Talk:List of war crimes

This page is filled with uncited claims and POV, emotionally charged language. Almost everything after the 2nd world war should be rewritten --Heatsketch (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Where the hell is the first world war??

Why isn't it included in this article? −−84.129.167.183 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KGB and Katyń?

Well, KGB didn't exist in 1939, so how come it is stated as responsible for Katyń Massacre? I think it was NKVD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.87.104.117 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Corrected.--Caranorn 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dachau

Were members SS-Totenkopfverbände POWs or rather arrested criminals?Xx236 11:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to, but I'd think POW, at least until they were put on trial individually.--Caranorn 12:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Heinrick Himmler was classed as a POW untill identified, then only a criminal when he was to be charged. Enlil Ninlil 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Atomic bombing of Japan

see /Archive 1#nuclear

How come the atomic bombing of Japan is not list as war crime. The bombings were targeting civilians. ClaudioMB 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would say it must be there as this would be classed as a war crime, even then. Enlil Ninlil 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they should be included. Emiwee 23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What was the specific war crime that was broken when the A-bomb was dropped? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Directing attacks against civilians as part of an international conflict (See War Crime, Definition) ClaudioMB 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also take a look at the "Laws of War :

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907", SECTION II, CHAPTER I. [1] ClaudioMB 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, but it is not generally accepted for see Aerial area bombardment and international law. The best source for the "it was a war cime" is the Japanese judicial review of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State. The judges made a case for the attacks being outside the laws of war BUT basing their arguments on the 1923 Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare while ignoring the later Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938 (where a defended city was defined) draws into question the usefulness of the judgement, which is not widly quoted as a precedent under interntional law (for example AFAICT the 1996 ICJ advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons did not quote its findings as a precedent). --Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Article Five of the convention you cite, when military targets "are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment." Clearly this prohibition applies to the nuclear attacks; also, this applies only if there are legitimate military targets, which is certainly questionable in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If no such targets existed, any attack - much less one that incinerated tens of thousands of civilians (at least) - would be prohibited. Please advise as to pre-existing legal conventions that allow for attacking military targets indistinguishable from civilian populations. --Caz3773 9:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Both draft treaties were not positive international law, they are only indicative of the the way international lawyers were thinking at that time, further because there was no positive international law in this area, the concepts of military necessity, distinction and proportionality as existed in 1945 come into play. As I said there is a section specifically on the lack of law in (aerial area bombardment and international law). There is also an bullet point entry in Allied war crimes which might be suitable for this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed you question "Please advise as to pre-existing legal conventions that allow for attacking military targets indistinguishable from civilian populations.". International humaniterian law does not work that way, IHL trys to remove the worst excesses of war throught outlawing certain actions throught treaties known as "positive international law". So the question needs to be rephrased "Please advise as to pre-existing legal conventions that disallow for attacking military targets indistinguishable from civilian populations." As Guisández Gómez writes "In examining [Anti-city strategy/blitz] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war."[2] See also wikisource:Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State: "While indiscriminate bombing of a defended city or a defended area is permissible, in regard to an undefended city or an undefended area only bombardment directed at combatants and military installations (military objectives) and not against non-combatants and non-military installations (non-military objectives) is permissible." Also Frederick Taylor Dresden Tuesday 13 February 1945; Page 117 "Coventry ... was therefore, in terms of what little law existed on the subject, a legitimate target for aerial bombing". --Philip Baird Shearer 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, etc?

As with the above debate regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I see little to distinguish indiscriminate and massive aerial bombing of civilian populations with conventional weapons (which probably killed more in Tokyo than the atomic weapon at Hiroshima) from other war crimes mentioned here. In the case of U.S. bombings of Japan, the record of planning and calculation on the part of Curtis LeMay and his staff to maximize civilian losses in both life and property is plentiful. --Caz3773 9:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• This whole 'nuclear bombing as war crime' argument does not really have any merit, at least not if you follow the laws of the day. I mean for goodness sake, most of the major cities of Europe where bombed and/or fire-bombed during WW2. In this day and age, those aerial bombardments would be considered war crimes, but they were not at the time.--76.104.136.71 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually under the Geneva conventions 1925, Articles 46, 50, 52, and 56 of The Hague Convention of 1907, all destruction of buildings and deliberate killing of civilians was a crime, but as both sides are guilty, a prosecution by the victor of the defeated would not look really good for the U.S and its allies, so none took place, like the unlimited submarine warfare which wasnt prosecuted because of this. Enlil Ninlil 05:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Geneva 1925 was a "protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare" Nothing specifically to do with aerial bombardment. International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an advisory opinion on the "legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons". This made it clear, in paragraphs 54, 55 and 56, that international law on poisonous weapons, – the Second Hague Declaration of 29 July 1899,Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 and the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 – did not cover nuclear weapons, because their prime or exclusive use was not to poison or asphyxiate. I persume when you say Hague that you mean "Hague IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land". In which case the articles you have mentioned are to do with the treatment of occupied territory (Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army), not enemy territory under enemy control. See Aerial area bombardment and international law for an analyis of international law and aerial bombardment during World War II --Philip Baird Shearer 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Karl Dönitz was tried for "unlimited submarine warfare" because it broke positive international law (1936 Naval Protocol). He was found guilty of breaches to international law by initiating unrestricted submarine warfare, but he received no additional time in prison for this crime as the court was presented with evidence that the UK and the US issued similar orders. There is a book just published (Patrick Bishop "Bomber Boys: Fighting back 1940-45") that apparently examines the reasons why Hugo Sperrle was not tried for war crimes for his part in the the Blitz which might indicate if it was primarily legal decision (no positive international law) or a political one (Don't want Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay on trial). --Philip Baird Shearer 10:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How was this a war crime when the vast majority of Japanese citizens were prepared to fight the Allied landings to the death? Is it a war crime to bomb soldiers before they are fully trained?

They would have been shot while attacking Allied troops anyway, and those not shot would have killed themselves. - Sum guy

Funny Argument. So I can go and kill all the Babys in an enimy country. Some day they will be soldiers, or will have baybies that could be Soldiers! Great!--WerWil 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Stupid comment, theres a clear difference between killing babies and killing people who are planning on killing you. Ps, you cant spell.

Salina, Utah POW massacre

Dresden is not included but the Salina, Utah POW massacre is? The POW massacre was carried out by one nutter......it was not part of a program, it was not ordered by anyone, and it was stopped by other US personnel immediately. That was not a war crime that can be ascribed to the "US" in any way, it was one dude. The decision on what to include and what to exclude seems a little flaky here. Take off Salina and add Dresden maybe?

"Alleged" crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina

Dragon of Bosnia, why have you done this [3], with coment "also alleged war crimes with no verification in court record, nor precise information about perpetators"?
What does that mean? If somebody commited the crime, but noone was processed for that in front of the tribunals, than "it's not verified"?
ICTY is established for processing of war crimes. Don't mix things. A person is innocent untill proven guilty, but war crime is always a war crime. Kubura 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and it means that Ivica Mlivoncic's testimony (you quote him) was discarded as irrelevant by ICTY. You have to show me court validation, if the war crime is a war crime. This is still encyclopedia not forum. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For instance, you wrote that Dusina massacre was Killing of 10 Croat civilians by Bosnian Muslim and mujahedeen forces, which is false. The court concluded that not even one Croat civilian was killed, but a Serb one. It was also place of battle, not site of massacre as presented by Ivica Mlivoncic in his book which was discarded in ICTY. For instance in his book he even used Bosniaks killed in Doljani and Sovići on April 18, 1993 and presented them as Croat civilians?! The Dragon of Bosnia 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ICTY also said that there was no genocide in Srebrenica, wright? And you agree with that? Like here [4] (your comment was "Srebrenica Genocide Stone - To remember genocide")? You deny the victims of war crimes of other peoples, but you're pushing other games about ICTY here, when your people is concerned. Many disagree with many things of ICTY's work, but it's an UN organisation, and we have to respect it. Drugiman tiraš mak na konac sa igraman riči i pravnin p*jama, izmotavaš stvari na razne načine, a kad se radi o tvomen narodu, onda nima veze šta je ICTY reka za Srebrenicu? That's not OK. Ne omalovažavaj tuđu tragediju. Nije to u redu. Kubura 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What? You are wrong. In three case, Srebrenica massacre was defined as genocide (Krstić case, Blagojević case - ICTY, and ICJ case Bosni v Sebia). I don't deny anything, I just want that you verify the thesis (which are 90% discarded by ICTY) read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It says: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Such is a case with the book by I.M. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what they were telling on the Bosnian FTV, when commenting the verdict? About the world without justice? Kubura 08:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wright, Dragon.. ICTY said it was genocide in Srebrenica, but also said that Serbia wasn't guilty for that [5]. My sarcastical comparison was supposed to be pointed out towards that ICTY's proclaiming someone "not guilty" in Srebrenica case, not towards denying of genocide in Srebrenica (I never wanted to deny it). I completely disagree with that ICTY's releasing of guilt; note my message "Thousands of Bos. Muslims killed, and not a genocide? Well, ICTY said it's not." (one more apology, to avoid misunderstandings: missing "s" for plural in "Thousand of ..." was a typo; it should stay "thousands" - I've corrected it now). I wanted to compare that decision in Srebrenica case (thousands of persons) with the decision regarding cases of killed Bos. Croat civilians and POW's (tens of persons by massacre), to show that theirs decisions aren't the most perfect ones. Unfortunately, I was faster typer here, and I wrote incorrect information. My apologies to you and to all others. They were unintentional. I'll post this on your user talkpage also. Kubura 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You've removed following lines, so here I provide you some links:
Maljine and Bikoši massacre.
JUSTWATCH-L archives -- May 2004 (#916) from ICTY's Sense News Agency ([6]). "UNHCR investigated the crime in Maljine".
A former field officer of the UN Center for Human Rights (UNCHR) who had been gathering information about a mass execution of Croat prisoners near the village of Maljine testifies that the deputy commander of the BH Army 3rd Corps refused to facilitate his visit to the crime scene, rejecting the possibility that such a crime had occurred.
Are you the one that disrupt UNHCR's reports?

So where is the court validation? First of all you don't even use correct terms. You said Muslim army "Army of BH" which is incorrect term. Bosnian Army was the only legal army in Bosnia, recognized by UN. Your POV is your POV, but without verification. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bos. Muslim forces (Armija BiH) the only legal army in BiH? You're messing up things, but, leave that discussion for other talkpages. Be thankful to "illegal" HVO and Bosnian-Herzegovina Croats, that first organized the defense of Bosnia. Kubura 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can call it Alien army if you like, but by the international law it was the only legal army in Bosnia. Yes, HVO was illegal by decision of Bosnian Supreme Court (it was in Blaskic verdict conclusion). You have to learn what is POV and what is relaible.

Trusina massacre, Buhine Kuće massacre, Maljine and Bikoši.
Article in BH Dani Dusina, Buhine Kuće, Maline from August 10, 2001. Article in Bosniac language, by Bos. Muslim authors.

Again, there are so many newspaper reports, and those are not reliable sources, for instance, I can write tens of articles based on newspaper reports about war crimes comitted by Croats in Croatia on Serb civilians, in Osijek, even Vukovar, Dalmacija etc. But that is not the way encyclopedia works. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned Voice of America, not some junk-newspaper. Regarding events in Croatia... Mentioning of things from Croatia won't wash you up. You won't draw me away from writing articles about true events, where some members of Bos. Muslims armed forces (including mujahedins) commited war crimes over Croat civilians and POW's. Kubura 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And you didn't even read it. Even in your source, there is no verification for your claims. Not even one Croat civilian was killed, just a Serb one which is stated in the court decision. The Dragon of Bosnia 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's also the Voice of America article, in Croatian. U Hagu svjedočio preživjeli iz sela Dusina, from 2004-03-09.
is this enough? Do you think that I'm making up things?
I intentionally gave you no Croat source, neither from Croatia, neither from Bosnia and Herzegovina, nor from any other Croat media in the world. And there's a bunch of material in Croatian language. Kubura 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the conclusion about Dusina. As I said, there was no Croat civilian killed there. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that someone can torture and kill POW's like pigs and get away with it? Come on. Torturing and killing of POW's is also a war crime. ICTY is interested in those cases also. Kubura 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all about what people can or cannot do. It is about validation. I gave you example of Ivica Mlivoncic and the book that you use, in that book he wrote that in Sovici, on April 18, 1993 two Croats were killed by "Muslimanske postrojbe". But according to ICTY source: [7], "Herceg-Bosna/HVO forces set about a broad campaign of persecutions, military actions, arrests and expulsions to enforce their demands, with more than thirty attacks on Muslim towns and villages on 16-18 April 1993, including the attacks and atrocities in Ahmici on 16 April, in Sovici and Doljani on 17 April, and in Parcani, Lizoperci and Toscanica on 17-19 April. In the following days, between approximately 18 April and 23 April 1993, other Bosnian Muslim men were either captured by the Herceg-Bosna/HVO forces or surrendered. The HVO took a number of these men to the HVO headquarters located at a fish farm near Doljani. There, the Herceg-Bosna/HVO forces mistreated, abused, interrogated and tortured the men. The HVO executed some of the Muslim detainees". But Ivica in his book misused this and presented as Croats were victims. That's why his book and testimony was discarded in Blaskic case. Place of battle, soldiers that were killed in battle are also misused by book you quote and presented as civilians killed in massacre?! That is the reason why Halilovic, Delalic were released unlike Croats who were convicted of crimes against humanity. The Dragon of Bosnia 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Trusina massacre.
Here's a link from the site of Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. OHR BiH Media Round-up, 23-4-2006. Under section "war crimes". There're also pointing to media in Bosnia: RHB, BHT1, TV Hayat, FTV, RTRS, Oslobodjenje, Dnevni avaz. You've seen those newspapers or seen those TV stations. Don't behave like you don't know anything. Is that so hard to type the placename and see English texts? Kubura 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, this is the article about war crimes. You have first to distinguish law terms, as murder from war crime. I am a law student, so I know the difference. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now even the official site of the Governing body of BiH isn't good? You're POV-ing. Respect your legal organizations. What do you think, that OHR has no Legal affairs office, lawyers, judges etc.? Wikipedia is not a place to fight and argue with governing bodies. Otherwise, you're making "original research", posting "personal points of view" etc.. Kubura 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Governin body" is body consisted of politicians, not judges. The Dragon of Bosnia

Kazagići massacre.
For now, here're links in Croatian. Zločin s pečatom and from newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija Okrutni mudžahedini. In fact, there whole feuilleton about the crimes commited by some soldiers of Bos. Muslim forces (Armija BiH). Also The ABiH Probing Attack, January, 1993. In English. Kubura 13:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just telling you above about that book. It is Ivica Mlivocnic book, which was discarded in ICTY as irrelevant based on propaganda. You can read even his own reaction, his complaints, he thinks that the whole world is against Croats. His book is based on propaganda. Read my comments above. The Dragon of Bosnia 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can get how could you remove these lines: Uzdol massacre and Grabovica massacre?
ICTY links. Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilović. Session Tuesday, 15 July 2003. ICTY's Sense News Agency from 02.10.2006. (related to the crimes against Croat civilians in the villages of Grabovica and Uzdol). Trial Watch Sefer Halilovic . Kubura 14:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As you probably read the verdict, Halilovic was found innocent as well as Army of BH as an institution. Those two were not massacres committed by Army as you wrote, or ordered by Army as you presented there, but murders committed by group of criminals (Caco Topalovic and his men who were prosecuted by Sarajevo court during the war) who were killed later by Army of BH, because they didn't want to surrender. The Dragon of Bosnia 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Then correct the text lines regarding perpetrators. Or, is ICTY going to be smarter 10 years later, like UN and world organisations were with Srebrenica case? However, whatever you do, cover it with ICTY references, and don't distort it. Group of criminals also do war crimes. Kubura 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to write about alleged war crimes, which have no court (not just international, but also local ones) validation, I will start to write articles using your method, based on newspaper articles (Glas srpski, Politika), about war crimes committed by Croats on Serb civilians in Croatia, just to show you that this aproach doesn't have a sense in encyclopedia. The Dragon of Bosnia 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dragon, court deals with persons, not with the events. Maybe they can't find the very perpetrators, but they know the term "unknown perpetrator". Kubura 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The court first dealas with events and then try to connect accused person with those events. The Dragon of Bosnia 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll write articles about war crimes committed by Croats against Serb civilians? Don't worry, someone already did that. The only thing, that worries me, is that you're siding with Serbs... just like Bos.Muslim leadership did in 1993. Srebrenica encircled, Sarajevo encircled by Bos. Serbs, but instead of relieving those cities, Bos.Muslims stab a knife at the back of their allies, Bos. Croats, and launch a whole offensive against Bos.Croats ("Neretva '93", isn't it).Kubura 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That is your problem. You don't understand what is Wikipedia. It is not place of war, but place of information, and relaible one, because it is encyclopedia. Regarding Neretva 93, obviously you know nothing about Bosniak Croat war. Read some verdicts, and you will educate yourself, it is not conspiracy against Croats as Ivica Mlivoncic said, but very good material. The Dragon of Bosnia 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that when you write the article about Srebrenica. Thousands of Bos. Muslims killed, and not a genocide? Well, ICTY said it's not. Whenever you cite ICTY, when denying war crimes committed against Croats, have previous ICTY's decision in mind. Have in mind how do you feel about that and how others feel. We don't need any edit-war, I'm pointing you towards resolving any disputes. Kubura 15:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read my above comment. In three case, Srebrenica massacre was defined as genocide (Krstić case, Blagojević case - ICTY, and ICJ case Bosni v Sebia). I don't know what are you talking about. Of course we don't need edit-war, we just need WP:RS source for validation. I showed you that Ivica Mlivoncic book is full of false information, concluded by ICTY. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Type of the crime

Also, if you want to write about the crimes, you have to give two important detailes, such as a type of crime (this is established in the trail eg crimes against humanity, genocide etc, "killing of civilians" is not a type of crime according to law terms), and give information about victims and perpatrators (also established in the court). The Dragon of Bosnia 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No problems, I use ICTY terminology. Using the ICTY links is the only way to make it here. Kubura 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To use that terminology you have to present verdicts. For instance when you say smth is genocide, you have to show the verdict to verify that, not just to say that. Anyone can do that, that is silly. The Dragon of Bosnia 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did it. I had to do it. Whenever someone questions me, I present him the ICTY indictments (these are "heavier" argument, when accused is proven guilty) and judgements. And I cite the "interesting" parts. That's the only way to end the discussion and kick the trolls and vandals away.
Don't worry, when the articles about those crimes came on the agenda, I'll have to "cover" the written text with arguments. Kubura 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You also have to distinguish terms as indictment from verdict. Verdict is WP:RS (reliable source), not indictment, but indictment can also be useful to understand the wider context of the events. There is no need for fabrications because, it can just heart the real victims, as in Sovići and Doljani case. As you probably know, the only convicted journalists befor ICTY are from Slobodna Dalmacija, eg Domagoj Margetić [8] who used the same fabrication tactics. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I will be glad to include ICTY conclusions from Prlic et al case which is not finished yet, and then we will finally see, who was right, prosecution or the defence. So it is best that we wait for a few month and we will have all the information in the verdict. That is the reason, I didn't write anything about Vrbanja massacre, Mokronoge massacre, Gornji Vakuf massacres (Duša, Uzričje, Hrasnica and Ždrimci), Maljen massacre, Raštani, Mostar Destruction, Počitelj Destruction, Prozor, Stolac massacres, Šunje and Gabela, Ljubuški massacre, Čapljina, (Paško Ljubičić case for Busovača and Kresevo which is not finished yet). The Dragon of Bosnia 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Defence also presented their arguments about other incidents, so the court will decide which is relaible, and which is not. I will respect any court decision. Because I respect Wikipedia as a good project. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regards all of this... don't make mockery of Wikipedia. Use only verifiable sources. That means ICTY. --HarisM 20:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted my edits, but I left two cases for which Sefer Halilovic is indicted at ICTY. I hope noone make problems with this (?). This is varibiable. Right? --Ante Perkovic 13:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. First, you wrote that the perpetrators were: Bosnian Muslim forces ("Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina") and mujahedins, which is false. Btw, what does quotation marks mean? I understand that you maybe don't like Bosnian Army, but it was the only legal Army in Bosnia, recognized by UN. You cannot write propaganda here as you write it in hr Wikipedia (like Kubura based on "Zlocin s pecatom" book by Ivica Mlivoncic who testified in Blaskic case, and his testimony was found irrelevant), there are certain rules to be followed. According to ICTY Sefer and Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina was found not guilty. Regarding "mujahedins" they were not in the operation at all (I know it is interesting know in this global anti terror war, but I prefer the truth). The court concluded that the incident was not planned and committed by the Army, but multiple murders were committed by local criminals and soldiers after the operation. Also, in the law you have to distinguish the type of war crimes from murder, those are not the same at all according to international law. Regarding Uzdol, again you wrote false information. Uzdol was place of battle between Army and HVO. During the battle many HVO soldiers died, as well as Army soldiers. During the fight some civilians died also. And again according to ICTY, Sefer was found not guilty, so perpetrators as you wrote were not: Bosnian Muslim forces ("Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina") and mujahedins (this story was interesting when Tudjman controled the media when he was fighting against "Muslim savages" trying to justify ethnic cleansing and creation of Herzeg Bosnia and camps in Herzegovina but he is dead now). Also, you presented that all casualties including dead soldiers during the fight were executed in massacre which is not true. The number of casulaties is not true too, and the most important part. You have to write the type of the crime because this article lists the crimes which have the court verification ("Murder of civilians" is not the type of crime, it is genocide, crime against peace, crime against humanity, you need the court for that), otherwise I could write tens of massacres committed by Croats on Serbs in Croatia during Oluja based on Serb books, and believe me I will do that if you continue to place irregular information, and no Croat will like that, but I will do that just to show you what it means when you don't follow WP rules and when you misuse Wikipedia. I suggested even Kubura to be patient and to wait the end of Prlić case (just a few months more, it will be ended by the end of the year), and after that we will have final verification of all crimes that were mentioned during Bosnian-Croatian war, we will see whose arguments were correct those of Defence or those of Prosecution. And no matter what the verdict will be, I will respect that. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Dragon. Have in mind that, unfortunately, ICTY is used as mean of political pressure. Blaškić at first got 45 years (what has Blaškić done, killed half of Bosnia?), with judge Jorda's legendar political speech afterwards. On the other hand, Martić, Plavšić, Babić and others got much smaller verdicts (such funny small verdicts you got for a car crash, not for a war crime). Allthough their operational area was much much wider... and much more dead bodies behind them...
And 9 years later, ICTY admits his obvious mistakes, and reduces the Blaškić's verdict to exactly 9 years (now half of Bosnia isn't dead anymore)...Any smaller verdict means, that ICTY would have to pay him for being "overimprisoned". Not to mention what would be if Blaškić was declared innocent. Where would they get the money? What would be with very lucrative further international political careers of prosecutors, judges and accusers (as well as with theirs political and economic connections and influences)?
It's harder to admit mistake, than to hang a Pedro. Who cares for a small countrylet and some small cockroach-Balkan tribe.
Kubura 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kubura I have to correct you. The facts that had been established in Blaskic case were not changed, his punishment was just changed. ICTY and other int. courts have a practice first to establish events, and afterwards decide about role of accused person(s). Blaskic defence claimed that Zagreb was directly responsible for massacres in Lasva Valley, not Blaskic himself, the court concluded that indeed, Croatia sent his Army in Bosnia to fight against Bosniak civilians and to create Croatian Republic of HB and reduced Blaskic's punishment. So that decision is not very good for Croatia, just for Blaskic, but as I told you people such as Mlivoncic and other journalists hid the truth, they didn't talk about it which was redicilous, because who can hide anything in digital era?! Anyone can read Blaskic verdict in official UN site. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tuđman is dead, so ICTY doesn't have to fight wars with him over the back of Croatia or Croats. That means that all those crap committed against Croats will swam on top.
Do you know, what politician (I won't say the name) served in N. Ireland, known for its words "kill the b* Catholics"?
Also, now is USA very interested in al-Quaida's mujahedins schooltime in Bosnia. I won't say on which side. Kubura 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So you don't have to worry. ICTY is not muslim court, and this is so called anti-muslim era with all power, CIA, FBI. etc. But still ICTY discarded such claims, and those are qualified as propaganda (there is actually a whole section in Stakic case about propaganda about mujahedeens) No one denies the fact that there were Arabs (few hundreds, less than thousand) who came in Bosnia to fight on Bosnian side, as well as nazi units in 104th Eugen Kvaternik brigade of HVO, but the number of those were irrelevant. Why did ICTY conclude that? Because it only respects real evidence, eg if something was written in Slobodna Dalmacija about mujahedeens, they will investigate everything about that, who is the source of info, is that source reliable, etc. and then they make a decision about the evidence. There is also one interesting information about Arabs: 90% of them had Croatian identification documents, they all came accross Croatia and Herzeg Bosnia (Croats didn' stop them to cross, why is that? Bosnia had no control of borders) and Bosnian Army didn't like them, but didn't fight against them, because Army already fought against Serb and Croat forces and Narodna Odbrana of Fikret Abdic. Probably they were afraid they would open another war. There was actually one incident between Bosnian Army and Arab unit. All these questions would and had been judged by ICTY, and I will respect their decision at the end of current trials no matter the fact that ICTY is court with mostly Christian judges and other stuff. I believe in law. The Dragon of Bosnia

Interesting points Dragon of Bosnia; not a Muslim court in the Hague at all. But you seem to know something that the rest of us don't, "if alleged, the court will do everything to investigate... ." Polititians in every country from every time have a code of conduct: 'Never launch an investigation unless you know in advance what the findings will be. It is important to those Western countries who involved themselves in the Balkan wars that Serbs are the biggest agressor and main bad-guy, followed by the Croats, and in last place - innocent Bosnian Muslims. Do you know what would happen if every Chetnik claim was investigated by the officials working for the bodies which matter? The populations of these Western countries would start to see (as I feel some are doing) that the Bosnian war was indeed a three-way enterprise, and that would prove damaging for NATO since they sent signals that Serbs committed the biggest and worst atrocities, and the Muslims (who before 2001 had done nothing), did actually do a few bad things, but none so bad. It was US-Democrats with the UK stuck to their backsides supporting France and Germany who ran every campaign regarding official foreign involvement in Bosnia: they lead the "peace", they fund the court which issues "warrants for arrest"; they look after the "arresting and bringing to justice"; they decide when to go. You don't think the governments of Ecuador, Guatemala, Chad, the Soloman islands, Papua New Guinea, Bhutan or Georgia are too intested in the criminal courts and peace in Bosnia do you?? You don't honestly believe that the King of Thailand sold his second home to fund the ICTY do you? And surely you don't honestly think that Senegalese PM Toumare is issuing an award for the capture of Ratko Mladic? And if he does go down, you don't think that he'll stand in a court, with security guards from Argentina; a three-part dury from North Korea, Laos and Cuba respectively, and ultimately a judge from Algeria?? To reiterate, a judge standing representing the UN (a body technilcy higher than any counrty), but being involved in the first place for being a citizen of a member state (Algeria), being chosen by the Algerian government to represent their intersts (hence, why they are in it), and finally going home after a session's work, removing the ceremonial clothes which place him "above Algeria", back to being a civilian in Algeria, and finally explaining to President Bouteflike why his decision was against how it would have suited Algeria... can you imagine that? And how funny would it be if this fictional judge responded to Bouteflike "well the reason I had to let him go was because there was a lack of evidence, ie. innocence!" Will stupid little things like innocence cut ice with any world leader? You see Dragon of Bosnia, it is very easy to praise this so-called "world" organisation when it has been coming down on your side. I hardly blame you; if I were a Bosniak I'd adore the ICTY. It wouldn't stop me from realising that it is a political organisation with political goals. Evlekis 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Grabovica massacre

The Dragon of Bosnia, I've hoped that you're serious.
You've made complaints, when removing the entries about war crimes committed against Bosnia-Herzegovina Croats in the article "List of war crimes". Besides others, you've removed Grabovica.
But look at this. This verdict was from 8 Aug 2007.
5 (five) days after, you've removed the entries about war crimes against Bos. Croats, including the war crime in Grabovica.
13 Aug 2007, 23:23 - your first removal of Grabovica. [9]
Your comment was: corrections, removed also alleged war crimes with no verification in court record, nor precise information about perpetrators.
14 Aug 2007, 13:09, I've reverted it. [10]
14 Aug 2007,13:39, you've reverted to your version, removing Grabovica also, for the second time. [11]
Your comment was: rv, not verified events, Ivica Mlivoncic's testimony about alleged war crimes was discarded in T. Blaskic case as irrelevant and based on propaganda
14 Aug 2007, 14:42, I've reverted it. [12]
My comment was: Yeah, wright, maybe the bears and Clingons killed those people.
14 Aug 2007,14:48, you've reverted to your version, removing Grabovica also, for the third time. [13]
Your comment was: just show me the verdicts to verify your thesis, see discussion, this is not forum, relaible information must be presented in this delicate topics).
14 Aug 2007, 23:52., TheFEARgod reverted my version, with cn-part. [14]
His comment was: (rv but added {{cn}}).
15 Aug 2007,16:44, you've reverted to your version, removing Grabovica also, for the fourth time. [15]
Your comment was: read the introduction of the article (crimes need verification by the court) and see discussion, I already provided court sources which discard the claims).
16 Aug 2007, 08:06., Ante Perkovic reverted my version, [16]
His comment was: (rev, temporarely).
16 Aug 2007,09:56, you've reverted to your version, removing Grabovica also, for the fifth time. [17]
Your comment was: discussion first; this article lists crimes which have been judged in a court to be Crimes Against Peace and Crimes against Humanity, read Wikipedia:Verifiability).
16 Aug 2007, 13:11, Ante Perkovic reverted to my version. [18]
His comment was: Sorry, forgot to make edits last time. Next edit in 5 minutes. Please wait).
16 Aug 2007, 13:16, Ante Perkovic removed all except Grabovica and Uzdol. [19]
16 Aug 2007, 13:17, ST47 reverted to my version. [20]
His comment was: unexplained removal.
16 Aug 2007, 14:49, you've reverted to your version, removing Grabovica also, for the sixth time. [21]
Your comment was: (rv, per WP:RS and WP:Verifyibility, see disc, no source to confirm thesis, and they are discarded by ICTY in Blačkić case, you need court for the type of crime definition, leave propaganda for hr wiki).
Later, I stood aside, to avoid edit-warring.
You've removed the Grabovica from the list of war crimes for the six times!
And that was after the verdict by court from Bosnia and Herzegovina, that condemned to prison three Bosniak perpetrators to 39 y. alltogether. Almost a month passed, and you haven't reacted.
Were you eager to remove war crimes committed against Croats (in the cases where the perpetrators were the Bos. Muslim forces)?
I could think that you weren't careful, but six times?
After six removals, I don't believe that was the accident.
And month passed, and you haven't changed that.
That wasn't OK, Dragon.
You've held us tirades about "not verified events", "not verified by court", "leave propaganda for hr.wiki", but you DID removed entry about the war crime that was FRESHLY processed, I mean, there's FRESH verdict (second for that case).
Just five days have passed from that verdict, four days from publishing on the internet on the newspaper pages.
Here're the references. Here, the links from .ba domain.
Newspaper "Oslobođenje". "Druga presuda za ratni zločin u selu Grabovica" [22]
Newspaper "Dnevni list". [23]
Kakanj Online. [24]
Newspaper "Dnevni avaz". [25]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubura (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Here's a link from .hr domain.
Newspaper "Slobodna Dalmacija". [26]
"Sudsko vijeće Županijskog suda u Mostaru, pod predsjedanjem suca Hame Kebe izreklo je jučer ukupno 39 godina zatvora za trojicu pripadnika Armije BiH koji su u selu Grabovici, sjeverno od Mostara, ubili tri člana hrvatske obitelji Zadro... Nihad Vlahovljak, Haris Rajkić i Sead Karagić u vrijeme počinjenoga zločina bili su pripadnici Devete motorizirane brigade Prvoga korpusa Armije BiH, a osuđeni su na po trinaest godina zatvora za ubojstvo tri člana obitelji Zadro."
"Court Council of court in Mostar, under the presidentship of judge Hamo Kebo, has given the verdict to three persons, that have killed three members of Croat family Zadro, in the village of Grabovica, N of Mostar. Nihad Vlahovljak, Haris Rajkić and Sead Karagić were in the time of the crime the members on 9th motorized brigade of 1. Corps of Armija BiH. They've been convicted to 13 years each for murder of three members of family Zadro." Sincerely, Kubura 20:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! It was a verdict about murder of three people, not verdict about massacre. There is still no court validation about massacre (findings of fact), that is what I was talking about. But obviously you don't no the law very well. I read you articles on hr Wikipedia, I will have to register there beacuse it is obvious that you based your writings on propaganda (Trusina, Doljani and Grabovica). As you quoted above Mostar court convicted three soldiers of three murders not of massacre, which is different. It is individual act and is treated differently. The Dragon of Bosnia 19:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me use your logic. How do you define Serbs that were killed in Osijek by Croats? Osijek massacre or multiple murders of Serbs, incidents in different locations? If you want me to use your logic, then you will get Osijek massacre article, Garaža massacre, Selotejp etc. What I want to say is that murder or multiple murder according to law is different type of crime, and this article is about war crimes/crimes against humanity, not about murders, we are talking about planned and implemented war crimes, verifed on the court. Halilovic was found not guilty, even Delic (when prosecutor tried to accusse him of Grabovica, Trial Chamber discarded it, because Army of BH as an institution was found not guilty), so it was delegeted to local courts as an act of murder. Also, I told you once, you have to learn how to use terms. Bosnian Army is the term used by the court and constitution of BH, conspiracy theory is smth inherent to Croat nationalistic newspaper, as Večernji list, and hr Wikipedia, so please leave it there (We have to use offical names, not what you like or not, what would you think if I use Ustasha army-Ustaška armija instead of Croatian forces, as you use "Armija BiH"-Muslim army; for example 104th Eugen Kvaternik HVO Brigade had nazi flag and salute, but I cannot call it nazi brigade, I have to call it according to its official name). Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For Ante Perkovic regarding the "non-Serbs" issue

As it stands, I have reverted it back. It will have to be ammended one way or another: the description boxes give an account of the atrocity, but remember, not all of the events down the page have been "internationally" dealt with. Now the /Croats and other non-Serbs/ is very much the wording of the ICTY and critics of the war-time Serbs. However, because of the fact that not all acts which are considered war crimes have been investigated by UN-funded courts and yet they still stand; it means that for those which were handled by an international body, it is not necessary to recount the exact allegation; in other words, we can be more precise than the courts which only promote the interests of the parties who drive them (fund them, staff them etc). Firstly there is no such thing as "Croats and other non-Serbs", can you name a Croat who is also a Serb? Non-Serbs can stand alone if it is relevant. Secondly, for the entire duration of the unrecognised RSK, there dwelled a non-Serb population in every single municipality. Not one was even estimated to be 100% Serbian. So saying that "one chunk of the population was Croatian, the others were non-Serb" is nothing more than a commonality. You could just as easily say that they were "Croats and other non-Arabs", or call them all "non-Mexicans" - because whilst an RSK administration has the power and yet is not expelling citizens who are declaring a nationality other than Serb - then whatever the reason they expel the larger section, it is not because they are not Serb. Furthermore, if it had been an attempt to create a "Pure Serbian state" in the way that many other nations have done regarding themselves and their local non-members both in history and in the present day, other such events would have occured, such as forced dissimilation of the rival identity. Maybe you might seek out and find proof that there were one-time Croats in the RSK who chose to remain outside politics by declaring Serb; but you cannot find evidence (because there isn't any) that there had been a Serbian objective to culturally cleanse the Croats and "other non-Serbs" (compare this to Macedonian Slavs of Greece, or actual Greeks who were Islamic by faith, both persecuted by a Greek regime which aimed to create a pure state only associated with Christianity or traditional Greek pre-Christian beliefs). It is also worth mentioning that whilst non-Serbs occupied important positions during the campaign, there were civilian Serbs who bore the brunt of Serbian aggression (note the Voćin massacre) - maybe one, but if you kill one man on political grounds, you kill a million, and if you allow one "supposedly non-ethnic" into your clan for opposite political reasons (ie. being on your side), you allow a million.
There is one other thing however. I didn't suggest wiping out the "non-Serb" section altogether; there is of course the ICTY documentation which can be used as a source. However, whenever this is the case (and especially when it is mixed in with lists which involve "alleged" and untried atrocities), we must insert in the main text who the accuser is, and the artrocity here also needs to be "in quotations". I have already ammended the Gospić massacre part so that it reflects the findings of a court, which you will consider more credible than the previous pro-Serb allegation. If it get's put back, I will note the court in question - place the text in quotations and position the source-link next to the explanation. So, 78,000 civilians mostly Croat? or ICTY: "78,000 non-Serbs"? One or the other. Evlekis 13:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Israeli War Crimes

Why is Israel getting a free pass for all her war crimes committed? Egyptian POW massacres, waging was against civilians, human shields..etc. Lets bring a little balance here.12.214.23.80 06:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

-Bulldozing Palestinian homes while still occupied.

-The refusal to grant the right of return to refugees.

-The wall which Israel is building that cuts through the West Bank, surrounds Jewish settlements, takes much of the arable land and the most valuable resource, water, and renders a lot of Palestinian territories virtually unviable.

-The hundreds of checkpoints and other barriers to prevernt easy transpor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.47.136 (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, at least parts of House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli Settlement and the Israeli Wall seem to be war crimes according to War crimes, being directed attacks against civilians, settlement of occupied territory and arguably deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory. Rostere (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is full of pro-Israelis. 80.98.245.112 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo needs to be reworked. It's no doubt ethnic cleansing was there, but names must be added, as well as figures, presented by the ICTY. --PaxEquilibrium 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've written most of the text. Now the reasons for the 740,000 ethnic Albanian refugees are in there, but I think that this info should also be introduced. Also the list of the responsible people (Slobodan Milosevic, Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic, Nebojsa Pavkovic, Vladimir Lazarevic, Vlastimir Djordjevic and Sreten Lukic). --PaxEquilibrium 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq 2003 - Present

When will it be appropriate to discuss the current conflict in Iraq here? There is a well documented case that the Anglo-American invasion was a war of aggression, should we at least mention it? Timhaughton 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that this is not the correct page for that particular point to be made. Waging a war of aggression is an international crime discreet from "war crimes". See my comments below on Crimes Against the Peace/Crimes Against Humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.203.238 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the war crimes committed by US led forces in Iraq should be included, such as the Haditha Massacre which is reasonably well documented, or the Abu Ghraib abuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.176.187 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

agree with that

Korean war

There isn t anithyng about war crimes in Korea. In both sides there was murders and massacres. US killed at least 180 reefuges in village of No Gun Ri. Someone must write something about this. 10 October 2007

sources?

It seems rather arbitrary what's been listed. For example, other than Wikipedia editors interpretation, what is the rationale for including the bombing of Dresden as a war crime? It has no sources. No one was charged with a war crime. The article intro says these are crimes committed after the Hague Convention but there is a court in Hague that hears cases. Shouldn't this list be limited to actual criminal war crimes cases with sources, preferably charges that were brought to the Hague? --DHeyward 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Withou objections, I will deleting all unsourced accusations. Also anything that is defined a sa war crime in the article that hasn't been adjudicated as such will also be deleted. --DHeyward 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting items without justification is vandalism and will be treated as such. Read the articles if you looking for citations. Your artitrary view of what belongs in this article is not shared by WP editors who have placed the material here. Solution: change your point of view and move on. Hmains 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V specifically WP:PROVEIT:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any edit lacking a source may be removed,...

deleting items which are not sourced is not vandalism and will be treated as such. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the first paragraphs of the article to discover what the article is about. This may not be what you like, but it is what the article is and the items included in it reflect that. Hmains 03:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro says "those incidents which have been judged in a court of justice ." That hasn't been met in a number of cases and they are not cited. --DHeyward 05:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Now read all the sentences involved: "This article lists and summarizes War Crimes committed since the Hague Conventions of 1907. In addition, those incidents which have been judged in a court of justice to be Crimes Against Peace and Crimes against Humanity that have been committed since these crimes were first defined (in the London Charter, August 8, 1945) are also included."

See the phrase 'In addition' Hmains 05:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It has to be a sourced mainstream view. An editors view that a certain event is a war crime is not good enough. It's Original research to postulate that any particular act is a war crime. --DHeyward 15:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think more specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN. I went through this list back in April and March 2006 converting many of the entries to tables and put in {{fact}}. Many of those citation needed are still there. Those entries should be deleted. DHeyward, the reason why one can not just use a court of law, for deciding if a war crime was committed, is exemplified by the Wormhoudt massacre there is no doubt that a war crime was committed, it is just that the culprits could not be identified. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. YOU can improve the article and WP by adding the sources from the underlying articles. Deletion improves nothing. It is simply destructive. Hmains 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I've looked at the articles for sources that it's a mainstream view that the events in question were "war crimes" in the meaning ofe Hague convention. The ones that didn't have this minimal requirement I deleted, including a number of events on this list that are unsourced and red link articles meaning the articles don't even exist. Looking at an event and coming to your own conclusion that these are war crimes is Original Research. For example, it is not a mainstream historical view that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was a war crime. You can argue that it was, but that is not the requirement to add such things to Wikipedia. There is no deltion of information as the articles that already exist have information in them. This is a POV list that is unsourced and a compilation of editors random beliefs. As was pointed out to you earlier, if you want to keep items in an article they must be sourced. This is especially true for accusations against living people. Please revert your edit until you have found the sources necessary to make the claims. --DHeyward 21:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept the information in the articles until such time as WP agrees to change the articles. The articles discuss war crimes. This list is just a summary of what is stated in the articles. Where information is missing it needs to found/added; deletion accomplishes nothing useful to WP. If every statement or even every major statement in every article in WP were challenged for 'citations' or references, maybe 50-75% of WP content would disappear, maybe more. Not a good situation, but that is the way it is. The only articles that are seriously full of citations are Featured Articles, and even there, one could go though each citation and say it did not meet your personal criteria for an acceptable citation. This is WP, not something else, not something really acceptable to serious professionals of any kind. I do not see that you made an attempt here to improve this article. I did try, but it is not "my" article and others can surely work on it as they have been doing so in the past, each in their own way. Hmains 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a list. A POV list as well. I have not deleted any content out of wikipedia as the articles still exist in their previous state. However, for such a POV list to exist, there must be sources to justify their existence in this list. SOurces that say "This event should be on this list." The most I can find for the events that I deleted from the list are "Event A occured. The definition War Crime seems to fit Event A. Event A is on the list." This is a synthesis position and is explicitly forbidden. And it's not like these events need a citation. Inclusion in this list of a number of events is simply not justified by the mainstream historical view. The "Attack on Pearl Harbor" is a simple example. Deleting original research and making it meet the FA guidleines IS improving the article and it is disappointing that you would characterize my actions the way you did. --DHeyward 04:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V specifically WP:PROVEIT. This list is still a Wikipedia article and if challenged then citations should be added. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your POV has not been the POV of collective editors of this list. You have no special standing to decided/assert what is the 'mainstream historical view'--no single WP editor has special standing. This is what WP is, sorry. A list is 'content'; you deleted content, based on your single point of view. And the articles do say a lot more than 'this happened'. They mention war crimes--as defined by the article heading. To be sure, they do not say 'this article is to be included in the 'List of War Crimes' article. And a list is just a series of pointers, an index to articles; it is not detail. A list rarely has the citations you speak of--unless it is a Featured List, a special case. Hmains 05:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why we have policies. Claims must be sourced by the editors adding/readding the material. That is fundamental. I have no special standing that is why I cite policy. Your claim that 'other lists are unsourced so this one should be too', is unconvincing. Please cite the material. What is also unconvincing is the claim that some events were "War crimes" but will not have sources. Either the mainstream view is taht it is a war crime and there are sources that say so, or there aren't. If there aren't then the event should not be on the list. --DHeyward 06:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The standard I've always looked for is an evidence of a general global consensus that an act was a war crime. Criminal prosecution on the specific incident is one such type of evidence you might find, although other evidence of a general consensus could work. Speaking in specifics-- I think there's a (global) consensus that the US submarine warfare in WW2 DID violate the rules of war-- but I don't think there's any (global) consensus whatsoever that the bombings of dredsen, hiroshima, or nagasaki qualify as war crimes. I suggest those be removed. --Alecmconroy

I don't think that anyone has requested a trial or even an indictment. Just a reliable source that says this is the mainstream historical view. For example, it is a minority view that the A-bomb on japan was a war crime. Minority views can go in the main article. This is a list that should reflect the majority consensus view however and should not be listed here. --DHeyward 02:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hmains, what in your opinion is the most reliable source that you have added that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime? --Philip Baird Shearer 06:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no way of judging that. I go by what articles say; I am not a researcher, nor a professional historian sitting in judgment. I went to the Bombing of Desden article and found a section that gave all the reasons why Dresden was a war crime and copied references from that article into this list. Silly? You bet. And I would gladly remove them. I think that anyone wanting this level of detail should have to go to the underlying article and find out what it says and see the references therein. They could also see the section about why Dresden was not a war crime and see all its references. The Bombing of Dresden article makes no judgement of which is true. And, of course, since the US won the war, there was no war crimes trial. If the article does not say for sure that it was a war crime, then it is going to be the judgment of an editor of this list that 'the mainsream view' is that it was not. So is that editor just going to assert this baldly or going to parse the references and reject all those that are not to his liking. One might want to engage in such editing and parsing in the underlying article and its talk page; I fail to see the benefit of such judgments taking place in this list--except where there is no underlying article and the only references are in this list. Does this article need help. Yes. But help in mind is working on the problems in the article, not doing wholesale deletion so the informataion is not even present here to discuss.

And thanks for just asking about one item, as DHeyward wants to and has been deleting dozens of entries from the article based on what he alone thinks should be in here or not. And each time backing into a difference excuse as to why they should go away. One of last ones was the assertion that the 'Attack on Pearl Harbor' was not a war crime and this being so obvious, it does not even need an argument. As far as this list goes, I say anything should go into it that meets the criteria of the article heading. And a War of Aggression against another state, as Pearl Harbor certainly was, is certainly within the scope of this article. Do we have to do more than show that Wars of Aggression are prohibited acts? Thanks Hmains 03:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you do. You are describing a classic synthesis which is not allowed per WP:RS. You need sources that say the event was a war crime since this is a list that asserts that it is. It needs to be the mainstream historical view that this is a war crime. I am not qualified to say whether any particular act is a "war of agression" or whether a "war of agression" is a war crime, nor is the pervue of Wikipedia to decide such things. Please find reliable sources that assert the mainstream view is that such acts are "war crimes." --DHeyward 04:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also, all the references Hmains added that cite the article in Wikipedia need to be removed and replaced. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You can use the same external, reliable sources the article does but they still must reflect the mainstream historical view. --DHeyward 02:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of understanding of plain English. I did not cite any WP article as a source of anything. I copied the text that was already used in many places in the list to look at the underlying WP article for the references contained therein. Referring to articles' references is not saying look at the article text--unless you are going to say that all references cited in all WP artcles are not to be given any credit and one has to find new references just to satisify you. This will not happen here or anywhere else. Hmains 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• "References in the article" is not adequate sourcing here or in any article. The claims here cannot be verified that way. Which references? Which sources? They need to be just as explicit here as they are in the article espcially considering the claims that are made here. --DHeyward 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the USA bombing of Dresden:

• Hmains you wrote "I go by what articles say; I am not a researcher, nor a professional historian sitting in judgment. I went to the Bombing of Desden article and found a section that gave all the reasons why Dresden was a war crime and copied references from that article into this list. Silly? You bet. And I would gladly remove them." There were two parties involved in bombing Dresden one was the RAF the other the USAAF. The British used area bombardment and the Americans precision bombardment (although to those on the ground the distinction made little difference) -- I know you have read the bombing of Dresden article but not everyone who reads this may have and might not know that there was a difference. Given this distinction you can not just cut and past references from that article into this one without reading them and making a judgement because not all of them are relevant to the USAAF bombing of Dresden being a war crime.
• Hmains you also wrote "The Bombing of Dresden article makes no judgement of which is true. And, of course, since the US won the war, there was no war crimes trial." Please read Aerial area bombardment and international law. If it was clear that aerial bombardment was a war crime why has no one ever been prosecuted for it -- This includes members of the Axis powers?
• you also wrote "But help in mind is working on the problems in the article, not doing wholesale deletion so the information is not even present here to discuss." I direct you to WP:V#Burden of evidence and what Jimbo wrote (with which I agree) "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
• So unless you can come up with sources for the Bombing of Dresden which describe the type of war crime committed by the Americans at Dresden I am going to remove it as none of the sources that you have put there are reliable sources on this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree the references here are useless. However, the article you pointed me to, Area bombardment includes a judgement of a Japanese court that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were war crimes under law existing at the time. That judgement seems well supported by other text in this article. How is Dresden to be distinguished from them? Hmains 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a war crime

Exactly what is a war crime is complicated and there is a list of treaties of positive international law that largely define crimes (see International treaties on the laws of war). However most war crimes are listed in three major sets of treaties the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which since Word War II are considered customary law, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (with additional clarification in the 1977, protocol I and protocol II -- these additional protocols have not been as widely ratified as 1949 but much of what they say is a clarification of customary law and accepted as such by most powers) and the Rome Statute which again although many states are not bound by it includes a list which is for the most part covered by customary law. Articles 22-28,323-34 in IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land of the 1907 Hague Conventions]]and Article 8 of the Rome statute cover most of the restrictions on combat (much of which is customary law) while the Geneva conventions cover POWs and since 1949 the treatment of civilians in occupied territory. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity and crimes against peace

This list is a list of war crimes. I suggest that it becomes just that and that all convictions for "crimes against humanity" are removed from the list because there does not have to be a war for a crime against humanity to occur crimes against peace however by definition involve war so as crimes against peace are relatively rare, they should be include in a separate section entitled "Crimes against peace".--Philip Baird Shearer 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Philip Baird Shearer's comments. References to Crimes Against Humanity and Crimes Against Peace should be in separate Wikipedia entries. They are distinct crimes in International Law. I would no more expect to see reference to them in this entry that I would reference to Genocide. This page should be for War Crimes, not International Crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.203.238 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a very reasonable idea. As you help identify "crimes against humanity", could you move them into a new article of this name rather than deleting them? Maybe we could also get the 'type of crime' column to consistently identify the law that was violated instead of the description of the crime. Thanks Hmains 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmains I presume when you made this edit that you had forgotten about this conversation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to remove the definition first because otherwise unless all the crimes against humanity are removed in one go, the definition will encourage people to re-add them.

There is no need to build a new list of crimes against humanity just because information is removed from this list as many of the crimes against humanity in this list do not carry verifiable reliable sources and as such they should not be in any list. If someone wishes to start such a list, then that is independent of this list. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It must be a crime

Too often people think that because something is usually a crime under peacetime, that it must be a crime under wartime and because it is a war crime now it must have always been a war crime. To take a clear cut example from international law, acts of genocide have been committed since time immoral, but the crime of genocide has only existed under international law since the coming into force of the CPPCG on 12 January 1951. Like wise the crime of ordering no quarter, was not accepted as a crime under international law until it was established under the Article 23 of the IV Convention – The Laws and Customs of War on Land of the Hague Conventions of 1907. In the early modern period and in the Napoleonic wars it was common for sieges to end with the killing of the garrison, if the garrison had refused to surrender before the final assault.

This is a list of crimes, and if a source is credible, then it is not only going to say that such and such was a war crime, it is either going to explain what was the law that was broken, or it is going to mention the trial and the people found guilty. I spent a considerable time going through this list in March and April 2006 changing many entries into tables and putting in "citation needed" templates. It seems that a year and a half on many of those same allegations are still in this list and are not sourced. If not accurate description of the alleged war crime can be found in a third party source then it should be deleted from this list. So as not to upset other editors I am going to start at the top of the list and go through it section by section so we can discuss if there are any sources for the alleged war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am glad to be discussing this with someone who cares about this article and has intelligently worked on it in the past. Yes, it is pretty bad and your idea of discussion is a good one--but I think I detect very few editors are really working on this article or even watching it, I don't know how far this will get. I only started watching this article when I noticed some odd deletions were happening--presumably by nationalists trying to "defend" the reputations of their various countries. I added lots of 'citation needed' entries yesterday on articles which had no reference at all that they even happened--but maybe they could be found somewhere in some of the references to the Yugoslav area war crimes courts. Oh, and the 'type of crime' column should again show the law involved, instead of a description of the crime which can be in the right-most column.

May I suggest that entries that cannot be currently found at all or found to be war crimes in good references be moved to the Discussion page with a note of what is required of them before they be placed back in the article itself. That would certainly meet my concern of information loss that happens just by deletion. Thanks in advance for your effort. Hmains 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Move them if you want, but the information is not lost as it is still in the history of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The USAAF bombing Dresden

User:Hmains, you made an edit (Revision as of 03:52, 5 December 2007) to List of war crimes with the comment "an obvious crime; read the rules of war; you were going to research all this article; targeted, repeated deletions is not research."

1. Please read WP:PROVEIT a section of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. What is your verifiable reliable source for the "obvious war crime" that was committed when the USAAF bombed Dresden?
2. What was the "obvious war crime" that was committed when the USAAF bombed Dresden?
   • Which raid on Dresden are you claiming was an obvious war crimes or are you arguing that all of them were?
   • 461 B-17s were dispatched to hit the marshalling yard at Dresden on February 14 1945 what makes that an obvious war crime when on the same morning 457 B-17s were sent to hit the marshalling yard at Chemnitz which presumably you do not think was an obvious war crime?[27]

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ahmad.ibn.as.Sayyid I had assumed that as you were editing to put in the USAAF bombing of Dresden that you were well read in the war crime debate about aerial bombardment. But AFAICT from the references you gave with the last edit that you made (Revision as of 21:37, 5 December 2007) shows that you are not.I think you might find this redirect interesting "aerial bombardment and international law". There is a major difference between the stated directives on strategic bombing that the RAF followed and those followed by the USAAF in Europe. For the people on the ground the difference may not have been apparent because of the inaccuracy of bombing methods used in the 1940's but legally there is a big difference. For much of the war the RAF followed a policy of area bombing, for some of the time as a leading component of their strategic attack on Germany, but for much of the time as an alternative secondary target if the primary targets (Oil, subs and tanks) were not available due to weather etc. Bomber Harris was a believer in area bombardment and used the tactic when other commanders might have judged it possible to bomb with more precision. The training and tactics used by most of the RAF strategic bomber force was geared towards area bombardment and in practice altering that proved difficult particularly when the man in charge of day to day operations happened to believe that there was little alternative.

The USAAF Eighth Air Force (and Fifteenth Air Force) used precision bombing. That is they did not area bomb but always went for specific targets that were directly aiding the German War effort. In the case of Dresden they went for the marshalling yards close to the centre of the city. Because in part they used blind bombing from H2X radar and also the inherent inaccuracy of dropping dumb bombs from thousands of feet up the effects on the ground were similar to the RAF. But in a court of law the USAAF would have argued that it was a precision raid against the rail transportation system within the enemy communications zone of an enemy active theater of operations and that any civilians killed or civilian property damaged was allowable under the doctrine of military necessity which makes up part of the laws of war.

User:Ahmad.ibn.as.Sayyid the source you have cited for you edit at 21:37 on 5 December 2007 is from the Guardian a British newspaper reporting the opinions of Jan Melichar the co-ordinator of Peace Pledge Union about the actions of the RAF. (1) There is nothing to indicate that Melichar is a reliable source about the laws of war governing aerial bombardment n 1945, and (2) Melichar is talking about the RAF actions not those of the USAAF. So this Guardian article is not a verifiable reliable source for assessing if the actions of the USAAF breached the laws of war when attacking Dresden. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The RAF bombing Dresden

If Dresden is listed as a US war crime, it should also be listed as a UK war crime. Mbarbier 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither should be listed unless there are reliable sources that state it was a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the book on the fire bombing of Dresden. Like many things, it is NOT as simple as "western civilization is evil".

The Dresden attack was made for several reasons. In hindsight (always 20/20) two of the reasons were wrong.

Reason one: The attack was an experiment of a new attack technique. The technique required a city that had suffered relatively little damage so the effectiveness could be judged, and within the range of allied bombers. Dresden qualified.

What were the new experimental technique? What is your source for this? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason two: The allies fully expected to be fighting the USSR immediately after the war ended. Part of the rational for the Dresden attack was to demonstrate to the USSR the reach and destructiveness of which we were capable. This reason later proved incorrect as the Russian bureaucrats simply refused to believe the German casualty estimate and simply knocked a zero off the total before sending their report to Stalin. (the allies never did understand the power of totalitarian bureaucracy).

What is you source for this? Besides the Germans had added a nought to the figure that they handed to the neutral press([28] and F. Taylor; Dresden: Tuesday, 13 February, 1945; Page 424.)--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason three: If you were going to select a city for reasons 1 & 2, you might as well have a legit military target. There were a couple legit targets in the city, but small and mainly outside the intended area of attack. This reason was sufficiently weak as to raise protest from the officers and men charged w carrying out the attack. They did their job, but made several symbolic gestures indicating disapproval.

What is your source for this statement? The Wikipedia article explains in detail why the Western Allies targeted the city and why the Soviets approved of its targeting. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason four: The destruction of Dresden was supposed to create a bottleneck w the railyards and the expected transhipment of retreating German armies. It didn't work.67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not to create a bottleneck for retreating German armies but for reinforcements being sent to the Eastern Front from the Western Fronts. This is described in detail in the article/section: Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Reasons for the attack --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PROVEIT

In line with WP:PROVEIT all entries in this list should carry citation to verifiable reliable third party sources. All the other entries in this list should be deleted. They can always be re-added if suitable citations can be found. The reason for specifying third party sources is because this type of list is a magnet for Original research quoting Jimbo in WP:PROVEIT: Template:Jimboquote

As I said above in #It must be a crime

I spent a considerable time going through this list in March and April 2006 changing many entries into tables and putting in "citation needed" templates. It seems that a year and a half on many of those same allegations are still in this list and are not sourced. If not accurate description of the alleged war crime can be found in a third party source then it should be deleted from this list. So as not to upset other editors I am going to start at the top of the list and go through it section by section so we can discuss if there are any sources for the alleged war crimes.

Well I've started. I have removed Germans in World War I and Italians. Both AFAICT committed war crimes but there are no third party sources that state that war crimes were committed and the current entries both contain original research claiming without reliable third party sources that they are war crimes --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A huge number of citations have the wording "References in the article". This is not acceptable as the Wikipedia POLICY WP:V states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources" so I have changed then all to the citation needed template --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslav wars

For me is really stupid that number of crimes in Yugoslav wars is very similar to number of German crimes in all Europe during WW II. Maybe I am mistaking but for me this is typical example of Balkan nationalistic fighting/editing in wikipedia. --Rjecina 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted because of inadequate citations

As I said in a previous section I think we should delete all entries that are not properly cited under the provisions of WP:PROVEIT

I have deleted:

• World War I --German perpetrated crimes no citations to third party sources.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I intend to delete the following entries:

• Turkish perpetrated crimes, because the current entry is not about the war crimes committed but crimes in general.
• Second Italo-Abyssinian War, using gas may have been a war crime, but there are currently no cited third party reliable sources.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1935-1936: Second Italo-Abyssinian War

Armed conflict		Perpetrator
Second Italo-Abyssinian War		Italy
Incident	Type of crime	Persons responsible	Notes
Italian use of mustard gas against enemy soldiers and civilians. {Fact|date=December 2007}	Contravention of the 1925 Geneva Protocol	Top commanding officer Gen. Pietro Badoglio indicted but never tried in court {Fact|date=February 2007}.	Invasion of Ethiopia and Somalia by Italy under Benito Mussolini.

I have moved the above to here because there are sources givent and it has been fact tagged since Feb 2007. It should not be move back until reliable third party sources are added stating it was a war crime.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

other info about hungarians masacres (besides IP) you may find here - translation nedeed! http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masacre_%C3%AEn_Transilvania_de_Nord%2C_1940-1944 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.113.59.80 (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would propose moving it back and citing the following article addressing both fact tags: http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/northeast_african_studies/v006/6.1pankhurst.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.15.75 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ustaša's crimes

Can someone add Ustaša's war crimes during WWII in NDH.--Vojvodaen (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbian aggression on Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina

...never happened.

Furthermore, practically only alleged war crimes committed by Serbian and Croatian armies are listed. Nikola (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

1990 Invasion of Kuwait

I think it is interesting that the crimes perpetuated by Iraq are listed as unpunished. The ensuing international crack down by allied forces and follow on sanctions was the reprisal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackoutdaddy (talk • contribs) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle for Maslenica Bridge

Killings of 490 or 491 individuals Croatian army. No prosecutions 22 January - 1 February 1993; invasion of territory under international protection

That was a big millitary operation.those people were killed in combat.This shouldn't be here. and about invasion of territory under international protection... its croatian territory.croatia had every right to get some territory back under it's internationaly recognized borders.

I'm removing that,because it has nothing to do with war crimes.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The article about Operation Maslenica states that several serbian villages were burned down by Croatian armed forces resulting in at least 160 civillian casualties. I think that has something to do with war crimes. SWik78 (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK,but why is the number of 490 people given here???

reduce the number then.you can't count the military casualties that died during the battle as victims of war crimes.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Otkos 10

Killings of numerous individuals and expulsion of civilians Croatian army. No prosecutions 12 December 1991 - 2 January 1992; most of Western Slavonia taken from RSK There is nothing in the Operation Otkos 10 article about warcrimes.It was a stategic battle. Army combatants killed during a battle can not be listed as victims of warcrimes.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article title

"List of war crimes" suggests the article is a list of acts considered war crimes, similar to that seen on War crime. Perhaps a title more along the lines of "List of historic/committed/instances of war crimes" would be more appropriate. --NEMT (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle for Maslenica Bridge

This was no warcrime,this was a battle.If the soldiers are killed during battle than it can't be seen as a war crime. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Maslenica article lists this as the only reference and that's where the 490 number comes from. Please provide a link that counts 67 victims as you allege. SWik78 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Rights/93/Croatia93.html