legal issues and the terminology before posting.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to be snide. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TomT, you're correct. I was not trying to be hostile, just would like to make sure we're all on the same page before we start arguing.--NYCJosh (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with the content existing on WP, please re-read my section. It is an inappropriate tone that I was concerned with. Whether or not the geneva convention applies to terrorists is fine discussion material, but the section in question is "here are some crimes the US has been accused of". Adding one random "but maybe torture is OK in this case" is just totally inappropriate, even if you agree. TFD reverted and I have no desire to get into an edit war (although his argument that it was 'reliable' makes no sense to me, nor does it seem to address my concerns). People get very touchy about political subjects, which is why I rarely get involved in this sort of editing. I already have to jump through enough hoops to edit WP, and don't edit often enough to get an account. Search my IP and you'll find I mostly fix typos. I think I'll stick to that from now on. 24.129.35.16 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 to United States war crimes (pending speedy deletion of target). Supported by consensus. Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dresden Firebombing a War Crime
By modern standards, the Dresden firebombing would clearly exemplify a War Crime. Indeed, given that Dresden was a demilitarised city, with no military bases or production, the Dresden firebombing was more obviously a War Crime than atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I am curious about why this is not listed as one of the examples listed in the section about War Crimes committed by the United States during World War II.

This point is so obvious that I assume it has been discussed previously. If so, can someone please link me to that discussion. BlueRobe (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueR, your hunch about Dresden may well be correct, but it would be helpful if you had a source that actually states what you wrote.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe -- Take a look at WP:Verifiability. For instance, you might want to go through this list and see what the reliable sources there have to say about it. What you just presented in your post above is what is called "original research". Anyhow, thanks for making the suggestion -- I'm just pointing out how you need to go about adding it it to article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe -- I thought it might be helpful to give you an example what content in the article might look like, when properly sourced and attributed:
 * Telford Tayor, the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials claimed that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, in violation of the principle of proportionality, but claimed that it was "tolerable in retrospect, only because its malignacy pales in comparison to Dachau, Aushwitz and Treblinka"

Note that it (A)is from a reliable source, (B)neutrally represents what that source says, (C) attributes the opinion rather than stating it as a fact.

Anyhow, thanks for suggesting contributions, and if you need help with finding more sources, or have questions about whether something is appropriate, please feel free to ask. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You need a source that says it has been seen as a war crime committed by the U.S. Since the bombing was carried out by the R.A.F., there may be no sources that say this.  TFD (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From Dresden firebombing: The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) .... -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Crikey. Rather than using this opportunity to correct an obvious oversight after I threw it out there, you precious editors have demonstrated that this is little more than a Clayton's article on US War Crimes (hijacked by ideologues?) that should be ignored. Don't expect to be taken seriously when you won't even consider that the Dresden firebombing was a War Crime, (and what kind of editor doesn't already know the details of that example?) I'm guessing that this talk page has collapsed into endless rounds of pointless skirmishes between supporters and opponents of the Iraq war (etc.) Thank you for clearing that up. Please form an orderly queue to report me for ignoring the WP:Three Wise Monkeys. BlueRobe (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than insult other editors you may wish to find sources to support the allegation that this was a war crime. TFD (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, it is immediately clear after dipping my toe in these waters that no amount of WP:RS is going to move these zealots. FFS, they've rejected the Dresden firebombing out of hand, and that is probably the most nefarious example of all US War Crimes, lol.
 * Indeed, I might have to see about attaching a WP:Unbalanced Tag. I had no idea things were so bad in here. BlueRobe (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No they have not rejected it, merely asked for sources. Reading the article I see that the U.S. was involved in the bombing although the British role seems to be mentioned more.  According to the article, the RAF bombed the "City Area", while the USAF bombed the "Marshalling Yards" and to a lesser extent the "Industrial Area", which would appear to be easier to defend as legitimate targets.  But find a source and we can go from there.  TFD (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bluerobe. Perhaps you should calm down a bit, and actually read my post. I agreed with you, and pointed you to a reliable source that says exactly what you are saying, as well as to a list of further sources you could use. Providing direct quotations from reliable sources that talk about "Dresden bombing as a war crime", is clearly an attempt to correct the lack of information on "Dresden bombing as a war crime". How can you claim that nobody is trying to correct the article? This is why you need to carefully read things before responding to them -- try to relax and take in what other editors are saying, before reacting. All I was saying is that you need to find sources like the one in my example, and report what they say as I did in the example. I did not say you shouldn't mention it -- I said the opposite. Again, please calm down and re-read what I wrote above, and start finding sources like that rather than presenting original research. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignored and left unread. Sorry, Jrtayloriv, but you're much too infamous for your energetic trolling to bother with. BlueRobe (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe, if you're not even going to assume the smallest modicum of good faith on the part of other editors here I'd ask that you refrain from starting topics here that are destined to do nothing but agitate people and waste their time. To approach discourse with zero faith in the other parties is completely nonconstructive. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrtayloriv, I thought BlueR was going to thank you for finding some sources that support his suggestion. I recommend everyone focus on working to expand and to improve WP articles and not on personal antics.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NYCJosh, I don't think you fully appreciate (read: even begin to appreciate) the level of harassment that I have been subjected to by Jrtayloriv. That guy is certifiable. BlueRobe (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For any concerned editors, I've initiated a discussion of User:BlueRobe's behavior [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:BlueRobe_personal_attacks_and_unwillingness_to_discuss_article_on_talk_page. here] -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for War Crime claim
You know, if you look up Bombing of Dresden in World War II, and search for the phrase "War crime", you'll immediately find multiple third-party sources talking about whether the bombing was a war crime. You can find more by Googling "Dresden war crime -wikipedia". -GTBacchus(talk) 16:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus, thank you for that information. But, I provided a link to that page from the very outset (and assumed, wrongly, that editors could scroll down the page to the relevant sections on War Crimes without me holding their hands). I had assumed that the Dresden firebombing had previously been discussed in this page, (and I'm surprised and appalled that it has not) and put the issue out there so that someone could link me to the discussion and I could see why the Dresden firebombing in not on the US War Crimes page. Frankly, the absence of the Dresden firebombing from US War Crimes page is so striking that it puts the entire page into disrepute.
 * Regardless, it is abundantly clear that Jrtayloriv's on-going harassment of me has nothing to do with my failure to provide a WP:RS. He is part of a concerted effort by a group of left-wingers (from the Libertarianism page) to have me removed from Wikipaedia entirely. BlueRobe (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only going to say it once more because, frankly, I don't have anything invested into your continued presence on wikipedia. Leaving comments like this just opens you up to being dragged through a process of bureaucratic death by groups of offended wiki lawyers. You complain of being harassed and being treated unfairly because of political bias by a coordinated group of other editors and then you turn around and leave snide, shitty comments like this. If you find yourself unwilling, or unable, to interact with other's like an adult perhaps you should stay off potentially controversial articles least you end up being black listed by the powers that be around here. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An over-the-top profanity-filled threat in this page? There's a shocker ;-)
 * Seriously, how on Earth did the Dresden Firebombing escape the attention of this page? BlueRobe (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No mention of the Indian Wars, the American Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 either. TFD (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blue, I don't know why nobody mentioned Dresden here before, but it's good you brought it up now. I'm not sure who we're expecting to do the actual work of adding it to the article. Personally,... well, I'm a little busy, although I enjoy using Wikipedia to procrastinate real-world work. :) Regarding TomPointTwo's comment, neither of you need worry. I'm not going to discuss editors on this page. The more quickly everyone does the same, the sooner the article is improved. So, shall I start listing sources here? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * GTBacchus, that is an excellent idea. Indeed, the sources are available (as we have both noted) in the Dresden Firebombing Wikipaedia page, so there's no real dispute about their availability and relevance. The WP:RSs are there for editors to assess in the wiki-link provided.
 * I would have edited the main page myself, but I know from experience how territorial some editors are over their favourite pages and WP policy requires some degree of notification and consensus building before making signficant changes to an article. Given the sensitive nature of "War Crimes", I imagine that every edit is controversial. When I raised this topic, I assumed that this (rather obvious) ground had been covered and, ironically, thought I would avoid treading on some toes by asking why the Dresden Firebombing wasn't in the main article, lol.
 * GTBacchus, may I ask you to make to appropriate changes? As it appears that Jrtayloriv's concerted (read: obsessive) campaign to have me removed from Wikipaedia is about to reach its conclusion. BlueRobe (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe, I'm happy to help with this article, and can I ask you a favor in return? On this talk page, your opinions about Jrtayloriv's behavior is completely off-topic. Can we just discuss the article here, and if you want to talk about your friend Jtayloriv, let's find a more appropriate venue for that. Okay? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you didn't "note" anything about sources. Myself and NYCJosh did, and then you blew up on us for it, even though we were agreeing with you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because there is SO much difference between providing a link to the reliable sources, and, providing a link to the reliable sources along with an arrow pointing at the link saying "click this" ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I must have missed where you linked to a reliable source discussing the Dresden firebombing as a war crime, and I can't seem to find it. Will you point it out to me? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrtayloriv, it doesn't matter. The point is not whether some link was provided halfway up the page. The point is improving the article now. Our Wikipedia article about the Dresden bombing contains many sources that discuss whether it was a war crime. Let's try and keep this talk page a bit more on-topic; is that okay? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources were not provided "halfway up the page". They were provided in this section. I appreciate your efforts to improve the page, and refocus the discussion on reliable sources. But nobody is stopping you or any other editor from providing sources, or making additions to the article based on reliable sources. I think the only reason others aren't working on this article right now, is that most of the involved editors are embroiled in a dispute at an RFC/U and at ANI. Once that's worked itself out (and I am pretty certain it will be resolved rather soon, with a block) then I'm sure everyone will come back here and get to work. And I'd rather you didn't imply that I'm taking the page off topic. I'm one of the only editors that has provided a reliable source and a suggested addition to the article based on it. Again, you don't have to scroll "halfway up the page" to see it -- it's in this section. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(P.S.) Actually, I'll even save you the scrolling. Here it is again:
 * Telford Tayor, the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials claimed that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, in violation of the principle of proportionality, but claimed that it was "tolerable in retrospect, only because its malignacy pales in comparison to Dachau, Aushwitz and Treblinka"

There are plenty of other sources here--Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(P.P.S) Actually, the RFC/U and ANI issue seems to be closed now. It's 5:24AM here, and I've been up for about 24hrs, so I'm going to go to sleep. But tomorrow I'd be very interested in collaborating with you regarding Dresden, now that everything will be calm again. Anyhow, sleepytime for me. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. As I said, it's not important to me where, or when, or by whom the sources were provided, simply that they exist and are easy to find. I'll be checking in throughout the day, and maybe start adding to the article soon. I'm sorry if you're offended when I point out that editor behavior is off-topic on this page. It's not personal; I'm happy to remind everyone that discussions of each others' behavior belong elsewhere. I'm neither faulting nor judging you; it's a mistake everyone makes, and you're not "in trouble". I'm not that kind of admin. I'd rather not talk about this here. I've got a talk page if you want to chat. I'll be back here to work on adding Dresden to the article after I get cleaned up and get to my office. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dresden is appropriate to be mentioned, but for NPOV purposes I might point to the reference of the air force historical society analysis of Dresden firebombing stating- ''The Americans employed 953.3 tons of high explosive bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed at the Dresden Marshalling Yards. The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed against the Dresden city area. '' and ''there was no alteration in the fundamental principle that American strategic air forces in Europe would engage only in daylight precision raids against specific installations and that night area raids would be conducted by the British. Aside from technological differences in aircraft and equipment that justified the differences in American and British bombing methods, American authorities were, throughout the war in Europe, opposed to the use of American forces in area or “morals” bombings. '' It might further be noted our policy of precision bombing during daylight conditions resulted in an attrition rate of US aircraft and crews approximately five times that of the RAF. Batvette (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Batvette. This is a high quality source, and definitely deserves inclusion in the article. It warrants trimming, but I think the most important part is:
 * The Americans employed 953.3 tons of high explosive bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed at the Dresden Marshalling Yards. The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed against the Dresden city area.
 * This is very important to point out the American culpability was arguably not as high as that of Britain in this particular situation. Thanks for presenting suggestions based on reliable sources. I'm glad to see that everyone is calming down and starting to get to work on the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Batvette, first things first. I'm not the least bit sure that the USAF's "Air Force Historical Studies Office", which is "headquartered at the Pentagon", meets the criteria for WP:NPOV. Indeed, I suggest that it is very appropriate to use caution regarding any weight attributed to the USAF's analysis of actions performed by the USAF (see WP:Conflict of Interest). Especially as it regards to such controversial operations, (the USAF investigating the actions of the USAF are akin to the police investigating the conduct of police officers - heavy bias is inevitable). Further more, it may be argued that such a source violates WP:Primary source.


 * Batvette, the "air force historical society[sic analysis of Dresden firebombing] that you have provided place's some emphasis on the military value of Dresden as a target for strategic bombing. It refers to Dresden's value as a transport and communications hub, (see para II). It also refers to "[s]pecific military installations in Dresden in February 1945 included barracks and hutted camps and at least one munitions storage depot", (see para II.10). Perversely, one of the arguments suggested for legitimising the bombing was the fact that Dresden "was protected by antiaircraft defenses, antiaircraft guns and searchlights", (see para 11). I'm not at all sure what to make of that bizarre reference.


 * I have C&P a relevant section from the Wikipaedia page on the Dresden firebombing. Please note, I have no idea what the rule is on C&Ping the content of one Wikipaedia article to the talkpage of another Wikipaedia article. If this is a breach of any Wikipaedia policy please feel free to let me know (unless you're my stalker):


 * The historian Alexander McKee has cast doubt on the meaningfulness of the list of targets mentioned in 1953 USAAF report and point out that the military barracks listed as a target were a long way out of town and not in fact targeted during the raid. The 'hutted camps' mentioned in the report as military targets were also not military but were provided for refugees. It is also pointed out that the important Autobahn bridge to the west of the city was not targeted or attacked and that no railway stations were on the British target maps, nor were the bridges, such as the railway bridge spanning the Elbe River. Commenting on this Alexander McKee stated that: "The standard whitewash gambit, both British and American, is to mention that Dresden contained targets X, Y and Z, and to let the innocent reader assume that these targets were attacked, whereas in fact the bombing plan totally omitted them and thus, except for one or two mere accidents, they escaped" McKee further asserts, "The bomber commanders were not really interested in any purely military or economic targets, which was just as well, for they knew very little about Dresden; the RAF even lacked proper maps of the city. What they were looking for was a big built up area which they could burn, and that Dresden possessed in full measure"


 * According to historian Sonke Neitzel, "it is difficult to find any evidence in German documents that the destruction of Dresden had any consequences worth mentioning on the Eastern Front. The industrial plants of Dresden played no significant role in Germany industry at this stage in the war" Wing Commander H. R. Allen said, "The final phase of Bomber Command's operations was far and away the worst. Traditional British chivalry and the use of minimum force in war was to become a mockery and the outrages perpetrated by the bombers will be remembered a thousand years hence"


 * In the north of Dresden there were remarkable military facilities which were not hit by the bombings. Today they are still there, used as officer education buildings for the German Bundeswehr and hosting Germany's military-historic museum (from stone-age to modern times).


 * McKee references are to: McKee, Alexander (1983). Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox, Granada.


 * Batvette, the above comments come from WP:RS that are significantly more NPOV than the USAF's Air Force Historical Studies Office.


 * Regardless, claiming that US culpability for its involvement in the Dresden firebombing was mitigated because it focused its bombing on the "Marshalling Yards" is a bit like the arsonist claiming that she's innocent of murder because she only intended to set fire to the relatively-unoccupied kitchen while her colleague set fire to the bedrooms. Fire spreads. Indeed, that was the whole point of the "firebombing" style of strategic bombing. Regardless, strategic bombing was so woefully inaccurate during World War Two, that, even when the Allies were trying to be careful of civilians killed as collateral damage during the bombing of France, 67,078 French people were killed. Evidently, "we were trying to be careful" doesn't cut it with strategic bombing during World War II. BlueRobe (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You brought up a lot of interesting points there, none of which refutes the few I introduced- that the USAAF's involvement was radar sighted daytime bombing of targets with legitimate strategic value, while the RAF's involvement was nighttime "area" bombing of civilian areas AND that this distinct difference in applying USAAF assistance to the allies was consistent with policy we long followed in the theatre not to engage in area or so called "morals" bombing of civilian areas. While you provide anecdotal commentary from interested outside parties as a supposed NPOV balance to the Air Force Report's subjective analsis of Dresden's value as a target, which may be valid,I did not introduce those factors in my comment. You seem to be of a mind to distrust the report due to its source, but for factual statistics- who dropped what bombs where and when- I'm not sure who BUT the military would be a source for that information at all. I would suggest your interest in this subject might better be applied in the British_war_crimes article, since to my knowledge the RAF has never disputed the subjective analysis nor the factual data within that report. Batvette (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Batvette, I certainly agree that the Dresden firebombing needs a mention in any WP article that explores the war crimes of Britain/UK. Indeed, when I have time (I'm a bit busy on another article at present) I will do that. Regardless, I think it is implausible to excuse the US military's involvement in the criminal aspects of the Dresden firebombing simply because their bombers were more accurate and they targeted other parts of the city. BlueRobe (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Batvette, it occurs to me that the analysis produced by the US Air Force Historical Society, which is "headquartered at the Pentagon" and is funded by the USAF, violates WP:PRIMARY and WP:CONFLICT. Therefore, it is not a WP:RS and is inappropriate for this article. BlueRobe (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but we should still point out what the USAF position is, sourced to secondary sources, and indicate the degree of acceptance, if any, it has received. TFD (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 *  I think it is implausible to excuse the US military's involvement in the criminal aspects of the Dresden firebombing simply because their bombers were more accurate and they targeted other parts of the city.
 * I shouldn't have to point out that the bold portion makes everything you follow it with irrelevant toward a wiki article edit. It's not up to you to judge culpability of the US in the Dresden incident. There were no criminal charges levelled against the USAAf in that incident by anyone, 'nuff said. I would further point out the hilarity in dismissing US military sources for inclusion on any matter regarding WWII. Let's just not go there. It's one thing to doubt or challenge it, but to offer exclusion based upon conflict of interest I ask you to seriously answer the question- who the hell else was even there that would know?  People on the ground saw planes dropping bombs, and didn't know there was a definate distinction  between participants in both actions and intents, the British had no bones about punishing German civilians and we did, yet could not tell them what they could or could not do after London had been virtually levelled during the blitz nor do I believe we should have. The cold war saw an attempt by those allied with (newly formed) East Germany to exploit the matter to villify America as the primary belligerent as Britain was not the reigning superpower, yet history and time for cooler heads to prevail allow us to remember just because we fought as allies does not mean we weren't under seperate commands and goals and our actions not mistaken for each others'. Our aircraft weren't even in the air at the same time. We can precisely state who dropped what, where, and why, down to the last pound of TNT. Choosing to call such information irrelevant is not a pursuit toward higher education in the matter, needless to say. I'm curious though, why would you say the destruction of any city in Germany by the allies was a war crime when the Blitz saw the fate of London, well stated as intended by Hitler, and effectively accomplished long before, to have the same goal? What is it you people don't understand about total war waged by nations upon nations? (and this is relevant to Hiroshima/Nagasaki!) These were the initiating belligerents of the conflict who were intent on continuing the fight and would only relent if shown their own utter destruction was imminent. Batvette (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Batvette, putting aside your endless soapboxing, the sources contained in the US Air Force's Historical Society violates WP:PRIMARY and WP:CONFLICT. As such, those references are not WP:RS and should not be used. As for your suggestion that the people of Dresden had it coming after the Blitz, that is just more soapboxing, (and very offensive). Your (unsourced) comment that "We can precisely state who dropped what, where, and why, down to the last pound of TNT" is so completely wrong that it defies belief. The US Air Force cannot (and does not) make that sort of claim to accuracy in 2010, let alone to the mass strategic bombing of 1945. 122.57.126.131 (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Go to ANY article about ANY war you like and try to argue that information provided by the military sources of the participants is unacceptable because of WP:CONFLICT or WP: PRIMARY, I dare you. What you are attempting is to exclude all but the voice of critics of the action. But if you think your twisted rationale is valid, get on over to the Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II page and start editing. It heavily references that study and others by the military, and most of the references are from people writing for the military. As for "offensive" those are your words not mine. Copy and paste mine and get back to me. Batvette (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't create the policies of Wikipedia. Personally, I think some of Wikipedia's policies a criminally stupid (such as WP: PRIMARY, and the policy that disengaging from an unpleasant discussion on a talk page is deemed to be an act of harassment, (which is probably the stupidest policy in the history of WP)). But, those are the policies. And frankly, the policy of WP:CONFLICT is not without some common sense - The US Air Force commenting on whether the Dresden firebombing constituted a war crime is like Saddam Hussain commenting on whether the gassing of Halabja was a war crime - it carries ZERO weight. Regardless, there is no reason why you cannot find secondary sources to support your (patently ridiculous) suggestion that the Dresden firebombing was not a war crime - you can find a secondary source to say just about anything these days, (which is what makes WP:Secondary such an asinine policy. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-WWII Germany
I am going to remove this section again. There is still no source. The ISBN provided by the editor who reverted me (0-88033-995-0) has a different title and different author than the cited source. Every reference to this book that I have found is a link to a Wikipedia page or mirror. Even were the book to be definitively located, it is still a single author's opinion. This clearly fails WP:FRINGE. If this is a real theory of historical fact and international law then, like the My Lai massacre or Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, there should be documentation of it in multiple, independent reliable sources. -Selket Talk 00:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, this work is a chapter in a collection of essays -- which is what the ISBN I gave you is for. Here's the full citation:
 * ^ Steven Bela Vardy and T. Hunt Tooley, eds. "Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe" ISBN 0-88033-995-0. Chapter by Richard Dominic Wiggers, "The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II".
 * There is a source, which has been provided for you. It took me a few seconds on Google to verify that this source existed, and to see that it was a chapter in the above book. The parts that are a single author's opinion (rather than fact), should be attributed to the author in the text. As far as other sources which discuss this, you could take a look at:
 * Nicholas Balabkins, Germany Under Direct Controls: Economic Aspects of Industrial Disarmament 1945–1948, Rutgers University Press, 1964
 * I'm sure there are probably others that discuss it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I do not have either of these books on my shelf at the moment, I can do a Google Books search of them. I did one of each book for the words "war crime."  The second source you cite (Balabkins) does not use the term.  The first (Vardy and Tooley) uses it 13 times, none of which are in the relevant chapter.  Thus, while still maintaining my WP:FRINGE objection, to call failure to feed (even if it happened) a "war crime" is WP:SYN without a reliable source that calls it that. -Selket Talk 01:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the theory from Other Losses, a book published outside the academic mainstream that received no academic acceptance. TFD (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... very interesting. "Received no academic acceptance" sounds like a very nice way of putting it from what I was able to dig up.  This certainly smells like a fringe theory.  If it's gathered sufficient attention to be notable it is entitled to it's own article (such as at Other Losses) but we do not need to treat it as true and include it here.  --Selket Talk 01:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen E Ambrose is a highly respected military historian, (he is probably most famous for writing Band of Brothers, which was subsequently made into a successful mini-series). Ambrose wrote a review of Other Losses by James Bacque. While Ambrose concludes that James Bacque "is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones", he notes that there is some truth in the claims made in that book:


 * Mr. Bacque makes a point that is irrefutable: some American G.I.'s and their officers were capable of acting in almost as brutal a manner as the Nazis. We did not have a monopoly on virtue.


 * Food for thought. BlueRobe (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If this article were titled allegedly un-virtuous things done by United State military personnel I would not be making my synthesis objection -- although I would probably still make the RS and fringe theory ones. I have no doubt that a great many un-virtuous (virtuless?) acts were committed by U.S. forces; however, war crime is a legal distinction, not a moral one.  --Selket Talk 12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at this again, the source Jrtayloriv presented was published by Harvard in 2001. Here is a link to Amazon.  Ambrose' book was Eisenhower and the German POWs (Louisiana State University Press, 1992 ISBN 0807117587).  Here is a link to a recent book about U.S. treatment of POWs (Robert C. Doyle, University Press of Kentucky, 2010 ISBN 0813125898).  We need to determine whether the claims against the U.S. have credibility and their degree of acceptance, and if there is no consensus then we need to properly balance the different views.  TFD (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Selket, I think the word you're looking for is "vice". BlueRobe (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the similar titles those are not the same book. They have different authors, slightly different titles, and very different tables of contents. The chapter Jrtayloriv cites is not in the book you linked. At any rate, I'm objecting to the failure to feed claim, not the treatment of POWs claim. To be included you need a reliable source that says 1) the United States Army failed to feed civilians in occupied Germany and 2) this constituted a war crime. Otherwise it's original research and synthesis. -Selket Talk 14:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Here is a link to the book on WorldCat.  It is published by "Social Science Monographs" and distributed by Columbia University Press.  SSM is part of East European Monographs.  I do not know the reliablity of this publisher.  In any case we need to determine the degree of acceptance in current scholarship to determine whether or not to include this subject.  TFD (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Selket, I'm not sure whose comments you are addressing. BlueRobe (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The examples provided in this entry are a complete joke. My Lai was no more a crime committed by the "US government" than a massacre committed by a US Postal Worker is a crime committed by United States government.  I put the term US government in quotes because the first sentence of the entry states "The United States government has been accused of committing war crimes..".  My Lai would be a war crime committed by the US GOVERNMENT(as indicated in the first sentence of the entry) if the massacre that occurred there was simply the carrying out of established US government policy in regards to conduct during the Vietnam War, but IT CLEARLY WASN'T.  It was CRIMINAL behavior conducted by United States military personnel that was later prosecuted, as was pretty much every single incident discussed in this entry.  This is vastly different than the war crimes committed by, as an example, the SS who massacred tens of thousands of innocent civilians, as these actions were a result of the carrying out of the policies of the Nazi Government. Similarly, Japanese treatment of "comfort women", POWs and the citizens of conquered Asian states did not merely involve isolated incidents or wrongdoing.  Isolated CRIMES committed by a handful of US personnel does not even remotely rise to the level of a war crime committed by the US government.  Were they war crimes? Yes.  Was it sanctioned by the government of the United States? Hardly.  One could argue that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Japanese cities would qualify as war crimes (I personally don't consider them such)committed by the US government, because those bombings were part of the US's grand overall strategy for winning the War in the Pacific, rather than the actions of a handful of criminals.  A more appropriate title for this entry would be "war crimes committed by individual US servicemen" rather than "US War crimes".  It is fairly obvious from reading the notes in both the entry's discussion section and in the discussion of the Wikipedia Human Rights Project" that the naming of this entry is almost entirely politically motivated, something that is very commonplace on a site that is supposedly encyclopedic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple question
When I search on WP for this article by "US war crimes" this article doesn't show. Shouldn't variants like that as well as things like "American war crimes," "U.S. war crime," etc. be re-directed here? Also, when I ran that search I was directed to an article entitled "List of War Crimes," which lists actions of many countries. Not one of the war crimes listed in our article is listed there for the US (with the possible exception of WWII stuff). We should update that article, I think.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the redirect for US war crimes. If there are other pages that should redirect here then change them.  (You get to the redirect page by clicking at the top where it says "redirected from".)  TFD (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Stepping outside the scope of the article: Legalities of conflicts
the sections on Iraq, Afghanistan and Panama, specifically in terms of claims that their grounds were against international law, are definately outside the scope of this article, and are presented in a very one sided way even if they were appropriate for this page. I'm going to do blanket deletions in 48 hours if the people who put them there can't condense it into acceptably NPOV summaries tied to actual war crimes they can source are alleged to have ocurred during those conflicts. Going to war is not a war crime-get off the soap box, people.Batvette (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading the sourced essay by Marjorie Cohn, (I'm in San Diego and know her views well) I'm just unceremoniously yanking the Afghanistan portion as fringe, it's so out there. She cites requirements by the UN for member nations to settle their disputes amongst each other, ignoring that the Taliban had no seat at the UN and was not recognized by any nation but Pakistan. She insists the US should have sought UN authorization for the bombing but elsewhere in the article claims the UN has no ability to ever make such authorizations anyway. She argues for sanctions including blocking sea routes for a landlocked nation! This is typical of her "say anything if it supports her position" essays, they really can be amusing for promoting these contradictory catch 22's which damn our actions but provide things that sound viable but never were. If you disagree, simply check that she said what I said she did. In addition whoever wrote that section added something she never said-  but rather were perpetrated by groups of individuals or non-state actors, most of whom were Saudi nationals and were not living in Afghanistan YET omitted something she DID say- Routing chief suspect Osama bin Laden from his cave with bombs is like finding a needle in a haystack.  It's as if you people put this stuff here hoping nobody ever comes along and checks it-this whole section was nothing less than POV pushing and cannot be considered an NPOV analysis of the conflict.  The others, I'll wait two days for. I'm not unreasonable. Batvette (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you were right to remove the section because it was poorly sourced. It is not up to us however to evaluate the opinions reported here, merely determine how widely held they are and make sure that the various opinions are explained as well as their degree of acceptance.  Of course none of that happened here.  The source used for the definition of war crimes does not include pursuing an illegal war, and the Nuremberg Trials held that it was a separate offense.  So it appears this does not belong in the article anyway.  TFD (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) Launching a war of aggression is the supreme war crime. Please read FN 2 and the discussion in the Iraq section of the article by one of the chief US prosecutors in the Nuremberg trials. The supreme war crime certainly is appropriate for this article.
 * (2) Reliable sources are provided for each of the sections you mention.
 * (3) Regarding Afghanistan, Professor Cohn's views are notable. Your personal views that those views are fringe are not.
 * (4) Regarding some of your objections:  (a) Afghanistan was and is a member of the UN. It's states not individual govts that are members. Your statement is like saying the Reagan administration was not a member of the UN. It's nonsensical. More importantly, the US was and is a member and so is obligated to live by the UN Charter, which remains a cornerstone of international law.    (b) Professor Cohn's view, as revealed in the source and as conveyed in our article, is that since there was no threat of immediate armed attack on the US, a UN Sec. Council authorization would have been necessary for the US to attack. However, such a UNSC action must be based on the idea of promoting peace and security pursuant to the UN Charter. That is UNSC can't decide to authorize attacks by member states unless there is some strong reason to do so for the sake of advancing peace and security. That is not an inconsistent position. Besides, if you disagree with her, write an editorial but our jobs as editors doesn't include deciding which experts are correct on such matters. I have written a lot so I'll stop here for now.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NYCJosh can you please provide a quote from a reliable source that identifies waging war as a war crime. If there is academic consensus that it is then it should be included.  Also, assuming we meet that hurdle, you would need better sourcing for Cohn's opinions.  Did she publish them in an academic journal?  TFD (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Start with the Nuremberg Principles (FN 2 of our article), Principle VI: "(a)Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances." Read the discussion in our Iraq section by a US chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials.   For  the US military's statement, see Sections 498 and 499 of Field Manual 27-10 "Crimes under International Law" (http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch8.htm#s2).
 * We at WP can just rely on experts to make such determinations--see the experts in the Iraq and Afghanistan sections.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That the starting of a war can, in itself, be a war crime is indisputable. Still, looking over the section in question it's embarrassingly obvious that it relies on the views of a single professor. While, as an "expert in her field", her opinion is not irrelevant it doesn't mean it is acceptable in this article to structure an entire section on the subject of the entire war Afghanistan around her views. I would say attention to the notability vs. acceptance portion of FRINGE is needed. I will mark and tag the section accordingly until additional RS can be found and cited in a manner that doesn't violate FRINGE. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Conducting an illegal war is by definition a crime. (Doing anything that is illegal is a crime.)  But is it a war crime?  So far no one has bothered to provide any sources that say it is and therefore we cannot determine it is based on our own personal opinions.  TFD (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TFD, read the US military Field Manual Sections 498 and 499 that I referenced yesterday--a link is right there.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read it and it does not support your position. In fact it lists war crimes and crimes against peace separately.  TFD (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out; I wasn't aware of the distinction. Is that distinction also commonly made outside of this particular source? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably, so we cannot include crimes against the peace here, although we could have another article. We could even have one article called "U.S. crimes under international law", but the most common crime would be unfair trade practices.  TFD (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same text? Here are the Sections 498 and 499 of the US Army's Field Manual 27-10 "Crimes under International Law" (http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch8.htm#s2) that I cited earlier:

498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise: a. Crimes against peace. b. Crimes against humanity. c. War crimes. Although this manual recognizes the criminal responsibility of individuals for those offenses which may comprise any of the foregoing types of crimes, members of the armed forces will normally be concerned, only with those offenses constituting "war crimes." 499. War Crimes The term "war crime" is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.


 * So according to Section 499, the term "war crime" is a technical term that encompasses any violation of the law of war (any of the crimes described in the manual--see Chapter 1, Section 1, paragraphs numbered 2, 3 and 4 about the "law of war." http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/%7Enstanton/Ch1.htm )
 * Also, I added views of some other scholars to the Afghanistan section.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see it that way. The source appears to make a clear distinction between a. Crimes against peace and c. War crimes.  So too do the WP articles about these two topics.  I will wait to see if other editors comment and then set up an RfC.  TFD (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Justice Robert Jackson, US Sup Ct justice and lead US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.(http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm). Other WP articles also support the idea that war of aggression or crime against the peace (i.e. launching a war of aggression) is a war crime, see the second sentence in the article War of aggression.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The commentary of a judge, as qualified as he may be, does not stand as law which defines the parameters of a crime. Furthermore you cannot reference other wiki articles to substantiate something in another article. the fact remains that the scope of this article does not include the determination of the legality of that war and it smacks of using wiki as a soapbox in doing so. This happens often in articles where someone cannot enforce their POV in the main article that the war was illegal, so related articles are forged to eventually enforce it. Batvette (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the commentary of a Judge does "stand as law". That is precisely how Common Law develops. What law school did you go to? Regardless, the "commentary of a Judge", especially a Judge sitting on a country's highest court where issues of Constitutional significance are determined, is extremely relevant to the issues raised by the topic of "war crimes". Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more reliable and relevant source for commentary. 122.57.126.131 (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? What matter was the judge in question ruling on which deemed the comment relevant? Was he ruling on a war crimes case? No. Was he participating in a professional role on a judicial panel constructing a framework  of war crimes law? No. It's irrelevant because it's one man's opinion without the balance of 11 others, and he wasn't even ruling on a particular case- but since you agree with it you'd like to call it law. Fortunately the 11 others will be heard as well. Batvette (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you know nothing about jurisprudence, and how the law works, then you might want to leave commentary on such matters to lawyers. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks from unregistered editors. How special- and wrong, unless you would care to provide the case that judge was ruling on with that comment.Batvette (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

War crimes
According to the US Army's Field Manual crimes under international law include a. Crimes against peace and c. War crimes. Does that mean that a crime against the peace is a war crime? TFD (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing a quick Google Books search for "crimes against peace" "war crimes" I'm finding that they are almost always distinguished as separate types of crimes. Crimes against peace are violations of laws which state when it is appropriate to start a war. War crimes are violations of laws which state what types of conduct are appropriate during wars, once they have been started. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Original Research. -Selket Talk 16:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already seen it -- I promise. What exactly were you hoping for me to find there? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was directed towards TFD. The point is the ABC articulation of the original research rule. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.  Even if the Army Field Manual did say that a crime against the peace is a war crime, that wouldn't mean it's ok to include US crimes against the peace as war crimes.  --Selket Talk 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is my opinion that it is OR. I posted a neutral RfC question in order to attract comment.  NYCJosh wants to include crimes against the peace in the article, while I do not.  TFD (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries about the comment -- it was the indentation that made me think you were talking to me.
 * In this case, I don't think that reliable sources consider crimes against peace as war crimes. But I also don't agree with your interpretation of WP:OR. If we are writing an article on U.S. military history, and we have a book that is about the history of the U.S. Navy, we can include information from the naval history arguing "according to reliable sources, the U.S. Navy is clearly part of the U.S. military, and therefore U.S. military history is inclusive of U.S. naval history", even if the naval history book doesn't use the term "U.S. military". We aren't limited by WP:OR to only including information that uses the exact term "U.S. military" -- nothing in WP:SYN prevents us from determining what falls within the scope of a particular article.
 * The real problem with the current case is that we don't have any reliable sources claiming that crimes against peace are war crimes. If we did, it would be fine to include crimes against peace. However, the only source that has been presented making this claim is a single quote from a single person implying that crimes against peace are a war crime; but every other source that has been presented thus far (which are also much more reliable sources than the one the quote came from) clearly separates the two. Thus we don't include it due to violations of WP:V, not because of violations of WP:OR. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are all on the same page in regards to what should go into the article. However I do want to make sure that I'm being clear on my synth point. RS only matters if the statement is likely to be challenged.  I don't think anyone is going to challenge that the US Navy is part of the US military.  Where it does make a difference is whether a particular act constitutes a war crime.  Let's say we have two sources, one saying each of the following:
 * The United States' invasion of Normandy resulted in the killing of civilians.
 * The killing of civilians is a war crime.
 * The problem comes when you then reach the third statement (below) which was not in either of the prior sources:
 * Therefore, the United States' invasion of Normandy was a war crime.
 * It is this that constitutes the synthesis to which I object (you can replace Normandy with Iraq or any other country you wish). You need a reliable source that makes the third claim to include it in Wikipedia.  That said, this entire page really is a mess of OR, fringe, and POV pushing that really detracts from the unarguable war crimes that have been committed by US personnel.  Flushing out whether each act does or does not constitute a war crime is really a bit much for one article.  I would propose that this get converted into something like List of War Crimes perhaps List of United States war crimes or List of alleged war crimes by the United States military.  Then we can redirect each event (e.g., Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse) to the relevant article for the full discussion. -Selket Talk 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See first sentence of Laws of War: “The law of war is a body of law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello). The WP article then provides a section “Example substantive laws of war” and lists as a subsection the declaration of war.
 * Here is another source making this distinction and also explaining that both “jus ad bellum” (the legality of initiating the war) and “jus in bello” come under the rubric “laws of war.” Anthony D'Amato of Northwestern University School of Law, a former defense counsel for war crimes suspects: “The laws of war are divided into two categories that I often get mixed up because of the similarity of their Latin names: jus ad bellum (the legality of initiating the war) and jus in bello (the legality of the conduct of the war).” http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/war-crimes-and-mideast-conflict.php  The section of the US army field manual I cited earlier, Section 499, states that "ANY" violation of the law of war is a war crime.
 * Here is a Stanford University source explaining aspects of just war and stating that violations of jus ad bellum can constitute war crimes (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2.1) scroll down to section 2.1:
 * “The rules of jus ad bellum are addressed, first and foremost, to heads of state. Since political leaders are the ones who inaugurate wars, setting their armed forces in motion, they are to be held accountable to jus ad bellum principles. If they fail in that responsibility, then they commit war crimes. In the language of the Nuremberg prosecutors, aggressive leaders who launch unjust wars commit “crimes against peace.” What constitutes a just or unjust resort to armed force is disclosed to us by the rules of jus ad bellum.“
 * Then of course there is the quote I provided earlier from Robert Jackson, US Supreme Ct justice and chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. That’s where much of this law was developed so Jackson is not an ordinary legal authority (I changed the quote in that the word "other" is capitalized to make my point clear). "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing from OTHER war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” (http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm).
 * To state the issue differently, we would be pulling a real head trip on the reader of our article to list various US war crimes but fail to list THE SUPREME US war crimes.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me say it again. If you want to say, "The invasion of Iraq was a war crime," you need a reliable source that says, "The invasion of Iraq was a war crime."  Now, it doesn't have to be word for word, but the conclusion (in this case that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime) needs to be in the source.  If you have such a source, please include it, but otherwise stop arguing that A+B+C+D=E.  --Selket Talk 23:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Your conclusion is pretty long and circuitous even if synthesis were allowed. War crimes are based on Hague law (from ICC website) -> Former Hague prosecutor said wars of aggression are the supreme "international" crimes (from his quote) -> jus ad bellum crimes and jus in bellum crimes are both "war crimes" (army field manual) -> the invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression (presumably you can find a source for this) -> Therefore the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a war crime.  The problem is, none of these sources relate to each other.  So just like my Normandy example earlier, while the two statements "the invasion of Normandy killed civilians" and "the killing of civilians is a war crime" may be true (and verifiable) individually, nobody would seriously argue that the invasion of Normandy was a war crime. -Selket Talk 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Selket, I meant to address your point earlier. The sources for Iraq and Afghanistan say that those were wars aggression. For the reasons I wrote, I believe that the scholars cited in those sources are of the view that starting a war of aggression is a war crime, but I can't point to a source that specifically says that (it's implied). That is, I cited a number of authorities that explain that a war of aggression is a violation of the laws of war and that it is a (actually THE) war crime. This is not an issue of OR or Synthesis because the text in the article doesn't say that war of aggression is a war crime. If it did you might be right. Rather, this is an issue of what we want our article to include: (1) only US war crimes under jus in bello, or (2) US violations of the laws of war, including jus in bello and jus ad bellum, such as war of aggression. Violations of the law of war of either type (jus in bello and jus ad bellum) were tried and punished by the US and the other Allied powers at Nuremberg. That is, even senior German leaders with no personal connection to the Nazi holocaust or to any atrocities (crimes under jus in bello) were tried and punished because they participated in planning a war of aggression (jus ad bellum). Since the latter is the supreme crime under the laws of war, I thought it would be a slight of hand for our article to omit the latter. But I would like others to consider this for a moment and make up their own minds. If the consensus is for option (1) then I would like help and support in putting together a new article called something like "US wars of aggression," and an explanation in the intro of this article could make the distinction.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is original research. If historians, legal scholars, or political scientists thought the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were war crimes, then it would be easy to find sources saying as much.  -Selket Talk 06:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that the manual lists "crimes against peace" and "war crimes" separately obviously means that the manual regards them as separate. However, the manual can only be a commentary on International Criminal Law; it cannot be the fount of it.  The legal status of a war of aggression and what the remedies agaisnt it might be is no doubt a matter of controversy, which cannot be settled within the pages of WP.  Any attmept to do so would inevitably be POV-pushing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already written much and I don't want to take up too much space here by responding again and again to each post. Those who are interested can read my comments from the last few days on these points, and those who aren't won't benefit from the repetition.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to stop you from stating in the article that war crimes are crimes under international law and other crimes include crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity and then create separate articles. Or you could rename this article crimes under international law.  What I object to is using the term war crimes in a broader sense than it is normally used.  TFD (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, since I seem to be in the minority, I will remove the material on wars of aggression from this artice. Anyone interested in helping me start a new article? Perhaps this article could be called "United States Violations of the Laws of War" (broad topic, would specifically exclude jus in bello crimes and refer to this article for those) or "United States Wars of Aggression" (specific, but someone would chime in with "that source says "crime against peace" or "war crime," not war of aggression and would seek to exclude) or "Illegal Wars of the United States" (would invite material on violations of US law, e.g. War Powers Act--presidential military engagement without Senate declaration, not limited international law, so this might be a more ambitious article then the first two). Actually, maybe someone will challenge the term "US war," since the US fought only two declared wars in the last 100 years and so all other military engagements could not qualify for the article. I am open to other suggestions.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The United States has waged many illegal wars beginning with the invasion of Quebec. Just write the article and accept that waging an illegal war and committing crimes during a war (legal or not) are two different things.  If people dislike your name then it may be changed but the article itself is a proper subject.  TFD (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be frank I feel like you're reaching to create an article that doesn't need to be created. My advice is to include the relevant, referenced material into the articles that already exist for the events in question. Otherwise you're attempting to create a continuity in narrative that probably doesn't exist. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how the topic in question fails to meet the criteria laid out in WP:NOTABLE? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be notable but it sounds like he's POV forking to me. War Crimes are notable. The legalities of initiating conflicts are notable. I would imagine if he tried to edit the content of individual war articles and their sections on legalities, he's not going to get far with their existing editors pushing a one sided POV. All of these issues have relevant sections in existing articles, piecing them together to make a case of something else is original research. I'm not suere this point isn't patently absurd anyway. What if a nation waged a war of agression on another and used daisy BB guns and stink bombs, and fed all the POWs ice cream and cake and showed them cartoons? Would we then be able to say since we determined it was a war of agression, we have war crimes? How are we not utterly ridiculing the victims of barbaric acts like medical experiments and bombing hospitals, or marching POWs thin as skeletons to their death? While I'm attempting levity here (probably failing) questioning the premise of a war that saw its participants go in and adhere fairly strictly to geneva ROE is simply something that convolutes this article- and puts people who might read this and someday be the soldier holding the rifle into a contemptuous attitude toward those who would judge his actions. Oh, yeah. He's going to commit war crimes because anything he does will be called by the unreasonable, a war crime. Remember the responsibility of editing here includes what those reading our work do when we've influenced their thinking. Batvette (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 questions (Just to make sure I understand you):
 * 1) So you are acknowledging that this obviously meets the criteria in WP:NOTABLE? (i.e. "It may be notable, but ...")
 * 2) Could you explain what makes this seem like a WP:POVFORK (as in cite some specific part of that policy that would say that we shouldn't have an article on this topic)?
 * 3) You stated that NYCJosh is "pushing a POV". Could you explain what POV you think he is trying to push?
 * -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Collecting a series of facts that meet WP:N doesn't necessarily make for a good article. I'm not saying that he can't; he simply asked for my opinion and I gave it. You're coming off as rather defensive and I'm not really sure why. The quality and appropriateness of such an article will probably hinge on finding a set of reliable sources that identify these individual events as a single subject and that seems unlikely. Otherwise what he's really talking about is either going to be a new, synthisised historical narrative or a list article the merit of which I'd say is rather dubious. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article requires a single source discussing allegedly illegal wars waged by the U.S. and must show that this is a subject of study. It must also be neutral, explaining the reasons why the U.S. took this route, which is mostly because the Soviet Union would have vetoed most proposed U.S. wars.  It is notable because many of America's allies, such as Canada, have refused to join the U.S. in any illegal wars.  TFD (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why you need this explained to the letter. He wants to depict certain wars as war crimes themselves not based upon actual outrageous events that are well defined war crimes, but on ambiguous legal opinions tied to the intentions or rationales used by the belligerents involved in starting them. This is POV forking because it tries to establish a point of view not at all justifiable within the articles concerning war crimes nor the wars themselves' legalities sections. Thus he has a page which- declares the war he dislikes, a war crime, and simultaneously casts aspersion on the legality of that war, free from having to argue with the editors of the articles that have those topics within them. What is his POV? Please pay attention and do not waste my time. Feigned ignorance is not a valid position, your understanding of each point of each editor's input is hardly a prerequisite for those points to be valid, particularly when they are not relevant toward your edits. In fact what you are doing is called "pointless questioning" and when used in debate on many forums and message boards is cause for moderation as trolling. If this commentary was for an editor who I did not share an abrasive history with, was not a person who appears to be of above average intelligence, and did not share the general POV on the issue as the editor I am critical of, I would be out of line with this long winded tirade dripping of pompousity and condescension. Happy F***ing me, it is not. Batvette (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no interest in editing this article myself or making any claims. I am putting forward some information that may be of use for finding sources.


 * Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned as Deputy Legal Adviser to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office on March 18, 2003. She later stated that she resigned because the invasion of Iraq was a war crime. At the Iraq Inquiry, the principal Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood testified: "I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law. In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorized by the Security Council, and had no other legal basis in international law." Every lawyer consulted by the British government supported this view. It may still be argued that American lawyers came to a different conclusion but the Iraq Inquiry also has documentation proving that in March 2002, Colin Powell informed Jack Straw that the decision had been made to go to war regardless of whether Iraq complied with anything. This intent supports that it was an illegal war of aggression, which the Nuremberg Trials defined as "the supreme international crime." It should also be noted that for countries that are signatories to various conventions, International law overides a countries internal law.


 * The Nuremberg Tribunal identifies crimes against Peace as one of three types of war crime, the others being specifically war-crimes and crimes against humanity. Principle 6 defines Crimes against Peace as:


 * (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;


 * (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).


 * War Crimes Act of 1996 ( 18 U.S.C. § 2441 ) Current as of August 5, 2010 defines a war crime as: "…a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party." These treaties include: the Geneva Conventions, the Laws and Customs of War, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague and the Nuremberg Tribunal.


 * U.S. Constitution Article VI par. 2: "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
 * Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) Art. 55. "The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." This means the occupying power can use but not sell, or otherwise alter public or state owned assets such as was done by the CPA. "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law." – legal advice from British Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith to Tony Blair on the restructuring of Iraqi state assets.Wayne (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the Iraq Inquiry also has documentation proving that in March 2002, Colin Powell informed Jack Straw that the decision had been made to go to war regardless of whether Iraq complied with anything. This intent supports that it was an illegal war of aggression, which the Nuremberg Trials defined as "the supreme international crime."
 * This would be of legal relevance if OIF had been a new conflict without basis of prior history. The fact is OIF was merely a resumption of suspended hostilities from Desert Storm, and we were acting as contracted agents on behalf of and in the defense of the nations of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. See Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of Military Force on Iraq, 2002 This is within the UN charter as in no case does the charter preclude the ability of nations, or agents acting on their behalf, to act in their own self defense, particularly in the face of an imminent threat. As Iraq was making provocative actions towards its neighbors such as deep incursions into Saudi airspace by Iraqi mig-25aircraft as late as January 2003, see- Exhumating the Dead Iraqi Air Force-ACIG it was reasonable for them to assume that Iraq was an imminent threat. Batvette (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you but both Powell and Rice made statements that Iraq did not have the weapons or the will to be a threat to anyone so self defense or imminent threat cant be argued. Wayne (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not about whether or not the war in Iraq was illegal but if illegal wars constitute war crimes. None of the sources presented by Wayne claim that they do.  I accept that waging illegal wars is illegal, but it is called a crime against peace, and does not belong in the article.  TFD (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ===Arbitrary Sanity Break===

Hi all, I arrived here via the RFC and have briefly attempted to trawl through the above but it seems to have been led off topic by a specific issue and some WP:OR. The simple answer to the RFC question is NO, crimes against peace are clearly not the same as war crimes. A simple and clear explanation of the distinction can be found in the first chapter of this book, which is viewable on google books. A more satisfactory answer is that this article and indeed the articles on war crime and crimes against peace are in need of some love. I don't really like the title of this article, because of course war crimes cannot be committed by a state per se. But I think cleaning up this article should come after working on the two parent articles, which is where I am off too now. ThanksAjbpearce (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "of course war crimes cannot be committed by a state per se" Of course? Are you suggesting that the Holocaust, the Dresden Firebombing and the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki couldn't possibly constitute War Crimes simply by virtue of the fact that those actions were conducted by States? At the very least, that claim is controversial. 122.57.126.131 (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement that a state cannot commit a war crime needs to be qualified. It may be that the laws do not hold states criminally accountable for crimes or that none have been prosecuted.  Certainly no state can act independently of individuals.  But states, unlike nationalities, are persons under the law.  The source provided by Ajbpearce is however helpful and I hope shows conclusively that the illegal waging of war is not considered a war crime.  TFD (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that was a poor choice of phrase and liable to introduce confusion - but what i meant was that you cannot "charge" a state with a war crime. War crimes are a discrete part of international humanitarian law, representing those violations of international humanitarian law for which there is individual criminal responsibility. So ofc during the second world war many actions of the Nazi's were war crimes - but as the nuremberg trials themselves proclaimed: ‘crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced. State responsibility for breaching international humanitarian law (or indeed any state breach of a substantive provision of international law) is dealt with under the international concept of state responsibility which is quite different to war crimes law. Ajbpearce (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Nuremberg example is interesting. At the Nuremberg trials, individuals were charged and convicted with crimes against international law that did not exist. Indeed, one of the main jurisprudential difficulties with the procedures at the Nuremberg trials was the absence of an clear and express law that had jurisdiction over the defendants.
 * As for "crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities", it is worth noting that the Schutzstaffel (SS) was declared to be a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials, (see here). Similarly, "abstract entities", such as limited liability Companies are routinely prosecuted for crimes every day. The United Nations Security Council makes declarations regarding the legality or criminality of the actions of States on a fairly regular basis. The prosecution of abstract entities - such as States - does have precedent. 122.57.126.131 (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We are going off topic here, so my further apologies again for apparently muddying the waters still further - I won't make any further replies after this one. All I wish to point out is that the term "war crimes" is, within international law generally used to describe serious violations of international law for which there is individual criminal responsibility and the consequences of those on individuals (or indeed organisations or other non-state actors). The question of whether there could be criminal responsibility on the part of states is still controversial and at the moment it is not possible to charge a state with "war crimes"(looking for some more material to answer this I found two relevant articles that may be better than me at explaining my point. G. Gilbert, ‘The Criminal Responsibility of States’, 39 ICLQ, 1990, p. 345, and N. Jorgensen, The Responsibility of States for International Crimes, Oxford, 2000.  In summary, states are undoubtedly responsible for actions perpetrated in their name that consitute war crimes and such responsibility may have serious international responsibility. However, at present atleast under a conventional understanding of international law  it is doubtful that states can be said to be criminally responsibleAjbpearce (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)