Talk:United States war crimes

Definition of "War Crime"

Another problem with this article is that there is an unsourced, arbitrary definition for "war crime" at the beginning. I suggest starting out with the definition in the Geneva conventions, namely:

Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, biological experiments, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

— Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

I don't think that Wikipedia editors should arbitrarily get to create a special definition of "war crime" to apply to the United States, any more than they should arbitrarily get to determine what is a "war crime". Does this seem reasonable? Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're correct on that one thing: Wikipedia editors do not arbitrarily get to create a special definition of "war crime."

According to the Fourth Geneva Convention:

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

The Fourth Geneva Convention was written after Hiroshima, of course, but the principle is there for my purposes (but not for yours). If it's a legitimate target, then it can be destroyed. Subsequent military doctrine of the major nuclear powers follows my point of view, not yours.

As I've shown you above, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to get interested editors to discuss the definition of the phrase "war crimes". Please take the discussions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki elsewhere, and try to remain focused on the issue at hand. The part that you selected (Article 28) and misunderstood, is not relevant here. Article 28 allows for military operations in an area containing protected persons, as long as the none of the acts in Article 147 (or any of the other Articles) are committed. For instance, torturing a protected person is still a war crime under Article 147. Article 28 merely says that you may still perform military operations in the area -- it doesn't give a nation free license to go around shooting, torturing, and imprisoning anyone they please. That's why Article 28 doesn't say "disregard everything else in this document if you're performing military operations in an area containing protected persons" But, let's stay on topic. Does anyone see any problems with using the definition of "war crime" from the Geneva Convention? Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, excuuuuuuuuuzzze me. (Sorry, if that expression is from before your time.) Since you hadn't replied on the legitimacy of Hiroshima as a target, I had simply assumed you were still running with that.

I've said before that we should stick with legal definitions. But if so, then neither Article 28 nor Article 147 apply to the war with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Article 3 is the only one that applies there. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that way. The international organizations that claim to care about human rights have generally agreed with that.

And you're partly right, they can't "go around shooting [and] torturing ... anyone they please." But you might notice that my small excerpt of your phrase didn't include "imprisoning." The Fourth Geneva Convention most certainly does allow nations to detain civilians if they are believed to be a threat. They can be held without trial until the perceived threat no longer exists. There are even fewer restrictions in conflicts (such as this one) where the balance of the 4thGC doesn't apply.

You need to understand that the laws of war, such as the conventions, were written by diplomats in consultation with their nations' generals. They didn't allow restrictions to be imposed that would make fighting a war more difficult. They understood that WWII lasted too long as it was. They didn't want rules that would make the next wars take even longer.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Randy, you don't need to apologize for the phrase "excuse me" being before my time. People still commonly use it today, so it's not before the time of anyone who is currently alive. If I wanted to discuss Hiroshima, I would have done it in the section above which was created to discuss that. Please see the title and opening paragraph of this section to get an idea about what I am trying to discuss in this section. I am not interested in your opinions on international law that you just shared above. I am trying to hold a discussion about the definition of "war crime" in the lead for this article, and am trying to work with other editors towards a consensus on a good definition for that term. Please keep the discussion focused on this issue. If you want to add more comments about Hiroshima, please do so in the section on Hiroshima above, not here. If you want to talk about the applicability of the Geneva conventions to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, please create a separate section to do so (although you should provide reliable sources instead of your own analysis and opinion on the matter). Do you have any sources you'd like to share which provide a definition for "war crimes" to be used in the lead? Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you'd better explain the context. I agree that using the definition is essential. The trouble is, all the examples you've used before are such that the above definition doesn't apply to them.

In addition, you should say why you think smaller cases might apply. For example, Louis Till isn't listed as a "war criminal" even though he was convicted of a horrific crime against local civilians during a war. It was a personal crime, however, and not in the performance of his duties as a soldier.

Wikipedia is not a courtroom. If the applicable legal authorities haven't ruled something to be a war crime then we can't use the talk section as a tribunal to conclude otherwise.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the applicable legal authorities haven't ruled something to be a war crime then we can't use the talk section as a tribunal to conclude otherwise. -- Since the United States does not generally submit to any investigations or trials by legal authorities, then this is a mostly meaningless criterion. And besides, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy anyway. We should not focus on "applicable legal authorities" (since that would constitute original research on the part of the editors who get to determine what is "applicable"), so much as reliable sources, according to Wikipedia's policies. The problem is that on Wikipedia, we are trying to counteract systemic bias, and by allowing editors to determine which institutions are "applicable", we would end up with a strong Anglo-American bias which would classify as non-criminal actions which are widely considered by the rest of the world to be criminal. This would also lead to certain institutions (such as the International Criminal Court), which are accepted around the rest of the world as valid, being classified as invalid because of the opinions of English-speaking editors who believe they are not valid. Of course, documents from many international legal and human rights organizations would be amongst the most reliable sources, but they are not the only reliable sources. Please see WP:Reliable and WP:Verify to understand more about Wikipedia's inclusion policy. If a source that meets the criteria set out in WP:Reliable says that an act committed by the U.S. is a war crime, then that should be included in this article. Do you disagree with that? Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting the ICC is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make dismissing "applicable legal authorities." It's a poor standard to judge the U.S. by. The ICC has only opened investigations into four situations.

The U.S. is as open to scrutiny as any nation at war, and far more open than our enemies and rivals. We have a free press that's very critical (including foreign reporters embedded with our troops), and we have competing political parties, some of whom latch onto any appearance of wrongdoing that they may exploit for their own political gain.

The U.S. submits to regular ICRC inspections when required by treaty. None of our current enemies do so, and none since (ironically enough) the Nazis in WWII. And we have prompt investigations into claims of wrongdoing that are followed by prosecutions when warranted. There are a lot of soldiers in prison right now because they were convicted. During WWII, the U.S. military executed over 100 American troops for their crimes. No nation at war does better at policing its own.

The systemic bias you're concerned about works the other way around. The English WP may have a lot of Americans, but more of them are left of center. This is compounded by the large numbers of Brits, Canadians, and other English-speaking foreigners who edit this site, most of whom are apparently further left than most of the American left.

I don't know of any reliable source that says an act committed by the U.S. government in the current war is definitely a "war crime." Amnesty and HRW like to make claims that sound that way, but they often add a line saying it should be investigated as one, as they cannot pronounce guilt themselves. Amnesty and HRW have both been accused of bias. They have a questionable leadership, and they're heavily dependent for support upon anti-American fundraising. There aren't any truly unbiased sources.

I remind you that it was you who brought up the Geneva Conventions. Those are the standards we use. You may not like the U.S. justice system, but it's the best there is available.

Besides all that, we also have WP:BLP considerations to think of. You can't just call someone a "war criminal" simply because you'd like to believe the accuser (who faces very little risk of a perjury conviction) is telling the truth.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the majority of your statements, which are either erroneous or are your personal opinions, and are thus off-topic here. I'm only going to respond to the ones that are relevant to the discussion at hand. Again, please try to stay focused.

The English WP may have a lot of Americans, but more of them are left of center. -- Really? Do you have a source for that? I didn't see that in the Wikipedia surveys on the systemic bias page.

I don't know of any reliable source that says an act committed by the U.S. government in the current war is definitely a "war crime." -- I'm about to start the process of moving back home, but I assure you that when I've settled back in and have my personal library in front of me, that you will have no shortage of reliable sources that say so.

Amnesty and HRW like to make claims that sound that way, but they often add a line saying it should be investigated as one, as they cannot pronounce guilt themselves. -- doesn't matter. They have both been determined (see [1] and [2] for example) to be highly reliable sources, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your opinions about their leadership, fundraising, validity, or "Anti-American-ness" hold absolutely no weight here.

There aren't any truly unbiased sources. -- Of course there aren't. Nor does WP:NPOV make any claim there are. Please read and understand WP:NPOV. Wikipedia editors are supposed to remain unbiased and objectively report what a reliable source says. This does not mean that the reliable source itself must be totally unbiased, as long as it is reliable and notable.

Anyhow, I'm going to be spending a lot less time on Wikipedia for the next few days/weeks, while I move. Hopefully some other editors can come in and continue to clear things up for you.Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Even Jimmy Wales conceded that WP is to the left. He wouldn't agree with others who'd go further than that, but I'm not arguing the point here. "To the left" is enough to say the systemic bias goes the other way.

I agree that Amnesty and HRW are reliable sources for the basics of their reports. I know that some of their work is very good. It's in their analysis that I often disagree. Amnesty went off track in the '90s. Both of them have prominent critics. As a matter of policy, Amnesty and Wikipedia disagree on publishing the Danish cartoons.

Publishing libel is wrong. On the other side, WP has articles on many of the GTMO detainees. The articles don't accuse them of being war criminals, no matter how obvious it may be that they are.

We're not even supposed to use the word WP:TERRORIST.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, USC18s2441 seems to have some good material for this discussion. Of course it's US code, but it does reference international law:

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—

(1) defined 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;

(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;

(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

Is there a feeling that this definition is incomplete? ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good find, but I think it's the same thing as the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The only thing really incomplete is that the bulk of it applies to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. That's not going to help the people who like to reimagine that Hiroshima was a war crime.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy2063 -- Again, please stop discussing your personal political opinions and original historical research. The solution to finding a definition of the term war crime is simple, and is described in Wikipedia:Verifiable. What we will do to find a definition is to go to reliable, preferably scholarly sources, and we will include the most notable of these, with citations. We will not debate what Randy2063 thinks is a war crime, or what he thinks about various organizations or scholars, or any other such thing (to understand why we won't do this, please see WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ValkyrieOfOdin -- thanks for your suggestion. While I would have a problem relying exclusively, or primarily, on a definition of "war crime" from the United States government (which many scholars consider to be the primary perpetrator of war crimes), I am certain that it is notable, and should be included (perhaps not in full, but at least summarized, with a citation to the full text). One thing that we really need to do is go through the article War crimes, and do some heavy work on the "Definitions" section there, and then use that as the basis for our definition here, per WP:SUMMARY. (I do think that your definition should be included in full there, however), with discussion from reliable, third-party sources-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jesse, but you're the one expressing the personal opinions here. I was only commenting about the utility of a potential source.

Crimes are a matter of law. War crimes are a matter of international law given through treaties. Organizations and scholars do not write laws or make treaties. They have no more authority to decide what constitutes a crime than does a church. Even Amnesty and HRW recognize this.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy2063 -- Again, please stop discussing your personal political opinions and own original research. We will determine what is a "war crime" by looking to reliable, third-party sources. We will not debate what Randy2063 thinks is a war crime, or what he thinks about various organizations or scholars, or any other such thing (to understand why we won't do this, please see WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition I've given conforms to the sources in the war crime article.

You're the one who just said you'd like to change that article to include personal opinions of "scholars and organizations" -- the implication being that they were not deliberated by diplomats and ratified by governments with the authority of law that is required to make something a crime.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that I wanted to "include personal opinions of "scholars and organizations"" for the definition. You need to read and understand WP:PRIMARY, and then you'll see what I'm saying. If you don't agree with what I'm saying, there is nothing I can do for you, other than recommend that you start a campaign to dramatically change Wikipedia policy to allow you to directly select from and interpret primary sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy2063, you've stated your points several times ... I'm not trying to quash you, but, respectfully, WP:NOTSOAPBOX I think it's perfectly reasonable for a present-day article to articulate that acts in the past qualify as "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" by current standards, especially if they serve to illustrate meaning, without conceding in every instance that at that time in history it was considered normal. Just my take.

Jrtayloriv, I think I see what you're after with the definition. Ok, so that's the US version of the definition, which I said, so I think any article about US war crimes should explain why it's a war crime (by some other standard) and why the US thought it was OK? Just an idea on an approach. Probably there's lots of material around that would illuminate that line of reasoning, and I shall begin to search for it. On a related note, I found a great definition over at the (now defunct) UN ICC site. I won't copy and paste that info here (it's huge!) but the gist is that war crimes are defined in terms of "Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949." I think war crimes are typically used in relation to people and not states. Perhaps what you are seeking is more of a "crimes against humanity" article, which is also defined on that page (Article 7) and states, in part: For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. It should be noted that the US, Russia, and Japan are not signatories to the ICC (based on that site which could be out of date). I hope this helps a little.ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions -- looking forward to working on this with you. But just to clarify, it's not what I'm after that we're talking about -- I was just talking about Wikipedia policy. What we need to do is go to reliable sources and find out what they have to say about the United States and war crimes, including all significant opinions, and giving them due weight, giving preference to scholars over magazines & newspapers, etc. Also, while it is commendable that you have done research on the legality of war crimes, and I'd like to find a way to include it in the article, please make sure that you read and understand WP:PRIMARY, which discusses research from primary sources (which we are not allowed to do here). Thanks again -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Going prior to the adoption of a treaty is plain silly. The laws of war were initially based upon agreement that a principle would be shared by all parties. That's why reprisal played such an important role. (And yes, there are sources for that.)

It doesn't have to be acceptable to U.S. law. I had previously said ICC indictments would qualify as examples. But we don't have any of those yet.

Real sources on the law are what we need. I just don't want some arrogant professor calling things war crimes, especially if he supports governments that condone war crimes, and then having it repeated here as though it has the official stamp of legal authority.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that's true I suppose. However, saying, "dropping an atomic bomb like in WWII today would be a war crime" is using it as an illustrative example. Saying that dropping the atomic bomb in WWII is a war crime is a different matter and would require research into the applicable international law that existed at the moment of the act. And what you're saying is that your understanding of law at that time indicates that bombing was legal and only after the 1949 treaty were such acts outlawed? If that's what you're saying, then I understand and agree from a legal point of view. :) ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Atomic bombs themselves are still legal. We wouldn't be making them if they weren't. Had they not been legal under those treaties, the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union would not have signed them.

But there were still plenty of cases of the bombing of civilians during WWII. Some of those wouldn't be legal now. Neither would some forms of reprisal, although not all. As I've said before, that used to be the primary way that the laws of war could be enforced.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy2063 -- Please stop discussing your personal views and own original research. Wikipedia is not a forum, and we should stick to discussing changes to the article, not debating about the topic itself. Whatever conclusions you have personally come to about the legality of atomic weapons, etc. is best left to other websites -- there are plenty of wonderful forums where you can go to debate politics, history, or whatever you like. Talk pages here are not the place for it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv-- I'm not sure I agree that citing material that is fact, like international law, is the same as original research. If you're looking for interpretation of that law, then reliable sources are what are needed. I'm a little confused on why a definition here is necessary since there's a link to the war crimes page that covers this stuff. Sorry for the confusion, but what's the point of the section? I'm really trying to help here, but don't know what direction to go. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

ValkyrieOfOdin -- You actually make a very good point about the definition not being needed here, since we have a link to war crimes. The definition is not dependent on nationality, and thus we don't need to have a separate definition for each nation. Thanks for stopping this waste of time. I'll go ahead and remove the definition section. As far as the sourcing thing though, please read WP:PRIMARY and you'll see what I mean about how we are supposed to use primary sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. :) As for sourcing, I've read it several times. I can see there's quite a bit of room for interpretation depending on what the source is and the contention level. I still maintain that reference to something like a law is equivalent to "Paris is the capital of France." Talking beyond the facts of, "this is what is published" I completely agree with you. Also, since this is a talk page, the use of primary sources in order to determine which secondary sources to discover also seems productive. Thanks for the opportunity to learn! ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Please.

The inclusion of this is absurd, as the "review" court in Japan had no jurisprudence granted by anyone to give it the ability to prosecute war crimes. It is the opinion of a judiciary and nothing more. As for the argument raised it qualifies due to the number of civilians killed, or that there was insufficient tactical or strategic benefit, that is wholly subjective and can be called fringe view. Certainly there was a reason to drop the bombs, with obvious benefit. It is completely lacking historical perspective to call it a war crime because of the numbers killed, war crimes of the time were considered unnecessary or senseless killings, as can be seen prolifically here: Japanese_war_crimes upon review of that contextual information it is hard to see why one does not understand why such an overwhelming display was necessary. Batvette (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• really?and the future nuclear bombs in ny is a crime?the 11 of september of 2001 not is a crime, because is only a resistence islamic angainst the american imperialism too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.182 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Since you couldn't provide evidence of any entity with the authority to do so finding the US guilty of a war crime, and instead only argued hypotheticals, I'm deleting the entire issue from the article. The judiciary cited had no authority granted to make such a determination as to its legality. The issue belongs on its own page, which does exist. Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_NagasakiBatvette (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Separation into judicial vs. non-judicial

TomPointTwo has twice reverted my edits, which consolidated the information about each country into a single section. What he is proposing instead is having two separate sections for each country, and requiring us to write about each event in two separate places. Here are the problems I see with that:

• If we have to talk about each event in two separate sections, it is going to make it where we cannot discuss context around the event, or have to repeat things twice. We will be forced to say: "X happened. It was investigated and prosecuted and here was the results" ... (much later in article) ... "X happened. Professor Z says this about it." (And more likely, "X happened" will just be left out to prevent duplication and due to difficulty of writing coherently about a single topic in multiple areas - leaving us with a contextless article, due to an easily fixable structural limitation). Why not just have it where we can say: "X happened. It was investigated and prosecuted and here are the results. Professor Z says this about it"? What is wrong with that? Does that not make more sense?
• It is going to make reading and editing the article next to impossible. We're going to have to jump around to multiple places in the article to read about a single topic.
• There is no need to have each country have two separate sections, if all you are concerned about is making sure that people know if there was a trial in a court. That can easily be made clear in the text, as long as we follow Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. If it went to court we say so, if it didn't, we don't. If it's just a claim by Notable Professor X, then we say so. This is in line with WP:RS and WP:V.

There is no Wikipedia policy that says that we have to make this distinction structurally -- in fact WP:STRUCTURE dictates that we do what I am suggesting. Vague statements "Keep BLP in mind" are meaningless -- show me something specific in WP:BLP that makes that breaking it up into this illogical section format required. I've never seen an article that is broken up in this way, and I have not yet seen any coherent reason why we should do so here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you are viewing these different circumstances as the same subject with only semantic differences. This is not the case. Anyone can accuse anyone else of a war crime, that doesn't make it true. To have a legitimate, legal institution investigate and try a group or individual for a crime is one thing. To have an NGO or academic accuse or postulate is another. There is a legion of forensic and legal experts who would testify that OJ Simpson is a murderer. Alas, we at wikipedia would never include him in an article about "Crimes committed by professional athletes" for murder (just robbery and kidnapping). To include events or individuals in an article about "War crimes committed by the United States" without any conviction or even investigation of an actual war crime by a court with jurisdiction is a very delicate matter.

Of course nobody is ever going to charge a legal body to investigate most historical incidents which are widely considered to be war crimes so some extra leeway is called for here. We must be very careful though to make the distinction between actual convictions of crimes, historical analysis and simple accusations. This is even more important when dealing with events involving people who are still alive. To label an event a crime in which there is still living participants is a clear violation on Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. For the living if you want to call people criminals you need to have convictions.

With all this in mind the only real options are to either create specific entries for actual convictions of war crimes and another for those without or to remove all events which have not resulted in criminal convictions. For the sake of historical context I prefer the former. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I will first respond what you said that pertains to Wikipedia policy, namely To label an event a crime in which there is still living participants is a clear violation on Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. For the living if you want to call people criminals you need to have convictions. ... I was not claiming that we should present as fact that someone is a criminal, just because a reliable source says they are. I am suggesting that if a reliable source says that they believe that someone committed a war crime, we should mention it, and attribute this statement to them. This is is line with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. We would not say "X committed a crime", but would instead say "Professor Z claimed that by doing B, X committed a crime". This is what Wikipedia policy dictates we do.

Again, can you give any specific Wikipedia policy that says that using high-quality reliable sources, and attributing statements of opinion, is not enough, and that talking about each subject in multiple places in the article is required (and forcing readers to dig through such a mess)? Do you have a response to any of my concerns with how this will affect the ability for editors to work on this article, and for readers to read it? Basically, do you have any reason for requiring the duplication and loss of readability? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TomPointTwo. There has to be a clear distinction between real cases and mere complaints. I don't think we should have any of those with considerably less foundation. The readers won't take it seriously if it's the mere opinion of some group that always complains about the U.S. anyway, and that will make them miss the real cases.

That Professor Z is notable doesn't mean he's an impartial judge. To use the O.J. example, it makes a difference that O.J. was found not guilty -- not proved innocent -- but at least he had been prosecuted. Just imagine if the evidence was so lacking that he couldn't be tried at all. Then we'd have to ask, who's calling him a murderer? Is it a respectable women's rights advocate? Or is it some racist group that would harp on any famous minority? Similarly, in this case, if the accusations are coming from a group that's always sided with America's enemies then it's not notable at all.

This is why I think we should remove the flopped CCR legal action in the German court. They've got a long history of doing this stuff. It doesn't say anything notable that they popped up here. It belongs in the CCR article, but not this one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy, please stop discussing your personal opinions and original research about OJ Simpson, German Courts, etc. Do you have reasons that we should break up the article into multiple sections? As I already said, if we are properly following Wikipedia's sourcing and attribution policies, there will already be a clear distinction between cases that have gone to court, and those that are allegations by notable groups or individuals. So breaking up into sections in the current manner has no benefit. It prevents us adding context to each event, and consolidating all of the information on it into one place, making it more difficult for both editors and readers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try to pass that off as mere commentary about personal opinions or original research. It was a response to your desire to mix actual war crimes with actions perceived by others to be war crimes. If Professor X is not a judge giving a lawful ruling then it's his opinion. It may be a notable person's opinion, but nothing more.

The readers are best served seeing the real war crimes up front. Don't think that mixing in just any perceived war crime will be okay if it's properly attributed to the party making the claim. Once the door is open, we will eventually have more of these than the the actual ones. The real war crimes will then be drowned out. Nobody will take it seriously.

You hadn't stated where you intend to stop. Would it be with reports from Amnesty, HRW, and the ICRC? Or is any group that claims to care about human rights going to be worth using? Your use of the failed legal action in "Further reading" doesn't bode well.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy, I've never claimed that non-judicial rulings are judicial or official rulings, or should be presented as such. You are not listening to what I'm saying, and are putting words into my mouth. You really need to read and understand WP:V, in order to understand what I'm saying. What I said was that if a notable person or organization makes a claim in a reliable source, then we should mention it in the article, in a neutral tone, with attribution, making sure not to give it undue weight. Neither of our opinions about what constitutes a "real" war crime matter -- it's what reliable sources have to say about it that matters. The Wikipedia content policies are clear what to include, and how to include it, and following them will leave no room for confusion as to which are judicial rulings and which are not. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you're saying about WP:V. There is no question that various groups are accusing the U.S. of war crimes. But that makes them "accusations of war crimes," and not "war crimes committed by the U.S."

I don't think you've said how far you think this would go. If Oliver Stone says the U.S. committed war crimes, does that go in here, too?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not. It is not a high enough quality source, per WP:BLP. I think there is plenty of scholarly and legal literature on it, without resorting to "celebrities". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not saying much. CCR isn't a high-quality source either, and yet you want their advocates.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the judicial distinction is gone. That takes away your rationale for leaving out celebrities.

Oliver Stone isn't just a celebrity, though. He's got political ties with more sway than a lot of activists.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, this isn't just my personal preference -- it's Wikipedia policy. See WP:STRUCTURE, which reads:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other.

... in addition to what I've said above, regarding readability/editability. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE would apply if we were to move some material from the section on My Lai to another section because the source was biased.

This is an article about war crimes committed by the U.S. Any number of possible war crimes that might have been committed by the U.S. are a completely different issue. That's why they belong in a different section.

It is not more readable to have bona fide war crimes mixed in with the accusations that various groups would be making regardless whether or not a real war crime had occurred. That makes the known war crimes harder to find. The point may come when they'll be almost impossible to find.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to come here from RfC, but in the meantime, why don't you compare WP:STRUCTURE's statement details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false with your statement bona fide war crimes mixed in with the accusations that various groups would be making regardless whether or not a real war crime had occurred. ... and again, you don't get to determine what is a "bona fide" war crime. We should neutrally report what reliable sources have to say about it, giving attribution to statements of opinion, and ensuring that we give due weight to each of them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC on sections

Should the sections be broken up into "judicial vs. non-judicial", and each event discussed in two separate places, or should we discuss each event in one place (adhering to WP:STRUCTURE) and follow Wikipedia content guidelines to ensure that it is clear when something went to court, and when it didn't. (See discussion in parent section for explanation) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the article needs some common sense structured into it, i.e; "war crimes committed by the united states" should mean events that saw due process by an entity which had jurisprudence over such allegations, found the allegations had merit, and due process found the participants guilty as charged.

You are suggesting any allegations of a "war crime" found in something that passes wiki standards for reference, can be included in this page, no matter how baseless or frivolous and as such was not recognized by any court with the power to judge them as such- in a section entitled "non-judicial"?

I suggest, and I think other editors will concurr, that you create a new article with this content, entitled "alleged/accusations of/people's opinions of what constituted(pick one) war crimes by the united states" rather than give witch hunts validation on this page.

You DO understand that just because someone accuses someone of committing a crime, this is not a determination as such and is merely an allegation? Never mind many of the accusers are completely ignorant of what a war crime actually is- for instance John Kerry in the '70's testified he committed war crimes, when challenged later he could only detail that he used a .50 caliber machine gun, and "served in a free fire zone". NOT war crimes, though his testimony itself was probably a crime, I would allege.

At this point the article is basically bullshytye. (to that end I'm removing the Nagasaki/Hiroshima issue, I raised the matter here first, see above) There shouldn't be anything in there that didn't see due process. However your adherence to wiki guidelines in requesting comment is duly noted and appreciated, and I think the content you wish to preserve does have a place, it just doesn't fit in the article as titled.Batvette (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are suggesting any allegations of a "war crime" found in something that passes wiki standards for reference, can be included in this page -- Yes
• no matter how baseless or frivolous -- If it's baseless or frivolous, it probably won't pass the standards, and if it does pass the standards and is frivolous or baseless, there is probably a reliable source that has refuted the allegation. If we can only find reliable sources that make the allegation, and nothing that refutes it, then according to Wikipedia policy we should keep it in, no matter how baseless we think it is, per WP:V.
• You DO understand that just because someone accuses someone of committing a crime, this is not a determination as such and is merely an allegation? -- Yes I do, as you'll see from my numerous responses to this same question above.
• Never mind many of the accusers are completely ignorant of what a war crime actually is- for instance John Kerry -- Your example is not at all apt. I am not talking about using celebrity personalities, and insinuating that I was is dishonest. I am talking about using respected scholars and international organizations.
• At this point the article is basically bullshytye. -- I agree, but for different reasons. I believe it is mostly crap because a certain group of zealous editors have so far presented the immense amount of scholarship on this issue from being included, on the tenuous ground that scholarly work isn't a judicial proceeding (nevermind that the United States either dominates international legal bodies and chooses not to involve itself with judicial proceedings ...) This article will only cease being "bullshytye" when we adhere to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and include the large body of scholarship on war crimes and the United States (I would be fine renaming the article to War crimes and the United States where we can discuss both the United States general refusal to submit to international courts, allegations of war crimes, and judicial proceedings all in one article.
• to that end I'm removing the Nagasaki/Hiroshima issue -- Claiming that an article is "bullshyte" is not means for removal of reliably sourced content. Can you explain why you removed this content? What I would have done is moved it to the judicial proceedings section, since it was a judicial proceeding, and is backed by reliable sources.
• it just doesn't fit in the article as titled ... There shouldn't be anything in there that didn't see due process -- I think it is important to consider that the United States refuses to submit to due process, and controls the organizations that are in charge of "the process". I agree with you that this is a fundamental issue, and I think it would probably be best resolved renaming the article to War crimes and the United States, where we can discuss this lack of accountability, allegations of war crimes (from high-quality sources, not from John Kerry et al.), and crimes where the United States has chosen to submit to an international court. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. I agree with the previous comment from Batvette. Parsing these accusations into "judicial" and "nonjudicial" would not address the more fundamental issues that this article has. Figureofnine (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'd have to agree. I would have preferred a place where we could have separated out discussion of war crimes from a historical perspective (non-judicial). Alas, if editors refuse to clearly delineat academic discussion of potential war crimes and actual war crime cases in the basic structure of this article then content needs to be moved elsewhere. Preferably to the parent articles of the specific incidents or conflicts. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into the probable minefield (excuse the unfortunate metaphor) of issues there probably are here, my feeling is that the "judicial"/"non-judicial" distinction might be inappropriate due to being a novel suggestion. Do comparable articles about other countries make a similar distinction? --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Without a judicial distinction we open it up to every left-wing, right-wing, and religious extremist making claims about U.S. policy. That would drown out the real war crimes. We'll have charges from groups that condone the use of children as human shields. Readers won't be able to find the real ones among all that mess.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Without a judicial distinction -- Nobody has suggested that there be no distinction between judicial and non-judicial allegations of war crimes. Judicial proceedings will be distinguishable from non-judicial allegations, as long as we follow Wikipedia content and sourcing guidelines. The text discussing judicial proceedings will look something like "Event X caused the U.S. to be charged in court Y, which resulted in Z". Non-judicial allegations will read something like "Professor X said that event Y constituted a war crime for reasons A, B, and C." There is no implication that Professor X is a court of law, and thus there is no grounds for claiming that readers will be confused into thinking that he is an international court. Again, per WP:STRUCTURE, we make the distinction in the text, not in the structure of the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• That would drown out the real war crimes....Readers won't be able to find the real ones among all that mess. -- We'll determine what are "war crimes" by looking to reliable sources, neutrally presenting their findings, and attributing statements of opinion. Our opinions about which war crimes are "real" are irrelevant. It's what reliable sources have to say that matters. Readers will find whatever reliable sources have to say about the matter.
• We'll have charges from groups that condone the use of children as human shields -- If organizations that "condone the use of children as human shields" (whatever that means) are considered reliable per WP:RS and WP:V, then yes, they will be included. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Without a judicial distinction we open it up to every left-wing, right-wing, and religious extremist making claims about U.S. policy."

The normal policy is to consider whether those views are notable and how significant they are and then report them accordingly. What we don't normally do is design a special standard for a given article in order to exclude views which would be ordinarily be included. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a special standard for political view. It was a BLP-like restraint.

I do agree that, if we're going to discard the judicial standard then there are no bounds by either viewpoint direction or extremism. The words of anyone notable then belong here. Just don't expect readers to take this article seriously once its filled out.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If reader's don't take it seriously, that's their own prerogative -- but we are going to follow Wikipedia content guidelines, regardless. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The content guidelines worked either way. Before, we had reliable sources that legal authorities determined that war crimes were committed.

Now, we have reliable sources that some people had accused the U.S. of war crimes.

I don't know why we don't just merge it with United States and state terrorism. It's now basically the same thing, and no one takes that one seriously either.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the former state of affairs was not in line with policy -- it was in clear violation of WP:STRUCTURE.

And, on a side note, this article is not the same thing as United States and state terrorism. A moment's thought will help you see the obvious difference between the two pages. (Hint: one is about war crimes and the other is about state terrorism).

Anyhow, it seems that this conversation is going nowhere, unless someone else wants to come in from RfC. It seems to me that all serious concerns (I'm not counting concerns about "extremists who use children as human shields" amongst these) have been addressed, and we can get on with working on the article, unless someone else wants to come in from RfC with new input. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why the article has been renamed to facilitate the widening of scope? Above you stated- Assuming that the article list of people who committed treason did exist, yes I would support adding anything from a reliable/verifiable/notable source that says that a person committed treason. But the article doesn't exist (for good reason), and is thus not relevant. Why do you differentiate the two? The alleged crimes were committed by people, not "the US", as most of the events (save Hiroshima) were not official policy. I might further note your remark toward another editor that he should have obviously known the topical difference between this article and state terrorism leads me to believe you've never even read that article. Or perhaps there are two different Atomic_bombings_of_Japan and this is one I didn't know about? I think he's making the same point I am, that including things called "crimes" just because someone says so and we can find a reference on it, diminishes the severity of events that saw due process, and the renaming of the article to include this diminishes its legitimacy as well. Too often by the time it goes from the reference to the article the context becomes altered to suggest legitimacy, as well. For instance the Hiroshima court case, which I edited but need to rewrite it better- that court did not have the matter of the legality of the bombings before it, just the claims made by the five survivors. Yet it was written exactly that it did and that is misleading, their statement was simply a comment made in addition to their ruling on the survivors' claims. Finally a note about your position on the US refusal to have our soldiers prosecuted by international courts at this time- the specific rationale, and there was good reason at the time, was to preclude the undue pursuit of prosecution on frivolous matters by individuals or entities intent on enforcing their anti-war views in the international arena. In other words not playing politics abusing a legal system at the expense of individual soldiers. In the instances where crimes were committed, people were tried under the UCMJ, it's disingenuous to imply we aren't holding our personnel accountable for their actions.Batvette (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why the article has been renamed to facilitate the widening of scope -- For several reasons, all of which have been discussed above. The primary reason is that the old name was continuously causing arguments where certain editors would claim that nothing that had not gone through one of the international courts (which the U.S. doesn't submit to), could be included in the article. They could not wrap their heads around the concept that an allegation, attributed as opinion, being in an article named War crimes committed by the United States does not automatically imply that it was an "official" proceeding that determined that a war crime was committed. They felt that the title would somehow cause people to think that if we said "Professor X said Y was a war crime" that readers would think that this meant that an international court had found it to be a war crime. There was never a rational explanation given for how readers might get confused like this, but nevertheless, people here were terribly worried about it, even though they didn't really know why. This argument has continuously plagued this page and prevented any work from getting done on it. The new title still keeps the content of the old in scope, but removes any worries that the title will confuse people, and will let everybody get on with adding information to the article.

I might further note your remark toward another editor that he should have obviously known the topical difference between this article and state terrorism leads me to believe you've never even read that article. Or perhaps there are two different Atomic_bombings_of_Japan and this is one I didn't know about? -- I have read it, and I've done a good bit of work on it as well. Your argument is fallacious. An event can be looked at from multiple perspectives -- some things fit into more than two categories. For example, I might kidnap and murder someone, and then I could be discussed in an article on kidnappers AND an article on murderers. Likewise there are certain aspects of the atomic bombings of Japan that constitute terrorism. There are other aspects of it that constitute war crimes. In United States and state terrorism, we focus on those aspects of the bombings which reliable sources consider to be characteristic of state terrorism. In War crimes and the United States, we discuss those aspects of the bombings which reliable sources consider to be characteristic of war crimes. Simple concept.

I think he's making the same point I am, that including things called "crimes" just because someone says so and we can find a reference on it, diminishes the severity of events that saw due process, and the renaming of the article to include this diminishes its legitimacy as well. -- Whatever you think personally about if things are "diminished" by inclusion of non-judicial allegations, is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This is why Wikipedia has guidelines to include content that is not based on the personal viewpoints of certain editors. We'll determine what to include by looking to reliable sources, neutrally presenting their findings, and attributing statements of opinion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think personally about if things are "diminished" by inclusion of non-judicial allegations, is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

Kindly save the feigned posturing as an authority representing the interests of Wikipedia, my comment has direct relevance toward the quality of the article. Don't pretend that ensuring actual war crimes as defined by written international agreements, and determined true by judicial process as also defined in those agreements and not frivolous accusations driven by political opportunism appearing in this article is my POV. This seems to be a recurring theme of yours in the comments of this page, standing on wiki policy with the appearance of NPOV, yet with this statement- If a source that meets the criteria set out in WP:Reliable says that an act committed by the U.S. is a war crime, then that should be included in this article. you give evidence you are trying to use this article as a soapbox to promote your own POV, since you don't seem at all interested in looking for sources that state that those acts were not war crimes. To be precise, you seem intent on using this article to promote that the United States prolifically commits war crimes, and include anyone's fringe view that contributes to this POV, ignoring the importance of due process as the only form of balance in the matter. There are not going to be sources declaring The United States has never committed a War Crime to present NPOV balance to sources stating such and such is a war crime. So you have to describe how you are not yourself pushing your POV if you wish to include anyone's allegation of War Crimes yet seem uninterested in the due process of determining guilt of the parties involved- and don't pretend that the recent abstinence from ICC proceedings by the US is applicable to anything but events since.Batvette (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Kindly save the feigned posturing as an authority representing the interests of Wikipedia, my comment has direct relevance toward the quality of the article. -- I'm not feigning or posturing. There is nothing in the Wikipedia content guidelines that supports your viewpoint, and thus it is merely a matter of personal preference, which is irrelevant.
• Don't pretend that ensuring actual war crimes as defined by written international agreements, and determined true by judicial process as also defined in those agreements and not frivolous accusations driven by political opportunism appearing in this article is my POV. -- This sentence is not really clear -- could you elaborate?
• This seems to be a recurring theme of yours in the comments of this page, standing on wiki policy with the appearance of NPOV, -- Yes, supporting adherence to Wikipedia policy is a recurring theme of mine.
• yet with this statement- If a source that meets the criteria set out in WP:Reliable says that an act committed by the U.S. is a war crime, then that should be included in this article. you give evidence you are trying to use this article as a soapbox to promote your own POV, -- How is claiming that we should follow Wikipedia content guidelines "evidence" that I am soapboxing or trying to promote my POV?
• since you don't seem at all interested in looking for sources that state that those acts were not war crimes. -- Actually, I've suggested several times to other editors that if they disagree with something or feel that it is imbalanced that they go and find reliable sources claiming that the acts in question were not war crimes.
• you seem intent on using this article to promote that the United States prolifically commits war crimes, and include anyone's fringe view that contributes to this POV -- I am intent on going through reliable sources and finding anything related to the topic of this article, and including it in the article in a neutral tone, with citations and attribution. I have not suggested that "anyone's fringe view" be included. In order to show that something is "fringe", you don't just get to label it as such. You have to demonstrate this with reliable sources making a contradictory claim.
• ignoring the importance of due process as the only form of balance in the matter. -- That's your opinion. The opinion of the Wikipedia community is that the way we balance things out is by finding out what the reliable sources have to say on the matter, presenting them in a neutral tone, giving them due weight, and attributing statements of opinion. What you are calling "due process", should be mentioned wherever reliable sources mention it, along with what reliable sources have to say that falls outside of this "due process". --Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanted to expand on my previous comment in response to the RfC. Coming into this cold, what struck me was what a potential POV pit this article could be, and how strangely it seems to be selecting alleged "war crimes." There is no mention made of the recently revealed killings of civilians in Korea, the Massacre at Wounded Knee, other crimes against Indians, or crimes against prisoners of war on both sides during the Civil War. These are the most glaring and historically accepted instances of U.S. war crimes that come immediately to mind. Instead we have an overweighting of World War II, with the Dachau Massacre and some scholar's wacky view that U.S. actions in Germany after the war constituted a war crime. While there is a mention of the a-bombings in World War II, without perspective on why it was necessary, there is no mention made of the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden. My personal view is that these were not war crimes, but there are allegations of same that need to be given mention. Both sides of the story need to be given in every instance. For example, it needs to be explained that not bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have resulted in even more deadly invasions of mainland Japan. In general this is an unbalanced, selective, incomplete and POV article. Figureofnine (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Do not separate While the article should clearly state the outcomes of each allegation of war crimes, there is no reason to group them by outcomes. I agree that there is POV in the article but that is not the way to address it. For example, the Yugoslavia section states that Amnesty International claimed that the U. S. committed war crimes in Yugoslavia. However it does not state whether this is a consensus, majority, minority or fringe view. Unless it is a consensus view, other mainstream views should also be presented. If it is a consensus view, there may be mitigating circumstances that should be reported. BTW the phrasing of the RfC question is confusing. It should state the difference between "judicial" and "non-judicial". TFD (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

An example of frivolous allegations used for politics

From one of the cited sources in the article, der spiegel summarized its accusations against Donald Rumsfeld as follows-

And damning documents show torture was condoned by the top levels of the US administration.

A Dec. 2, 2002 memorandum sanctions interrogation techniques including subjecting prisoners to so-called "stress positions" such as forcing them to stand for hours, placing them in solitary confinement for up to 30 days, forcibly undressing them and taking advantage of their "individual phobias" such as their fear of dogs. The memorandum was revoked after a few months, due to legal concerns, and was followed by new memoranda. Then the picture of the US soldier Lynndie England holding a dog's leash around the neck of a prisoner lying on the floor hit the world's media.

Not sure that any of those are actual war crimes, but even if they are it is clear after review they reflected on their own policies and rescinded their own orders.

and adds this-

Michael Ratner, Kaleck's client from the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, believes that if Germany does nothing again this time, then it will look as if the US can get away with anything. Ratner, who is himself a lawyer, has decided to press charges in Germany because he believes the Germans will refuse to let themselves be "pushed around" by the United States.

Can you explain how this is not pushing political views through frivolous accusations? More toward an ignored point, do you think the German POW's that were unceremoniously gunned down in cold blood during WW2 would like to see their deaths reported to the world in the same light as a guy who had the horror of being photographed with a female holding a dog leash around his neck? This is the inherent problem of seeing allegations from anyone who feels something can be called a war crime on the same page as actions officially determined as such. They all become a joke, something to not be taken seriously at all, which should be said of anyone who declares being made to pose for a photograph, with a dog leash on your neck held by a female-only degrading to you because your country and culture abuses and neglects dogs to starve to death in the streets,Dogs are unclean and treats women not much better-to punish them for raping 15 year old boys and starting riots-Washington Post constitutes a war crime. Batvette (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Murder and assault are both crimes. TFD (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly Orwellian how this article's title and standards were quickly changed over the weekend, perhaps even in the dark of night. Once it's been changed, the real definition of a war crime doesn't matter anymore.

It doesn't matter that there's no chance that Michael Ratner really cares about war crimes. The article is now about accusations, not reality. And the reality is, the extremists make a lot of accusations. We can't pick and choose which charges we include, and which ones we don't.

The funny thing is, I was the one who added the part about Ratner's case being thrown out. Without it, I suspect the charge would have stood alone as "evidence" of "war crimes" for a long time. It might have been better to leave it that way as a subtle signal to readers.

The article's focus shouldn't have been changed. Now that it's open to any extremist with any frivolous charge, we're better off letting them all in.

And TFD, there's a difference between a crime and a war crime. The people who wrote the Geneva Conventions understood what war is about, and they truly sought to end war crimes, not to encourage them.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Geneva conventions consider violence to person, cruel treatment, outrages upon dersonal dignity and humiliating and degrading treatment to be crimes. So is detaining people without providing them with either the rights of prisoners of war or the rights of criminal suspects. BTW what is your definition of "extremist"? It seems to differ from how the term is commonly understood. TFD (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD -- Randy2063 has a serious problem understanding the concept of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OR. Please don't egg him on.

Yes, TFD, those things are against the Geneva Conventions, but only "grave breaches" are war crimes. It does not include mere "outrages to personal dignity."

No, there's nothing wrong with detaining people who aren't technically POWs. The GCs themselves do allow for detaining people without providing them with either the rights of prisoners of war or the rights of criminal suspects. Even if this was a war where the entire Geneva Conventions were thought to apply, the 4thGC only asks that the rights of security detainees be restored "at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power..."

There's more, of course, but that's the gist.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy2063, as I've told you at least half a dozen times, Wikipedia is not a forum. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not the place to argue about your own political opinions and original research. Please stop wasting everyone's time. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If people are trying to expand the definition of a war crime then it's important to point out Reliable Sources that say what it is.

That's okay, though. I'm heading out until I figure out how to approach an article with a radically altered basis.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, there are many ways people use and abuse wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their POV. One, as you seem intent on everyone seeing Randy2063 is "guilty" of, is editors discussing articles on talk pages and how their POV interprets the issues within. Another is users steadfastly declaring they are the bastion of ensuring NPOV, hiding behind wikispeak rather than discuss legitimate problems with articles they've edited, and filling those articles with content that clearly only represents their POV.

In your case, after reviewing many of the edits you were adding content to the article in back in 2009, which can only be called sensationalist and irresponsible- such as this-

In November 2005, a squad of U.S. Marines in Haditha shot more than two dozen civilians, who did nothing to provoke the attacks. This event is commonly called the Haditha Massacre.

Which, while I actually agree was a war crime, misrepresents the event by failing to note a squad member had just been killed by an IED that ripped his vehicle in half and IEDs are often remotely triggered by line of sight-(thus the Marines, while violating ROE in shooting unarmed civilians, cannot be said to have not been provoked or not feel they were in danger) shows you are quite obviously here to push your POV, selectively presenting information from sources that meet wiki standards yet by the time they reach the page they show only part of the story.

I'm inclined to comment Randy's tactics at least display candid honesty and a willingness to work with other editors before altering the content of the article, hashing it out on the talk page first.

The rule at wikipedia is this- "never, ever, ever allow your edits to be influenced by POV unless absolutely necessary- which is all of the time- then say they aren't" Joke. Lighten up, though, you aren't fooling anyone, we all have POV here or we wouldn't waste our time on subjects we had no interest in.

Batvette (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We should restrict sources to those that discuss whether events like this were war crimes. Otherwise the article is merely original research promoting a political point of view. I notice in the article too there does not seem to be any distinction between alleged war crimes committed by the U. S. government and war crimes committed by individuals. The issue of how the U. S. armed forces have treated war crimes, whether they have been quick or hesitant, should be explained. TFD (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree with you on all points. If the sources are not alleging that certain acts constituted "war crimes", "crimes of war", "violations of the laws of war", etc. -- then they should not be included per WP:OR. If we are properly following content guidelines, I think this will require us to describe the reaction of the U.S. government. I also agree, that it should always be clear exactly who is being charged with a war crime. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do see that my wording, more than a year ago, regarding the Haditha massacre was inappropriate (not only that, but I didn't provide reliable sources claiming that it was a war crime, which constitutes original research on my part). I am aware that I have made POV comments in the past on this talk page (and others) in the past, and have improperly added information to the article. In fact, a year ago a large portion of my edits were unbalanced and inappropriate, and I regularly came on talk pages to argue with Randy and others about my own personal point of view. The key difference between myself and Randy2063 is that, in the year that has passed since then, I have stopped using talk pages primarily as a platform to argue my POV, have started gathering reliable sources that back the information I am including, and now focus primarily on policy-related discussions instead of debating politics with people -- Randy has not. I have learned from my mistakes (with the help of other editors who pointed them out to me). Randy2063 has not. He has not shown any sign of improvement in any of the abovementioned areas. Randy2063 consistently gets into lengthy debates with people about "baby-killing extremists". He suggests no improvements, and does not back his claims with reliable sources. I don't see anything hypocritical or contradictory about myself pointing this out to him, regardless of the fact that I have done so in the past. I've learned as I've gained more experience as an editor, and he should as well.

I'm inclined to comment Randy's tactics at least display candid honesty and a willingness to work with other editors -- I'm inclined to comment that they don't. He has contributed nothing to the article, and has instead spent all of his time here on the talk page in lengthy historical/political debates with other editors.

Another is users steadfastly declaring they are the bastion of ensuring NPOV, hiding behind wikispeak -- Neither I, nor anyone else, has done this. As I said above, I have not "declared I am a bastion of NPOV". What I have done is pointed out that Randy2063 does absolutely nothing but argue with other editors about his own POV and refuses to provide suggestions for improvement, or to find reliable sources to back his claims. This is a waste of time, and prevents the article from being improved, and is a violation of Wikipedia talk page guidelines. You can call this "hiding behind Wikispeak", but it's the way Wikipedia works. It was wrong when I used to do it, and it's wrong when Randy2063 does it now. He needs to stop.

rather than discuss legitimate problems with articles they've edited, and filling those articles with content that clearly only represents their POV. -- Actually, I've discussed several legitimate problems with the article, including the section structure, the title, and original research issues. I've remedied this by adding information and reliable sources to the article, removing original research, restructuring the article to deal with violations of WP:STRUCTURE, and have filed an RfC to promote collaboration and article improvement instead of getting sucked into another lengthy argument with Randy2063. If you feel that the information I am including is somehow imbalanced, that's fine -- go ahead and provide reliable sources which discuss war crimes and the United States, which you feel balance out the article.

we all have POV here or we wouldn't waste our time on subjects we had no interest in. -- And nowhere did I claim that I don't have a POV, or that my edits to the encyclopedia often reflect it. I try to minimize the effect my POV has on my editing, but I'm sure it comes through anyway. But that's not what I'm talking about with Randy2063. I'm not trying to suggest that he shouldn't have a POV. I'm suggesting that he stop coming onto talk pages, and in violation of talk page guidelines, get into lengthy political debates with people, trying to convince them that his POV is "correct". All I am asking is that he stops the political debates, stops doing original research, and starts suggesting improvements to the article, backed by reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that was a mature and constructive reply to my concerns and to someone's credit the "sensationalist and irresponsible" content isn't in the article anyway at the moment- but perhaps that is due to Randy's continued presence to counter it, though other editors have been involved on both sides.

Even though I highly frown on editors looking at other editor's user pages to glean talking points in an argument it still provides a tool of insight on that person's position, and yours does undeniably suggest what I stated, i,e; a so called "bastion of NPOV". I won't beleaguer the point or single you out for it however as this remains a major fault at wikipedia, the absurdity anyone would spend significant amounts of their time in these tug of wars over slants in content presentation if they didn't have ideological motivations.(noting you have a commendable record of contributions, and I'm not trying to be a dick here)

Reviewing Randy's side of the exchanges reveals you do have a point that he is willing to discuss issues more than the wiki standards, but it usually started with an issue that appeared in the article so he's not wholly irrelevant-ignoring his frequent metaphors and addressing the underlying points can only make you look better.

Now toward the article, there's going to be inherent problems with NPOV if we pursue the idea that any content which:

(1)raises the issue of the US and war crimes

and

(2)is from a reliable source

should be included, simply because it is not newsworthy for media to run content stating "today in Iraq, no war crimes were committed" or even publicly note that charges were dropped if unwarranted in the allegations previously made. So opening the scope of the article beyond events that were given SOME form of due process only seeks to present a POV of the US military's activities in a negative light. The media has little interest in presenting NPOV in this matter, and typically reports in a sensationalized manner. Encyclopedias however have more responsibility in their content and that's why simply finding stuff sourced in media, compiling that and that's the only standard to adhere to is problematic. This as I see it is the issue that needs resolving or there will be continued editing conflicts. Batvette (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Geneva conventions consider violence to person, cruel treatment, outrages upon dersonal dignity and humiliating and degrading treatment to be crimes.

Geneva, interpreted literally by wording, cannot take into account that the reason the Iraqi in the photo feels degraded is because of his own culture's deplorable treatment of dogs and women which are many degrees lower on the scale of humanity than his own degradation as depicted.

(it might be noted that the very reason these photos were taken in most instances was to exploit their cultural peculiarities and avoid us having to commit war crimes to punish the detainees for raping minors, throwing rocks at guards and starting riots- as the WaPo source confirms- though I can also find sources that claim the soldiers were bored and did it for fun. The latter explanation sells more copy, and perhaps explains why Sy Hersh mysteriously abandoned his early pursuit of the "copper green" angle)Batvette (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We avoid POV by basing the article on high quality sources (peer-reviewed articles and books from academic publishers) rather than the media. I notice that there is no mention in the article of the Lieber Code 1863 that codified war crimes for the U. S. armed forces, nor any mention of Henry Wirz, who was tried in 1865 for war crimes, a trial which became a model for the Nuremburg trials. Both of these btw show the U. S. government in a favorable light. TFD (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

When editors complain about events of 145 years ago being controversial, your assessment would be accurate and relevant. Please do not assume I cannot go look at the article as Jrtayloriv is adding to it and note that virtually every reference used in the sections sure to cause controversy, notably the war on terror section, is in fact a "media" piece, not academia or peer reviewed. Many are even from sources with obvious political bias.

I'm not stupid, please don't assume I am.Batvette (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were. TFD (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps a demonstration of NPOV by questioning why the recently added material is not up to the standards you described?Batvette (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The new section is poorly sourced and POV. TFD (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I added in Michael Ignatieff's defense of the Bush administration (published by the Princeton University Press) for balance. Ignatieff has said that Bush has done more to promote freedom in the world than any other U.S. president. TFD (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F 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

War crimes and the United States → American war crimes — 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#Requested move. 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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 [3] 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)

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)