Talk:United States war crimes/Archive 4

Scare Quotes
There are a number of instances of scare quotes that I am removing under wikipedia MOS best practices. Please discuss here before reverting. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Scare quotes have been overused in the three cases in your edit I checked, Operation Teardrop, and the Canicattì and Biscari massacres. While there may be cases where they should be retained, I agree edtiors should bring them here before reverting. TFD (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

nato bombings of Tašmajdan Park (yugoslavia)
This page should include some mention of american crimes in yugoslavia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.54.9.83 (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide some reliably sourced examples. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nato bombings of Yugoslavia where civillians where killed and civillian infrastructure destroyed
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia Yugoslavia Alexsyma (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, however ironically an article on this wiki is not a "trustworthy" source. Not to mention that it must be an external source (if the article directs to an external source, to cite those crimes against humanity then welcome to this article). We do not "seek the truth" we provide sources, so please provide an article from a "reliable" report to back up what you say. Thank you. DeskOfficer95 (talk) 15:53, 03 Aug 2023 (UTC)

Bombings
This article fails to list a number of significant war crimes such as air bombings when they deliberately target a civilian population or when they are simply indiscriminate. This appears as suspicious because these bombings are included (legitimately) in other articles on war crimes such as "russian war crimes", which have a large number of quotations. If indiscriminate bombing and deliberate targeting of civilians are included there, why not here ? Volume2KWestOG (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You failed to understand that this article deals with legal issues, not moral ones. This air attacks subject has been discussed here in this talk page over recent years. It's the reason why this article only deals with war crimes that started after the adoption of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. So cite a law that says targeting civilians by aircraft in Korea and Vietnam were war crimes. Just because you feel it's morally wrong, especially in 21st Century conduct in legal terms, doesn't change the legal aspect of air conduct during the mid-20th Century. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * XXzoonamiXX is correct. Also Volume2KWestOG in WWII while the US (and every other combatant) air bombing targetted civilians or was indiscriminate that was not regarded as a war crime at the time. Arguably that carried over into the Korean War. However by the time of the Vietnam War the sentiment had shifted and there was no indiscriminate bombing (in fact LBJ was accused of being too discriminate) and civilian deaths were the result of accidents or inaccuracy in hitting military targets located adjacent to civilian areas. Nixon's "secret" bombing of Cambodia was arguably indiscriminate and there have been accusations against Nixon, Kissinger and others that it was a war crime. So I challenge you to identify when the US air bombings have deliberately targetted civilians or been indiscriminate since then. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ with that air bombings of civilian populations are within the scope of this article. Independent academic sources describe these as war crimes, so U.S. law is irrelevant here. I think that 's edit war to censor this content disrupts Wikipedia's collaborative process,    and the aspersions and canvassing at  are similarly inappropriate., it is good practice to leave maintenance templates within the article until we resolve the dispute.  &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 15:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Any sources can say they were war crimes, it doesn't mean they're 100% right without specific context applicable to any international laws of warfare. You also have ignored my requests two times to discuss the issue on the talk page and international law DOES matter in the grand scheme of things, not add just because other sources say so without citing an actual law to back them up as such. So if "independent" sources said they were war crimes as you claim, then they need to cite an actual law that says such. Just saying so without specific context doesn't hold weight, much like saying 9/11 is a conspiracy doesn't hold weight either. Otherwise, it's grounds for WP:EW and being potentially blocked from editing this article. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The main problem in this article is that all other corresponding articles on war crimes tend to also potential crimes against humanity, which isn't the case here. Numerous scholars have assessed things events such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as crimes against humanity. To be sure, there is still an ongoing debate on this and many more potential crimes. I think it would be important to show the various views on this article. It is clearly relevant and would align it with the standards of other articles on the topic. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the "all other corresponding articles have them too" argument you brought up multiple times is no valid excuse and is irrelevant here, period. International law holds far more teeth since it's an absolute rule and other sources have a responsibility to add events that are supposed to clearly correspond to certain existing international conventions/treaties within their respective eras. You even said yourself that Protocol 1 adopted in 1977 won't apply to pre-1977 aerial bombardment events, so it's very inappropriate to add events that weren't actually crimes to begin with, including those not declared as such by the post-WWII trials. Also as Mztourist said, you have failed to provide any RS that pre-1977 Protocol I U.S. bombings were legally war crimes. So far, you have avoided that despite repeated requests. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Again, the "all other corresponding articles have them too" argument you brought up multiple times is no valid excuse and is irrelevant here, period." It is absolutely relevant because there has to be a pattern when we treat subjects? The fact that this sub is an exception is problematic. I took the example of crimes against humanity because it could justify the inclusion of events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed, I agree that events like Hiroshima cannot be considered violations of the conventions but a great number of scholars has used the label "crime against humanity" (retroactive) to treat these potential crimes (crimes committed in the context of war, de facto war crimes. Do you agree that we should mention these assessments on this page (maybe with views for and against this qualification) ? Volume2KWestOG (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "In 1963 the bombings were subjected to judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State. The District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general but, in the judgment of the court, the atomic bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illegal under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities. The court denied the appellants compensation on the grounds that the Japanese government had waived the right for reparations from the U.S. government under the Treaty of San Francisco" On the wiki page of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 * There has been a vigorous debate on the applicability of the conventions to bombings such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many scholars have characterized the bombing as a war crime (bombing of undefended cities)https://books.google.com/books?id=x9R9BQPKKfQC&pg=PA167
 * "If the Hague Conventions is admitted as applicable, the critical question becomes whether the bombed cities met the definition of "undefended". Some observers consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki undefended, some say that both cities were legitimate military targets, and others say that Hiroshima could be considered a legitimate military target while Nagasaki was comparatively undefended" Extract of the wiki page "debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Volume2KWestOG (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free-for-all edit where context and topics on articles are disregarded. This article is not a "debate on war crimes", it's about legally proven war crimes, and here, context, the topic itself, and legality matters. The Hague Convention of 1907 does not apply to air warfare. It only covers bombardment by land and naval forces, mainly field guns and naval guns fired from ships. The 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare was the closest to making indiscriminate attacks from aircraft illegal, but it never entered into force and had no legal effect. Having a vigorous debate isn't enough for something that wasn't clearly illegal in the first place, since the authors who said such were expressing their opinion, not as a fact. Again, international law is absolute and no amount of debate can change that. In regards to the 1963 Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State, it was a civil suit brought by the A-bomb survivors against Japan, not the U.S. or international court (like the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, which dealt with criminal charges), in a Japanese court. Also, the ruling was criticized for basing several conventions on acts that were not clearly illegal, such as the 1907 Hague Conventions and the 1923 draft of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare. Even the Japanese court noted that no international treaty governing air warfare and atomic bombs existed during WWII, but ruled, in effect obiter dictum (meaning "expression of opinion, not essential to the decision and not establishing precedent"), them "illegal" anyways based upon the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare and the 1907 Hague Convention, the former which never came into force and the latter only covering land and naval warfare. As such the 1963 ruling has no legal bearing at all. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your notion of "clear illegality" is arbitrary at best. Illegality is not the manifestation of some objective and verifiable reality but a contextual decision. Nothing is clearly illegal in essence and it's always a particular decision. Most of war crimes in Vietnam, even those present in this article, weren't prosecuted and are present here because some scholars have deemed them "war crimes". When a great number of scholar state that something is a war crime, the qualification as war crime does not come from the objective nature of reality discovered by those aforementioned scholars but because of their influence in the particular field.
 * Many scholars consider that Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were crime against humanity, why won't this article mention allegations of crimes against humanity. The fact that there was no trial does not mean anything ? Was there a trial for the soviet Great Purges ? No. Does wikipedia lists them as a crime against humanity ? Yes. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Illegality is simply a violation of the law, not opinions, this article's title and topic makes it explicitly clear, and you earlier admitted it with your 1977 Protocol 1 comments. Not only your comment is basically non-sensical and thereby proof by assertion, but also your recent paragraphs against WP:ARA (e.g., repeatedly bringing up refuted scholars' opinions being more important than legality and therefore disregarding the article's actual topic), which is one of the many red flags that gets the user in trouble as much as edit-warring and personal insults. You're just beating a dead horse at this point. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The violation is always perceived. This is just elementary. The fact that there can be debate and controversy means in essence that determining if some action is a crime is rarely straightforward or automatic. It seems you refuse to engage to any argument I am making. I was clear on the fact that it may not be appropriate to list something like Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Vietnam bombings as violations of the conventions before 1977. I made a point about crimes against humanity, why no inclusion in the article ? Please adress that point. Many scholars back this qualification up. The fact that that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a potential crime against humanity is absolutely not "refuted". Please show me an academic source that states that there is a consensus on the question. If there isn't, it is essential to make it appear an article which specifically deals with war crimes (which includes crimes against humanity). Volume2KWestOG (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because such criteria, especially within the scope of the article, is ridiculously laughable. Crimes against humanity only covers systematic atrocities like the Holocaust, Japanese war crimes, Khmer Rouge, Rwandan Genocide, purges, slavery, extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, rape and other methods of similar nature, mostly where such atrocities happened in connection with persecution of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, or political opinions. The pre-1977 Allied bombings are none of these things. Yes, these bombings killed a ton of civilians, but the intent was to destroy industry required to wage war, such as munitions plants and shipyards. Bombing accuracy was insufficient at the time, and war industry often mixed in with neighborhoods due to the nature of industrial warfare in WWII. There was simply no way civilian casualties can be avoided if such goals were to destroy strategic targets effectively at the time. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Volume2KWestOG there is no consensus that the atom bombings were war crimes. As XXzoonamiXX has patiently and repeatedly pointed out, for an action to be a war crime it would have to breach applicable law at the relevant time. The US firebombing, A-bombing, bombing of North Korea and bombing of Indochina were not breaches of applicable law when conducted. Your attempt to apply '90s onwards morality to past events to claim them as war crimes is not acceptable here on WP. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We're past that. I was specifically talking about the interpretation as a potential crime against humanity, which are not prescriptible. On this topic, a lot of scholars have argued that it was indeed a crime against humanity, though there is no consensus among historians. Is there a consensus for free fire zones being war crimes ? No, it's not a subject a lot of scholars have dealt with in the first place. The inclusion of free fire zones as a war crime is made here on the basis that one author (Nick Turse) has argued that they were (which doesn't mean that he is the only one). Why couldn't atomic bombings be included as crimes against humanity, especially when many scholars think they are ? Volume2KWestOG (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You have the right to think these bombings were not crimes against humanity but this article is not here to reflect your opinion but the views of the scientific community. In the Vietnam War section, the article cites the opinion of RJ Rummel, who argues that they were 5000 civilian deaths in cases of democide. The same scholar has argued that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were democide and indeed war crimes. Here is the link of the wiki extract that deals with his opinion :
 * The scholar R. J. Rummel instead extends the definition of genocide to what he calls democide, and includes the major part of deaths from the atom bombings in these. His definition of democide includes not only genocide, but also an excessive killing of civilians in war, to the extent this is against the agreed rules for warfare; he argues the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and thus democide. Rummel quotes among others an official protest from the US government in 1938 to Japan, for its bombing of Chinese cities: "The bombing of non-combatant populations violated international and humanitarian laws." He also considers excess deaths of civilians in conflagrations caused by conventional means, such as in Tokyo, as acts of democide.
 * Please explain why his opinion on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be presented in this article but his opinion on Vietnam can. For me, it is clear that it should be present here. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that they are not war crimes as there was no breach of applicable law at the time of the action. That is how a war crime is defined here on WP, whatever a handful of academics may argue. Do not change this page again unless a new consensus is agreed. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide some evidence that indicates that there is a consensus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, please provide evidence that shows that there is consensus on the fact that the US commited democide in Vietnam. If you can't, your statement is arbitrary.
 * You have ignored everything I have said on the fact that on certain subjects, opinions of scholars are often too sporadic or not comprehensively listed, which results in uncertainty about the general opinion held on a specific subject. If you can't show there is a consensus on Hiroshima or Vietnam, surely you won't mind a presentation of a diversity of opinions regarding Hiroshima.
 * By the way, most authoritative figures have characterized conventional bombings in Korea as criminal and yet, you oppose any inclusion of them. This is as arbitrary as it gets. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can't produce any proof of consensus on this topic, you can't remove mentions of Hirohima and Nagasaki without a legitimate reason. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is consensus that they are not to be included because they were not war crimes at the time. Read the opening paragraph of the page: "United States war crimes are violations of the law of war which were committed by members of the United States Armed Forces after the signing of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the signing of the Geneva Conventions." None of the bombings you want to include breached the applicable laws of war at the time. Mztourist (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We could also argue that international law is clear on this matter since 1977 with the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions. On top of that, many other articles on the topic mention bombings as war crimes. There shouldn't be an arbitrary exception here. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You reversed the article four times without reaching a WP: Consensus with others here on this talk page, which makes your case worse and is grounds for being blocked from editing this article. The fact you think other articles mention their bombings doesn't mean it's also relevant here and that it should ignore the legal aspect of the mid-20th Century. Again, this article deals with legal issues, not moral ones. And you simply refuse to cite a proper law that states otherwise. Being that this article overwhelmingly applies to specific crimes and not all of them, it does matter in terms of having reliable content. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * this page is on my watchlist so I would come here no matter what is posted on my userpage. I removed the tag because there was no legitimate dispute and the tagging was done to further a debate that should have been discussed here. You and User:Volume2KWestOG have failed to provide any RS that US bombing was a war crime. As I already said above Nixon's "secret" bombing of Cambodia was arguably indiscriminate, but noone has successfully argued that it was a war crime. Even Volume2KWestOG's comment above about the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions would not apply retroactively. Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

why deletion of Korean dam bombing?
explain – ishwar  (speak)  07:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it is a major change that was already discussed directly above. There is no consensus that bombing of North Korea was a war crime as defined. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see the discussion. Above what I see is that indiscriminate killing of civilians is not a war crime during WWII. The Korean bit I added deals with (i) destruction of property designed to starve the population and (ii) a war event after Nuremberg and after the Fourth Geneva Convention.


 * 'Consensus' means consensus among historians or consensus among the 3 or 4 folks writing on the talk page within this year?


 * Do you have any source that argues against Cumings, Hix, and Chomsky's interpretations? – ishwar  (speak)  07:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you need to read the discussion first, its conveniently called Bombings. Consensus means WP:CONSENSUS. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You haven't addressed (i) and (ii). The Geneva conventions were in effect before 1953, which prohibit destruction of property (private or state-owned) unless absolutely necessary. I don't see any discussion of the 4th Geneva convention. If it exists, it would useful for you to quote or restate this here instead of a vague pointer. – ishwar  (speak)  08:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The US position was and is that bombing in North Korea and Vietnam was limited to what was militarily necessary. Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok. So, that is the only objection?


 * It's simple. You just present the US's position (including any historians that agree with the US government), and you also present the position of disagreeing historians (Cumings, Hix, and Chomsky). You can't give undue weight to the US position since it's an involved party and would naturally try to deny anything that would characterize it as a committer of war crimes. (I mean, some folks say this is also the reason the US government doesn't ratify many of the war crime laws like the Geneva Protocol I or the Rome Statute.) – ishwar  (speak)  08:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You and I cannot just agree something without allowing other Users the time and opportunity to express their views on this issue. Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I haven't suggested that we should. I did, however, want an explanation beyond 'read the talk page,' which you have given me now. The more people reading the about the issue, the better. I personally think things on wikipedia are often decided too quickly, which makes it a poor quality encyclopedia in several places. – ishwar  (speak)  08:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you were suggesting we should with your "It's simple..." para Mztourist (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you read more into my words than what I intended. The solution for editing is still simple (that is, present the positions). Whether this solution is accepted is perhaps complex and needs time to be pondered. – ishwar  (speak)  09:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, lets wait some days and see who else joins this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Fourth Geneva Conventions doesn't even directly address civilian bombings, it only protects enemy civilians only under belligerent military occupation.
 * "Although the Fourth Geneva Convention attempted to erect some legal defenses for civilians in time of war, the bulk of the Fourth Convention devoted to explicating civilian rights in occupied territories, and no explicit attention is paid to the problems of bombardment." (Source: Moral Principles and Nuclear Weapons, Douglas P. Lackey, page 213, 1 January 1984
 * As already explained in the other section, Protocol I (adopted in 1977) outlaws attacks on dams and use of total war that would widely affect the civilian population, including by aircraft. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To remind you, the topic here is the dam bombing, which is destruction of property (of a private person, private persons, the state, or collective organizations).
 * The Geneva Convention was intended to protect property from unnecessary destruction as I understand it.
 * Killing civilians by air weapons is a separate issue, so your comments (whether correct or not) don't seem entirely relevant. – ishwar  (speak)  03:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do any RS say it was a war crime? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * yes – ishwar  (speak)  07:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the same list of sources that were removed by the Mztourist as can be found in the article page history. I'll repeat them here if that's your request:
 * Bix, Herbert P. 2001. War crimes law and American wars in the twentieth century Asia. Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, 33 (1), 119–132.
 * Endicott, Stephen; Hagerman, Edward. 1998. The United States and biological warfare: Secrets from the early Cold War and Korea, pp 99–100.
 * https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/26/chomsky_on_north_korea_iran_historical
 * Cumings, Bruce. 1998. On the strategy and morality of American nuclear policy in Korea, 1950 to the present. Social Science Japan Journal, 1 (1), 57–70.
 * Cumings, Bruce. 1988. Korea–The unknown war, pp 194–197.
 * – ishwar  (speak)  20:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If WP:RS state that is was a war crime, then it must be discussed in the article. We reflect what the RS say. Llammakey (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly which articles were violated and in force when the US bombed the dam? Protocol I is irrelevant since it wasn't signed until 1977. Legal war crimes are the subject of this article, not moral ones, which is what I suspect Cumings, et al., are claiming.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you suspect that?
 * The sources mention the legality by using phrasing such as
 * (a) "These actions too were criminal offenses against the laws of war, but only No Gun Ri was investigated"
 * and
 * (b) "In fact this was a war crime, recognized as such by international law"
 * and
 * (c) "The last time an act of this kind had been carried out, which was by the Nazis in Holland in 1944, it had been deemed a war crime at Nuremberg."
 * and
 * (d) "That’s a major war crime. People were hanged for it at Nuremberg."
 * and
 * (e) "acts of a kind that had recently been judged as war crimes during the trials of Nazi leaders in Nuremberg" – ishwar  (speak)  08:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. I hadn't known about the Nuremburg prosecution. Can anybody give a more exact citation to the charge and verdict?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , you seem to misunderstand what we do here on Wikipedia. We don't come to conclusions about the subject ourselves, we just summarize what has been described in reliable secondary sources. We definitely don't interpret definitions of terms like "war crimes" independently of what these sources say. Whether any of us personally considers something to be a war crime is completely and totally irrelevant to the article. There are also special considerations when applying contentious labels, with a higher standard of scrutiny before such a label is applied. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * I don't understand your comment. (Are you confusing me with Mztourist?) I think you are misunderstanding the situation.


 * To be clear here it is: I added a bit about the Korean dam bombing (and the rest of the aerial bombings for context) which included published sources by a few historians as well as a few less rigorous material (e.g. the bit by the journal, the Chomsky interview). The sources say that this was a war crime. I have not attempted to interpret the authors' meanings of the term war crime as it appears in the work. In other words, I am only summarizing the sources. (Well, I included a few quotations as well.) I can't see how any of this can be characterized as original research. (You are welcome to read the sources if there is any doubt.)


 * The contention of user Mztourist, as I understood it, is these are not war crimes because that they fail to meet the definition of war crimes. This analysis is based on Mztourist's interpretation of the meaning of term war crime and the facts surrounding the historical event. The objection, at first, seemed to be any aerial bombing cannot be labelled a war crime because of the early date of the US bombing. Now, the objection seems to be the bombing cannot be labelled a war crime because the US government says that the bombings were necessary. At any rate, none of this doubt is in the sources, but it is, rather, in the talk page ponderings. – ishwar  (speak)  07:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead says, "This article contains a chronological list of incidents...in which war crimes occurred or were alleged to have occurred." This needs clarification, because there's no mention of for example Hiroshima or the Dresden bombings. TFD (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, that's a separate issue – namely the definition of the term war crime and what events may qualify as such. Generally, I believe that any article should make its topic clear by including definitions of terms, assumptions, et cetera and so forth. This is especially important here since there seems to have been confusion over the definition of the term leading to past editor conflict as can be seen on this talk page history. (Also, note above that at least one user, Sturmvogel 66, has made a distinction between two different terms: moral war crime vs legal war crime.)
 * But, the present discussion only concerns the US 1953 aerial bombing of Korean dams during the Korean war – and not the larger issue of article clarity. – ishwar  (speak)  20:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If the dams attack in Korea was a war crime, then the famous air attack by the British on the Moehne, Eder, and Sorpe dams during the Second World War (Operation Chastise) was definitely a war crime. Does it help to apply a comparative standard - have the British dams attack ever been described as a war crime? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just found Operation Chastise which should shed some light on that question. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I guess the short answer is: no, it has no relevance to the status of the Korean dam bombing as these are different wars and time periods.


 * To explain further, if we are using the Mztourist–XXzoonamiXX definition of war crime that they are promoting above, then all aerial bombing during WWII is not a war crime – as I understand their definition. Since the German dam bombing by the British was during WII, it is excluded. – ishwar  (speak)  02:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The core issue as I see it is do WP:RS say that it was a war crime as defined? Moral arguments are invalid, the sources would need to specifically discuss in detail the applicable laws of war and conclude that those were breached by the attacks. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree the issue is what the legal academic consensus is on this, and I haven't seen anything indicating the consensus exists that the US committed a war crime by bombing the dams. It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse in any case. GC4 (which applied to the war) clearly did not prohibit such actions, this did not occur until API and APII, and they were adopted in 1977, more than 20 years after the Korean War ended. The US signed but never acceded to/ratified API or APII, but they have both long since had the power of customary international law because of the fact that ~170 states have now ratified/acceded to them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned previously by others above, the crux of this argument relies on interpretation of, The standard for inclusion of an allegation of a war crime is much lower than the standard for inclusion of an actual war crime. Under the current article wording, all the editors arguing for inclusion have to show is the reporting of an allegation from a reliable secondary source (note, if the source itself is the originator of the allegation, it is likely making itself a primary source for the specific allegation, even if the rest of its material is a secondary source). This reporting of the allegation can be balanced neutrally with reference to other sources disagreeing that it was a war crime. If editors disagree that this was not the intent behind the "allegations" included in the article, then they need to clarify the meaning of that sentence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ishwar, I may have explained myself poorly above. I was not referring to the definition of a war crime. For purpose of this article, a war crime is anything that reliable sources agree is a war crime.

The problem is "alleged war crime." Currently the article only lists actual war crimes, that is, where there is academic consensus they were war crimes. That is consistent with the article title.

However, the article says that it includes "alleged war crimes." I think we should remove this and just include a section briefly discussing it. Note that coverage of proven and alleged events are different. In the first case, the emphasis is on details. In the second, the emphasis is on the arguments for and against the classification. Not observing the distinction can lead to POV nightmares.

TFD (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with the Four Deuces. The use of allegation in the title and scope is confusing and open to too broad of an interpretation. I would think most things done in war can be alleged by some to be war crimes.  This article scope needs to be narrowed to just consensus-based (historian-wise), proven and legaly adjudicatedl war crimes.  Anyone can allege anything to be a war crime, even reliable authors.  But that can open the article up to FRINGE beliefs.  The only way to fight it, is to move the article to a less contentious title, and drop the 'allegation' part.  If not this article will remain a battle-ground over differing interpretations of War Crimes, ad nauseum. Regards,  GenQuest  "scribble" 17:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As a person with a more experienced field on this and have been here in this article for years, I'm going to be rewriting the lede and wrote down the clarifications on what are and not legally proven war crimes. As you stated, the current article is ripe for abuse by anyone and is nothing more than listing simply "atrocities" instead of actual war crimes as it should have been. Keep in mind though, I have a lot of work going outside Wikipedia and my computer for some reason is slow as hell. It might take a week or two for me to clarify the article's actual meaning and title, because lot of research has to be done, so we are less likely have to come here and POV argue in this talk page all over again. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to see someone knowledgeable step up, . Remember, there are no deadlines on Wikipedia.  Take all the time you need.  Slow, steady progress is still progress.  GenQuest  "scribble" 19:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
Can we have one source that says this was a war crime? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While not taking a position on this, there's a list above provided at 20:20, 13 September 2023. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ThCheers, at best this can be thus one line noting some "authors" have claimed it was a war crime. We do not need a list. What we can't do (and forgive me, but seems to be the gist of most of the pro comments) is call it a warcrime. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)