Talk:War crime

message: Per the multiple issues tag I've added, this article (while it may be eligible for WP:GNG status) is extremely limited in its scope in discerning the broader aspects of the concept 'War Crime', the predominant interest being that of international law.
It also focusses on a few specific examples, employing the use of loaded language such as 'murdered', 'massacre' and other descriptors which have not cited WP:RS for the use of the terminology.
Input by contributors has been sporadic and decidedly WP:BIASED in selection of examples, a lack of transparency as to how certain examples have been selected above other pertinent examples, and there is no indication of the use of a tertiary source for the WP:TITLE of "War crime".
While I consider the subject to be a significant one, the article in itself smacks of WP:POV WP:SYNTH. I will also reiterate previous concerns regarding its being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean ("limited in its scope in discerning the broader aspects of the concept 'War Crime', the predominant interest being that of international law"). I thought the "concept" as described in RS is pretty close to that in international law. In any event, you are welcome to contribute here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This list is still somewhat limited in its scope; for instance, it doesn't mention war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jarble (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wrong page because it is about the concept in general. Such info can be included to page List of war crimes, but it is already seems to be included there, see  and other sections.My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary nature of article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on War crime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221161712/http://cil.nus.edu.sg/1949/1949-geneva-convention-i-for-the-amelioration-of-the-condition-of-the-wounded-and-sick-in-armed-forces-in-the-field/ to http://cil.nus.edu.sg/1949/1949-geneva-convention-i-for-the-amelioration-of-the-condition-of-the-wounded-and-sick-in-armed-forces-in-the-field/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419104833/http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2083 to http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2083
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231051315/http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/quarter-giving-no.html to http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/quarter-giving-no.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080114162221/http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf to http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406030617/http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/ to http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207221121/http://www.crimesofwar.org/ to http://www.crimesofwar.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501184018/http://www.sc-sl.org/ to http://www.sc-sl.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding this revert with edit summary: "Article does not mention Weapons of mass destruction. Please explain at Talk:War crime how this relates, and allow consensus to form before including."  If you search for "biological", "chemical", and "atomic", you'll see that the article does in fact discuss weapons of mass destruction.  It doesn't use the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" which make it hard to link to that overview article.  That's why I added it to the "See also" section.  The War crime article has perhaps the best discussion of whether or not the use of WMD should be considered a war crime, but if someone wants to learn more about the status of WMD in the world today (and thus potential war criminals) then I thought being able to click over to weapons of mass destruction is helpful for readers. Does that make sense? -- Beland (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: no, it does not make sense. The article's Definition section states, "In regard to the strategic bombing during World War II, it should be noticed that at the time, there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft, therefore the aerial attacks on civilians were not officially war crimes." This article is about actual war crimes, not about what you call "potential war criminals," which would violate the policy Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your new link to Mass killing is better because this article does specifically discuss mass killing. Please, let's not stray too far afield. KalHolmann (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the addition of a "see also" link to weapons of mass destruction is an example of Wikipedia making a prediction about the future; it's just a link to a related topic. And there's any number of reasons why readers might want more information on that related topic; my explanation above is just an example of one motivation which I happened to have myself while reading the article.  Some uses of chemical and biological weapons have been prosecuted as war crimes, and this article does discuss them, so I'm not quite understanding the argument that they are unrelated? Did you want pointers to documentation of such incidents? -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  although this article contains internal links to chemical weapons and biological weapons, it mentions only one individual charged with war crimes for using chemical weapons (Ali Hassan al-Majid) and none charged with war crimes for using biological weapons. Note that in defining weapons of mass destruction, Wikipedia includes not only chemical and biological, but also nuclear, radiological, and other weapons. Introducing a link to Weapons of mass destruction would misleadingly broaden the article's scope, falsely implying that war crimes have been proven in cases involving WMD other than chemical. I believe we should limit our "See also" links to what is strictly relevant to this article. Hopefully, other editors will weigh in and we can forge consensus. KalHolmann (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, people have also been sentenced as war criminals for use of biological weapons; see Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. Some people think that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was a war crime (on the grounds of disproportionate civilian casualties) that just hasn't been prosecuted because the using power was a global superpower. This article notes that those bombings and strategic bombings were never ruled war crimes, but it still mentions the controversy despite it not being taken up in an actual proceeding.  Anyway, if we want to link to articles on aspects of WMD more closely related to war crimes (not a bad idea, given the length of the list here) perhaps we should be focusing on "the treaties that regulate weapons" the breaking of which during wartime would be considered war crimes, regardless of the treaties that some people argue apply to indiscriminate weapons of any type.  In that case, List of weapons of mass destruction treaties might be a better choice.  Arms control has a list of treaties which include those that apply to civilian-targeting weapons like land mines. Would those be better links in your view? -- Beland (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  subsection 4.1 Country listings contains an internal link to Japanese war crimes, which in turn links to Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. It may be that the editors who wrote this article were not unaware of Khabarovsk, yet considered it better dealt with elsewhere. I think that's a wise approach. Broadening our scope to encompass WMD and its various offshoots such as treaties risks losing the focus on war crimes. But again, we have clearly established our respective positions, and ought now to patiently await input from other editors. KalHolmann (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt there was ever a conscious decision not to mention that particular trial; it's certainly on-topic.  I wasn't suggesting that it be included in the article, only offering it as a counter-example to dispel the idea that no one has ever been prosecuted for war crimes involving biological weapons.  Though thinking about it, given that it's an unusually direct example specifically related to war crimes (not some part of WMD unrelated to war crimes), it should probably be mentioned in the article to avoid giving the impression that this sort of thing has never happened. -- Beland (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Beland  What about the second degree murder charge being used on programmers due to automation of drones for example, and genetic enhancements? 72.83.128.234 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you point me to some sources for more information on the both of those? -- Beland (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also: Weapons of mass destruction 

message: The content briefly discusses the humanitarian impact of the war in Yemen, but I do not believe it is relevant to the history of war crimes. If one wanted to keep this paragraph in that section, it should make mention of explicit war crimes that have been found by an appropriate war crimes court - all the other sections refer to courts and the war crimes that the courts found. Since there hasn't been such a court as far as I know (i could be wrong), I think that this section should be removed. Could somebody please chime in and advise? 
QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dont believe the subsection "Saudi Arabian-led Military Intervention in Yemen" (under the section "History") is relevat 

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

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

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

message: In the “United Nations” section, the last bullet point should read “ Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.
Currently, it is missing “overall military advantage anticipated”. Due to semi-protection I cannot fix it myself. 2A01:E0A:4BF:1A10:CED:3067:6F82:1DF5 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit recommendation 

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