This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: History / Military / Politics and law B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Ukraine B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners

Hi @Anonimu and @Volunteer Marek, I edited it to add back the info in a way I hope you two are happy(er). Wording can probably be improved, so feel free to do so.

I removed some info that was repeated, made it more concise, and added back the Russian statement, but also added how it was refuted by images of Russian military.

Also removed Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba's statement, because I doubt he is omniscient and can know what the Russians know, and with the ambiguous translation it was borderline WP:SYNTH, giving the impression it was a planned attack on children by Russians.

Also might be reasonable to include the statement about how "extremely inaccurate" that kind of missile is. AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the input, your edits were a minor improvement, but did not fix the issues, as it attempted to find a middle ground between a grossly misrepresented version and one which basically paraphrased the sources. The photos in the article are published and captioned by the Ukrainian government, publishing them without attribution is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, adding refs to a caption of a photo which is not published or commented on by those source is fake sourcing and fits our definition of WP: VANDALISM. Also do note that CNN says "Ukrainian forces have the Soviet-designed Tochka missile in their inventory but it has also been used by Russian and separatist forces in the past.", while BBC attributes the claim to a Twitter account. Thus, the current text is misrepresenting the sources, which unfortunately is the tenth time Volunteer Marek is doing this.Anonimu (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who published the photos. What matters is what reliable sources say they are. And that's the part you keep trying to remove. This is neither "fake sourcing" nor "vandalism". Once again, I'm asking you to stop making personal attacks. Volunteer Marek 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Likewise it doesn't matter WHY a reliable source, like BBC, says something, what matters is that they say it). Volunteer Marek 16:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising the article by adding fake captions, fake sources and misrepresenting reliable sources. PLEASE.Anonimu (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done no such thing and you need to stop making personal attacks. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have un-collapsed the original message so that participants in the discussion can see diffs regarding your vandalism.Anonimu (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you both have problems with neutral points of views, but neither of you are vandals. Marek does get very heated up on discussions and his attitude doesn't help a lot. It is true that BBC's twitter source doesn't seem the most credible one, but indicate it instead of just removing it from the article. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to closely report exactly what each source is saying. I hope this will end this part of the dispute.Anonimu (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Volunteer Marek is continuing to vandalise the article, no matter any discussion on talk page.Anonimu (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been more than patient with you throughout this. One more time. Stop referring to my edits as "vandalism". Volunteer Marek 18:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation is now moot. A couple of housekeeping notes:

• in this edit of 18:08, 11 April 2022, Anonimu removed the collapse header above. I've restored the header, but left it expanded by default, in order not to be warring; but if another editor wants to set |collapse=yes in the header, be my guest.
• Please do not address any more comments to Anonimu at this page; he has been TBANned from EE (here), so cannot respond here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Boud (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys and gals these sorts of things (that Anonimu has been doing) have 'been happening on other Wikipedia articles mentioning war crimes in Ukraine too.

Constant vigilance is the solution.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of this image is now "Civilians in Bucha, massacred by Russian soldiers, April 2022". Sources follow, although it's not evident why they are there and what they'd support: the caption of one of them, "Radio free Europe", is "The bodies of two people in civilian clothes lie on a street in Bucha on April 3. They were shot by Russian soldiers, according to local residents. The hands of one of the bodies are tied behind its back". This is a good example of what a serious reliable source might say about a picture as this: it says what we know ("people in civilian clothes", "shot by Russian soldiers, according to local residents") and not what we think we know ("civilians killed by Russians"). We shouldn't be less serious and less reliable than our sources - or should we? And why should we be so hasty, what good would come from our sloppiness? So now I am changing (again) the caption of the image. If some editors don't like the one on Wikicommons ("Video published by the National News Agency of Ukraine reportedly showing Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers"), I agree with them - it's a bit bureaucratic. So they might perhaps prefer the following: "Bodies in civilian clothes, reportedly shot by Russian soldiers, lie on a street in Bucha. The hands of one of them are tied behind its back. 3 April 2022". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I've moved the image to the appropriate section, Bucha (surely we don't want it before the Infobox!) and I've removed the sources "Radio Free Europe" and "Der Spiegel", as they are not the sources of the image and they belong to the text, not to the caption (no other image has footnotes here). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to remove this image from the lead. It is there to represent the topic and illustrate it. And Bucha is now one of the symbols of war crimes in Ukraine.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep the image in the lede / infobox area. It is highly representative of the article, with the bound hands and bodies-- it clearly demonstrates that executions have been done. Highly germaine to the article topic.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, add more about the massacre in bucha per the page, and put the war crimes in the city in order like it is on the page.

also, can someone also add more images to the page? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please add the content i mentioned to the page? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bombings of Belgorod and Bryansk are war crimes? Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Because evidence of that no so much, like bombing of Borodyanka Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• At first it seemed like, but after closer inspection, they dont really seem like a war crime, but more like normal collateral damage. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above in "Article cleanup" I have drafted a proposed new section for "Human shields". I would suggest this section replaces the current "Use of children as human shields" subsection in the "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" section. Instead I would recommend it have its own section, probably below "Deportations", similar to "Chemical weapons" or "Looting". Note that most of the details below I have copied from the existing Human shields#Ukrainian-Russian war section. Would also suggest that some information currently in "Use of children as human shields" subsection be transferred to the HS#UR War. Plus it could be expanded by some of the issues in the Washington Post and AP article, though I now realise that some of these issues are already included in the Human shields and Human shields (law) articles.

Human shields

Main article: Human shields § Ukrainian-Russian war

See also: Human shields (law)

Since the onset of Ukrainian-Russian war (2014–present), both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of using Human shields.^[1][2][3]

In March 2022, about 120 stranded Bangladeshi civilians alleged Ukrainian forces of keeping them as hostages and using them as human shields in Zhuravychi, Ukraine.^[4] In April 2022, Russian forces leaving the area near Kyiv allegedly placed coaches of Ukrainian children in front of their tanks to protect themselves. According to the Ukrainian human rights ombudsman, cases of Russian soldiers using Ukrainian children as human shields have been recorded in Sumy, Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.^[5]

Using non-combatants to serve as human shields is prohibited by Humanitarian Law, as detailed in the 1998 ICC Statute, "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations constitutes a war crime".^[6]

Other Editors, particularly @Chesapeake77: and @Gitz6666: let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks very good to me, thanks for the ping. Just a few suggestions:

1. I would place the section on human shields after "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" because it's basically a case of ill-treatment of civilians, which, like "sexual violence", has its own peculiarities. I think the section would fit well between "Ill-treatment etc." and "Sexual violence".

2. I wouldn't shorten the text on "Use of children as human shields". Basically your proposal cuts out the sentence "In other areas of Ukraine, there were claims that Russian forces took local children hostage and threatened their parents in case they gave away the troops' coordinates", which is supported by the RS. I would leave the text on children as human shields exactly as it is now, as a self-standing paragraph, so that also the sentence on the Bangladeshi civilians would be a self-standing paragraph within the section. Chronological ordering comes naturally and is good.

3. The use of human shield is prohibited also by customary HIL, which is more relevant here, as Russia is not a party of the ICC Statute. Perhaps we could quote Rule 97 of the authoritative IHL database of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), here, and/or the most important treaty-based source, which is Protocol I of the Geneva Convention. Here a scholarly article on the point of sources. However, I suggest we leave all the legal staff out of the section and simply take it for granted that using human shields is a war crime: maybe there's no need for explaining and specifying the point. In that case the final paragraph of your proposal could be omitted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gitz have taken on board all your suggestions.  I still believe it is worthwhile to include a legal section, however I have shortened and used your Protocol I reference.  Will include the updated wording in the article for your review, plus any other Editors who wants to contribute. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, again, this is another attempt at "bothsideism". You're replacing reliably sourced content on the use of children as human shields by Russian forces with "both sides have been accused of using human shields". The sources which support Russian use of it are very reliable. The sources which support Ukrainian use of it are not. Neither Business Insider nor Daily Star are high quality sources. Volunteer Marek 15:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry but this here illustrates that the purpose of these edits appears to be to push POV. If you search for "Ukraine human shields" you find dozens of sources on Russian use of civilians as human shields but you have to click through to like page 25 to get to (unreliable) sources that claim that Ukraine is doing it too. This means you have to work really hard to construct this "bothsidesdoit" narrative, by dredging the internet for something you could potentially use. Please stop trying to add WP:FALSEBALANCE to everything in this article. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you originally reverted my edit of “… by forcing them to sit on top of their tanks as they withdrew.” about a week ago and said to seek consensus on the Talk page. I have done this above and two other editors besides myself have noted that this is misleading as the reference does not state this. Yet again you have reverted back to the misleading statement. So your statement that I am “pushing POV” is laughable, this example is a clear case that you are pushing your view, irrespective of what the reference states and that three other editors disagree with you.

In addition, please provide evidence that either Business Insider nor Daily Star cannot be used as a reference. “Not high quality” is obviously your opinion.

I’ll leave it up to other Editors to comment. Ilenart626 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You and Gitz agreeing on something is not consensus. Business Insider is clearly a marginal source and so is Daily Star. How many pages of google search results did you have to scroll through before you found these two mentions? This is simply a textbook example of POV via FALSE balance. Volunteer Marek 20:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had to search one page to find these references, both were already included in the Human shields article. As I have stated above, most of the new section was copied from this article Ilenart626 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Volunteer Marek has now added a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" template to the Human Shields section. I believe the only Editor who is disputing this is Volunteer Marek, however I am happy to have the neutrality reviewed by other Editors. Please read the above, plus the "Article cleanup" section above to see how the current "Human Shields" section was developed. You may also want to review the existing Human shields#Ukrainian-Russian war section. Ilenart626 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an immediately obvious issue there. Whoever added the sentence about Bangladeshis was either POV pushing or lacking in English language skills. Lets look at it: "In March 2022, about 120 stranded Bangladeshi civilians alleged Ukrainian forces of keeping them as hostages and using them as human shields in Zhuravychi, Ukraine." Now lets check the source: [1] Here is what an accurate sentence actually reflecting the source would be: "In March 2022, a Bangladeshi man held in migrant detention camp in Zhuravychi, alleged that Ukrainian forces were keeping 120 civilians there as hostages." Clear case of WP:UNDUE.--Staberinde (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was copied from the Human shields article, which I see you have now deleted. Also I am unsure how you get your “accurate sentence” from the source, which is entitled “Kept as ‘human shields’ in Ukraine camps, say stranded Bangladeshis”, WP:UNDUE would appear to apply to your statement. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Staberinde, to ensure we have a clear unbiased discussion, I have reverted your edits on the Human shields article and placed a comment on the Human shields talk page. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was added to the Human Shields article by an SPA IP editor. That makes it even more dubious.

In regard to this piece, if you type "Ukraine Russia human shields" into google (or "Russia Ukraine human shields" if you like) there are literally several dozen reliable sources which discuss Russian use of human shields. You have to go to like page 20 of search results to get to this "Bangladesh students" story. This clearly indicates that someone went and specifically looked for something which would allow them to try and spin a "both sides do it" narrative. That's a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. And that's IN ADDITION to the problems of misrepresentation of the source. Volunteer Marek 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilenart626, have you actually read the Daily Star article? And I mean the actual article text, not the headline, news headlines are not reliable sources as explained in WP:HEADLINES. Whole claim of human shields comes from one guy named Malik, who makes also some other interesting claims about torture happening EU operated detention facility, and "The whole of Kyiv and Kharkiv have been burnt to ashes." So yes, it is blatantly undue.--Staberinde (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"torture happening in EU operated detention facility" has been also reported by The Guardian.[2] Topic here is the account by the Bangladeshi civilian and it should be included. Note that The Daily Star is a WP:RS. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volenteer Marek I have used your example of a Google search of "Russia Ukraine human shields" and I note that the first two pages includes seven references that all discuss Russia's claims that Ukraine is using its civilians as human shields, including 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Therefore deleting all details of Russia's claims is WP:UNDUE, Russia's claims need to be included in the article to provide WP:NPOV. I also note that some of these sources discuss the claims of Indian nationals being used as Human shields by Ukraine forces, in addition to Bangledesh students, as noted by Georgethedragonslayer below. Plus your claims of "misrepresentative of the source", are laughable, have you even read your edits based on this article? Where does it say that the children were sitting on top of tanks? Two other Editors have already highlighted this issue in the "Use of children as human shields - Sitting on top of tanks", yet you persist in misrepresenting the source in your edits over the past week. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the first sentence "both sides accuse other" is of little substance and pointless.--Staberinde (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the general attempt at POVing the article. Volunteer Marek 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is called WP:NPOV; there is no need to ignore Russian claims but reflect only Ukrainian claims.

See:

• Russia, Ukraine accuse each other of using civilians as human shields, JPost.
• Desperate dash for safety as SA students flee Ukraine war zone, by TimesLIVE which says: "Moodley said she witnessed first-hand Ukrainian soldiers and police using black and Indian people as human shields while they were under attack by Russians, shouting that their lives meant nothing. “They were using black people as human shields,” she said.

Now if the account of Ukrainian eye-witnesses can be noted on the article, then why South African and Bangladeshi[3] eye-witnesses cannot be noted? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Staberinde: I note the changes you have made of the Human shields section and I believe we are working towards a consensus, thankyou for your edits. I still believe we need to include information and references regarding foreign nationals, plus the issues raised in these two articles 1 2 need to be included, so will carry out some edits to your modified wording.Ilenart626 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the info regarding foreign nationals should be given, but not in the human shield section. On this I've found this authoritative source (HRW) and this one (Infomigrants). They make clear that this is not a case of using human shields (probably the Russians don't even know about the migrants, or don't care) but rather ill-treatment of civilians in the context of war, and that's the section where the info could fit as a self-standing subsection concerning the treatment of irregular migrants in detention camps ("Whatever the original basis for their detention, their continued detention at the center is arbitrary and places them at risk of harm from the hostilities, Human Rights Watch said"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious that both reports are referring to the same Refugee Detention centre that this article is refering to, which adds weight to the claims made in the Daily Star. I also note that even though neither articles refer to "Human shields", the HRW report does states that "A video, verified and analyzed by Human Rights Watch, shows scores of Ukrainian soldiers standing in the courtyard of the Zhuravychi MAC, corroborating the accounts that the Ukrainian military is actively using the site." Ilenart626 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the alleged 'Main article' discussed here? This discussion is about this page. There was no information about this discussion there and my edits have been removed, especially this reference https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61020565, which I refuse to accept. The general page is Russo-Ukrainian War. Please explain your rename to 'Ukrainian-Russian War'. The name may suggests that you mean an another war.Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

refer Talk:Human shield have added back Xx236 edits. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Zhuravychi' is situated in Western Ukraine, probably far from the front line. Ukrainian authorities were accused to help evacuate mothers with children eg. by Indian students, but such preferences looked rational to me. In Europe generally babies deserve more care than young men. This case seems to be similar. As far as I know there were no Russian tanks in Zhuravychi, certainly not before March 5. Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have made some progress, however I note that my recent edits have been reverted. Assume current wording is agreed (I hope!). Note that I reverted "Scholars Michael N. Schmitt, Neve Gordon, and Nicola Perugini have rejected these claims as attempts to shift blame for civilian deaths to Ukraine." as Volenteer Marek deletion here now means this statement does not make sense for two reasons:

• It now follows on from "On the 4 March Russia accused Ukraine of using foreign nationals as human shields", which does not make any sense; and
• both supporting sources here and here do not support the statement. Instead both sources are arguing that the current interpretation of Article 51(8) of Additional Protocol I is resulting in additional casualties by relaxing the proportionality assessment (arts. 51(5) & 57(2)) in relation to personnel being used as human shields. Yes this is Russia's arguement, however it is also the same arguement that the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel, Sri Lanka, and India have all used in previous conflicts. Note that their is not agreement with scholars on this issue, Schmitt and Gordon are pushing one view, other scholars have other opinions on how to resolve the issue, ie Ammon Rubinstein and Yaniv Roznai place more emphasis on the defender, see their discussion in Human shields (law)#Proportionate proportionality analysis. Frankly the Scmitt and Gordon sources would be better utilised in the Human Shields (Law) article.

Note that I also tried to bring in William Schabas's views on this issue (who's Wikipedia article describes him as "the world expert on the law of genocide and international law") with the statement below to provide some balance. However I note that it has been deleted by Volunteer Maresk";

"However Washington Post reporters noted that Ukraine forces were militizing virtually every neighborhood in most cities and William Schabas, an international law professor noted that "to the extent that Ukraine brings the battlefield to the civilian neighborhoods, it increases the danger to civilians".^[1]"

So, not sure where we go to from here. I acknowledge the above is complicated. Was thinking one approach maybe to explain the legal issue that the scholars are arguing about in a small summary in the Legal section at the bottom of the article, with a direct link to Human Shields (law), which could be expanded to cover the issue and how it effects the Russian / Ukraine conflict (as well as all the other conflicts where it is an issue, particularly Israel / Palestine). That way the Human Shields section in this article could be simplified with a "see below" link to the Legal section. Or we could keep on trying to thrash out a compromise wording with everything contained in the Human shields section. Thoughts? Ilenart626 (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilenart626, your quotation from the Washington Post is... let's call it "misleading", because you are omitting/clipping the quotations from Schabas, who also said: "“I am very reluctant to suggest that Ukraine is responsible for civilian casualties, because Ukraine is fighting to defend its country from an aggressor”" and "Schabas, adding that he was not suggesting this is what is happening (using civilians as human shields - VM)". So you are actually trying to use a source and an expert who is saying that Ukraine is NOT using civilians as human shields to source a claim that that Ukraine is using civilians as human shields. ... ... ... Care to explain how this is suppose to work? Volunteer Marek 05:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already pretty long, so probably best to go with more minimalist approach with specific notable instances, leaving out various more vague claims from government officials and whatnot.--Staberinde (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the content I had proposed above. The section now looks succinct enough. Remember that WP:YESPOV which say Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them' applies here and accusations should be clearly called out as accusations and attributed properly. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interested parties are welcome to discuss at WP:NPOVN where I have raised this disputed. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (I came here from NPOVN). I don't see a reason why this article in The Jerusalem Post: "Russia, Ukraine accuse each other of using civilians as human shields" cannot be used to source Russia's accusations against Ukraine regarding human shields; seems a rather obvious inclusion to me. Pinging @Volunteer Marek: who removed it (with no edit summary?). Endwise (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is including it without all the counterclaims and evidence that Russian claims are basically bogus. Because there are no well sourced third party reports which allege Ukrainian use of human shields, it should not be included in the article. However, it would also be fair to keep out claims made by Ukrainians that lack any sort of evidence or third party verification. Shadybabs (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you read the Washington Post source? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean the source in which an expert explicitly says that Ukrainians are NOT using civilians as human shields but that for some reason you and another editors want to use to pretend-source the claim that they are using civilians as human shields? That Washington Post source? Yes I read. Which is why I'm wondering why are you trying to do that. Volunteer Marek 05:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I discovered the source only when it was provided above. It is explicit about "Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". I am not saying that this report should be included but it at least verifies claims from Russia that Ukraine is using civilian areas and putting their life in danger. This is why I see no sense in fully rejecting Russian claims just because they happen to be from Russia. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The source explicitly says that Ukrainians are NOT using civilians as human shields. You are trying to misrepresent the source. Volunteer Marek 17:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said that. Read my above message again. I only said that Washington Post verifies some claims by Russia thus we should not reject Russian claims outright. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on human shields seems to have finished without a clear consensus, but I think that something is pretty obvious and everybody would agree on this: we do need a section on human shields in this article. The current situation – few sketchy lines and the template:POV section – cannot last forever. So I've taken the liberty of drafting a section which hopefully takes into consideration everybody's views on the subject. My criterion has been the most inclusionist one, both for reasons related to the need for consensus (nothing is more irritating than being silenced) and because I believe that no notable and verifiable allegation of war crimes should be left out of this article. I've also done my best for sticking to the sources as closely as possible. The "Washington Post" article is relevant and should definitely be mentioned, but it's not an allegation of use of human shields and cannot be construed as such. Russian allegations of Ukraine using its citizens as human shields may be ludicrous, but they are notable enough for the purposes of inclusion; they've also drafted a resolution at the UN Security Council on this, which failed, but China voted "yes", so let's report this. With regard to the Bangladeshi people, I feel that that is not a case of human shields and that we should have a section on "ill-treatment of irregular migrants in detention camp", which I'll be happy to write down myself in the next few days. Please, let me know: apart from the Bangladeshi citizens, have I forgotten anything? In that case, let's add it to the section, but please don't remove anything for the time being, let's keep the new "inclusionist" text as a base for further discussions towards consensus. And please, check and improve my defective English – it's not my mother tongue. By the way, a lot of stuff is still missing about the Borodianka massacre (here subsection "Killings and torture in Borodianka") and I think that we should also work on that rather than keep on bickering about the human shield section. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, one minor fix. Excellent summary, thanks Gitz for the effort. Considering these issues will take years until they are determined and resolved via the Legal process, I believe leaving all the detals in the text is preferred. Very interesting that no one at the Security Council voted against the Russian resolution. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I reworded Yahidne part, vague "accused" doesn't really work there, as we have two reliable sources clearly backing the claim. While I don't think it even needs to be attributed with two sources, I currently did so as a compromise solution. 2. Removed UN draft. There is no mention of it even blaming Ukraine, it was literally just "lets no commit war crimes" nothingburger. Completely undue. 3. Washington Post article is clearly far more relevant to general "indiscriminate attacks" topic, so moved it to an appropriate section.--Staberinde (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few days a sub-section on Detention camps has been added to the Deportions section. Reading through the details added to me it does not appear to be a war crime. Also the single reference does not mention war crimes. Delete? Ilenart626 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at first I had thought the same and was about to delete it, but then I realised that it could be read as providing information on the living conditions of those who (allegedly) have been victim of the crime of deportation. So the war crime would not be the relatively poor living conditions in the detention camps, but rather deportation as such, and the subsection would specify how the victims of this crime are actually treated. But to be honest, I'm not at all sure about this, so let's wait for other editors' point of views. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. It's actually quite flimsy, because the source says "they had permission to leave", and they actually left, so it's debatable whether this qualifies as "forced deportation of civilians" (the source doesn't claim that).[reply]

I would not include *any* individual accounts in this section. We already have a HRW report and they have at least spoken to dozens of refugees who managed to get out of Mariupol. They do not say that war crimes have been committed in the course of these transfers. Alaexis_¿question? 16:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if unopposed I intend to remove the subsection: it's 2.5 editors against 0.5 editors on this, and I'm the split editor. If in the future RS will cover more extensively the issue of the living conditions in Russian detention camps, we will recover the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Would of done it myself but I have been a little busy discussing Human shields! Ilenart626 (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forced detention and forced relocation of civilians are violations of international law.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To include the info on marauders and looters being abused, please provide a source which actually refers to this as a "war crime", which is the actual subject of this article. These actions may very well be criminal, and they do constitute human rights abuses but they are not "war crimes". For comparison, the shooting of student protestors at Kent State in 1970 was horrible and basically a crime but it was not a "war crime" even if it occurred during the Vietnam war. This is a basic category error here. "One thing is bad and then another thing is bad and they happened during same event so they both the same thing". Nope. Volunteer Marek 14:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilenart626: please provide sources which actually call these "war crimes" or stop adding it to the article. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, while some stories here refer to the individuals being tied to lampposts as "marauders" I think that's basically a mistranslation since I haven't seen a single instance of it being done to a captured Russian soldier. It also makes no sense that such would be done. Volunteer Marek 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I'm not sure if the detention of journalists etc also counts as a "war crime" either. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any serious violation of IHL committed in the context of a war qualifies as a "war crime" according to legal scholarship and, as far as I remember, also according to the editors who have discussed the issue on this talk page. That's the reason why we have a section on genocide, which is not a war crime stricto sensu, but for our purposes qualifies as such. Based on your argument, we should get rid of the whole section on genocide - would you accept that consequence of your reasoning? With regard to the section you would like to remove, the prohibition of "humiliating and degrading treatment" is relevant (see Rule 90 ICRC Customary IHL Database). I'm not an expert, I think that prohibition also applies to marauders and looters and I'm pretty sure it applies to Russian supporters. Anyway, for me it is sufficient that these incidents are reported by this RS: to be honest, I wouldn't enquire further. So unless you provide an equally reliable source proving that these incidents are not relevant for this article, I think we shouldn't remove the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sources provided that these are violations of IHL either (in particular, abusing domestic looters is not an international crime). I genuinely don't get your logic wrt to genocide. The source you quote does not refer to these as war crimes violations either. It's actually NOT up to me to provide a source which says they are not war crimes, it is up to those trying to add it to provide sources which say they are, per WP:ONUS. Volunteer Marek 16:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already provided the sources. IHL violations and human rights violation committed in the context of war, if closely related to war, amount to war crimes for the purposes of this article - I'm arguing; other editors are free to express their views on the point. We are not strictly bound by the legal jargon, but in this case current IHL supports the choice for inclusion. Let me just briefly make the legal point, which might be useful also for future discussions.

• IHL applies as soon as an armed conflict exists between states and it is applicable throughout the entire territory of the parties to the conflict.
• There needs to be a nexus between the prohibited act and the war ("nexus requirement"). Pursuant to the ICTY jurisprudence, the prohibited act needs neither be committed in the course of fighting nor inside the area of actual combat, as long as the "crimes were closely related to the hostilities". ICC Statute: "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an (international) armed conflict".
• Under the ICC and other IHL instruments, war crimes can be committed by both members of armed forces and civilians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already provided the sources.

  No, no you haven't. You provided a source for something else entirely. Please provide a source which says these are war crimes. And now you're trying to substitute your own original research rather than providing sources. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure why Volunteer Marek pinged me here, however have read the above discussuon and Gitz Inagree and support your view. Ilenart626 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I pinged you for the very obvious reason that you are the one trying to add this to the article, despite the fact that there is no sources which call this "war crimes". Volunteer Marek 19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please show me the edit where I added information about “Marauders” to this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  here and pretty much here Volunteer Marek 23:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  note the comments to the edits both carried out yesterday, Volunteer Marek please seek consensus on the Talk page before you carry out wholesale changes to this article. Only reason I added them back was in response to your recent edits. I believe the information was added several weeks ago be other editors. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You still restored content which misrepresented sources (none of the sources refer to this as “war crimes”). When you restore someone else’s edit you take responsibility for it. Volunteer Marek 02:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I also see that you reverted both of my edits 1minute after I made them. So your whole conversation is pointless and I will no longer participate in this discussion Ilenart626 (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are of course free to do that, but please keep in mind that reverting others while refusing to engage in discussion on talk is edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Volunteer Marek 14:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have engaged in a discussion with you, I've given you my reasons and Ilenart626 has agreed with me. It will be easier for other editors to join the discussion if we keep it focused and avoid repeating our posts. So far there's no consensus for removing the section and modifying the lead, so now I'm manually reverting your removal. Please refrain from removing these contents again until a different consensus is reached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment was obviously directed at Illenart626. Since you've replied though, can you provide a source which actually calls the treatment of marauders and looters a "war crime"? An actual source, not your own personal WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 03:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The level of detail given to these reports, relative to the scale of the allegations, is not worthy of inclusion in the lead regardless of its suitability for the article as a whole. Furthermore, these reports should only be included for allegations against those acting in a military capacity; not for civilians tying up other civilians in defense of their property. Shadybabs (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadybabs, I suggest we discuss the point on the lead in the thread you just opened here below. With regard to "civilians tying up other civilians in defense of their property": HRMMU March report, quoted, says "... by civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence", and also the fact that some of the victims were targetted as "Russian supporters" is relevant here. @Volunteer Marek, this article doesn't deal exclusively with war crimes stricto sensu, implying individual responsibility of the perpetrators, but with any violation of IHL and HR violations if the criminal conduct is "closely related to the hostilities". The overwhelming majority of the crimes we are reporting were not explicitly qualified as such by the sources: basically all the incidents you can find in "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks", for example. You yourself have recently added a section on "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children": do the sources there use the label "war crime"? They don't, and that's not important. With regard to marauders, Russian-supporters etc. we have HRMMU reporting at least 45 cases of mistreatment, which is suggestive of official state policy, and we have the Head of the HRMMU stating that they have received "two allegations of killing in Government controlled territory of civilians due to their alleged affiliation with Russian forces or support of pro-Russian views". So this may well be a case of war crime stricto sensu, and anyway it clearly belongs to the subject matter of this article, as a series of cases of inhumane and degrading treatment (and at least two wilful killings) of civilians in strict connection with the war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article include all instances of Russian abuses against anti-war Russians in Russia; the disappearing of oligarchs who oppose the war, beating and imprisonment of protestors, etc.? When do civil rights abuses cross that threshold, and why are only internal civil rights abuses committed by Ukrainians being included here? If we want to give fair and proportional weight to both sides here, there's a TON that needs to be added about Russia's abuses. Shadybabs (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to having a section on Russian repression on dissent against the invasion provided that it deals with serious human rights violations (like inhumane and degrading treatment, and arbitrary detention, not just censorship) which are related to the war (e.g. targetting activists, journalists and politicians who oppose the invasion). War crimes can be committed also against one's own citizens, and the connection to the war can be functional (so there's no need for the crime to be committed in the course of fighting nor inside the area of combat). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should have neither since neither is a war crime. Still waiting on the sources here. Volunteer Marek 15:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HRMMU says "credible allegations of more than 45 such cases of torture and ill-treatment" and says that "binding partially or fully stripped persons to poles or trees and beating them in public could also amount to CRSV" (Conflict-related sexual violence). That's enough. The sources of the "Ukrainian prisoners of war" section do not use the magic words "war crime" either. You added a section on "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children": is there a RS using "war crimes" there? And what about the "Chemical weapons" section? And the series of bombing with civilian casualties? The thing is: there's no need for our RS to use the expression "war crime" if they describe war crimes, and when we see an an apple, we can call it an apple. We need reliable sources only for challenged claims, or for claims likely to be challenged. I know that yesterday you even challenged the claim that shooting someone in the legs amounts to torture (seriously). But I insist that, Volunteer Marek notwithstanding, the claim that binding marauders and pro-Russian activists to trees and beating them in public amounts to a war crime is not likely to be challenged. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it's not. You need a source which says "war crimes" here because it's being challenged. If you want to challenge any other issue please start a separate section for that issue. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Volunteer Marek 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "I know that yesterday you even challenged the claim that shooting someone in the legs amounts to torture" No I fucking didn't. What I said is that the source being used "does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured". Which is 100% true. Don't willfully falsify what I (or anyone else for that matter) have said. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not falsifying anything: the section is there for everybody to read. You were claiming that we cannot call the kneecapping of Russian POW "torture" unless reliable sources do so explicitly as well - which they do, actually, and several times. And now you're claiming that ill-treatment and torture of marauders and Russian-supporters fall outside the scope of this article unless a reliable source qualifies them as "war crimes". If I understand your point, human rights violations committed in the context of war and associated with war don't qualify as "war crimes" for the purposes of this article, unless a RS says so. Is that correct? Are you sure this is the position you'd like to defend? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are and I really need you to stop. I was NOT "claiming that we cannot call the kneecapping of Russian POW "torture"". What I said was: I'm sorry but the source [43] does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured. Which is 100% correct. And what I'm saying with respect to ill treatment of marauders and "Russian supports" (sic) - before it was "bootleggers and looters" but now I see it got changed to "Russian supporters" - is that yes, you need a source which calls it a war crime since unlike most other things in this article (like mass rapes and murder of civilians) it's not immediately obvious that it is a war crime. Volunteer Marek 07:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So when you were saying I'm sorry but the source [43] does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured your point was purely theoretical and you were not at all implying that we could not say that the Russian POWs had been tortured due to lack of source. However, you are now claiming that we cannot say that ill-treatment of marauders and Russian supporters is a war crime unless we have a source that calls it a war crime. I don't agree: if we were to apply that criterion, we would need to delate 2/3 of the article; the vast majority of incidents we are reporting in the article have never been explicitly called "war crime" by the sources. The sources quoted in the section you recently added, "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children", do not speak of "war crimes"; but we know that forced deportation of civilians is a war crime, so we don't need a source. And what about arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of journalists, activists and public officials in Russian controlled territories? Why would that be relevant, if torture of Russian supporters in government controlled territory is not a war crime? This is cherry picking and is NPOV. The point is: any serious violation of human rights, if closely related to the war, qualifies as war crime for the purposes of this article, irrespective on whether the sources explicitly speak of "war crimes" or not. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was simply pointing out that the source didn't actually support the text that was being added. It's as simply as that and you trying to pretend I was saying something else - something quite odious in fact - is disingenuous and insulting. That's why you need to stop because at that point it becomes a matter of a personal attack. As far as kidnapping of children by invading armed forces, yes, that's clearly a war crime. Tying looters and bootleggers to lampposts is bad, and it's vigilante justice (at best) but it is not a war crime (for one thing, it's something that private citizens are doing to their fellow citizens). The difference is not that hard to understand unless someone is trying really hard not to understand it. Volunteer Marek 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re torture: "if you think that there is "torture" of Russian POWs then you should have absolutely no problem providing a source which actually says so." No further comment is needed. Re marauders and Russian supporters, you're constantly comparing crimes that are different and making the point that some are worst then others. I'm not denying this, but I don't see how's this relevant to us. The point is: do they belong to the subject of this article?Let me ask you again one question: do arbitrary detention and Ill-treatment of journalists, activists and public servants in Russian controlled territories belong to this article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re [4]. I'm sorry but the source [5] does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured. What it says it that torture of POWs is against the Geneva Convention. Including this in the lede appears to be a pretty flagrant misrepresentation of sources. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any misrepresentation of sources, let alone a flagrant one. Shooting someone in the legs amounts to torture - deliberate infliction of severe pain - and this is so obvious that frankly I don't see the point of discussing this: consulting the dictionary should be enough. And if HRW comments the episode by stating "No torture or other form of coercion may be inflicted on POWs" and "Ukraine is also bound by the absolute prohibition on torture and other degrading or inhuman treatment", that sounds quite indicative to me. But let's wait for other editors' comments on the point, and on that basis decide if we want to remove the tag "failed verification" in the lead, or rather we want to replace "torture" with "shot in the legs", restoring the text as it was until this edit. But dropping the reference entirely and framing this episode just as a case of "abuse" is out of the question IMO. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should indeed be "shoot in the leg" per source, but that would also highlight that we're putting what looks like an isolated incident into the lede and displaying it on par with mass murder, mass rapes, torture chambers, mutilation of children that the other side committed. Basically, we're pretending that there's equal guilt on both sides when there clearly isn't and that is a violation of NPOV.

Seriously, this whole article has this problem throughout where on one side there's a ton of well sourced crimes so somebody went and dug through the internet to find that one instance of the other side doing something bad so they can engage in this kind of false equivocation. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The aim here should not be establishing who is guilty, who is not guilty, who is not so much guilty, who is more guilty than others. That's the aim of the prosecutor, the judge, the opinion maker and the politician. We are just editors of Wikipedia and we are here to assemble reliable information making it easily accessible to the public: that's the only goal we should have. If you're interested in war crimes in Ukraine, you might be interested in knowing about the Russian POWs; what then you will do with that information, it's a matter for your brain and conscience and it's hard to tell. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The aim here should not be establishing who is guilty, who is not guilty, who is not so much guilty, who is more guilty than others" - The aim here should be to reflect what the reliable sources say on the topic and in what proportion. If reliable sources say that Russia is more guilty than others then that is EXACTLY what we say. What you and Illenart are trying to do here is present to the reader a very skewed portrayal as to what reliable source say, and falsely convince them that reliable sources portray Ukrainian war crimes as on par with Russian ones, despite the fact that we're talking isolated incidents vs mass murder and rape here. And that's a, you know, a "matter for your brain and conscience", but also for Wikipedia neutrality and policies. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz I agree with your analysis. Overall I believe the article was balanced before Volunteer Marek’s numorous changes, with most of the article focusing on Russia’s war crimes. However NPOV means we include war crimes from both sides, which are supported by RS, something that Volunteer Marek seems to have trouble understanding or accepting. On the issue of “torture of Russian prisoners”;I would agree that shooting someone in the leg can obviously be described as torture. Ilenart626 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. The article was balanced before YOU made numerous changes, the gist of which was to try and "blame both sides equally". And no, NPOV does not say we "must include both sides" - it means we include both sides in proportion to how it's reported in reliable sources. Since Russian forces are responsible for the overwhelming number of these war crimes, it means that's how we present it. Otherwise these are just attempts to whitewash by diluting guilt. Volunteer Marek 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more time - it's simple really - if you think that there is "torture" of Russian POWs then you should have absolutely no problem providing a source which actually says so. Not "I think this looks like maybe it kind of says that it was alleged and then denied" but actually says it. Volunteer Marek 20:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and here I stop. Next time may I suggest you use "Google" instead of Wikipedia talk pages for enquiries like this? Now I disengage and won't reply again to other provocative and pointless requests. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was easy, as you requested.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/28/ukraine-government-investigates-video-alleged-torture-russian-prisoners-of-war

Ilenart626 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then use the sources that actually say it - and say that Ukraine is investigating it (is Russia investigating it’s soldiers that murdered and raped in Bucha? Oh that’s right, they’re promoting them and giving them medals). Not the sources which DONT say it. Volunteer Marek 23:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is still wrong because the current text says that HRW “expressed concern about (…) torture of (…) POWs”. But there’s no such thing in the actual source. Volunteer Marek 23:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: with no clear consensus, the text now on is The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine. Dozen of news outlets, human rights organisations and government agencies (including the Ukrainian authorities) have expressed concern for well-documented episodes of torture and wilful killing of Russian POW (at least two confirmed episodes); plus, at the beginning of March they had expressed concern for systematic abuse and public humiliation of Russian POW, which at the time was likely to be official state policy (government Telegram channels and social networks, press conferences with POWs and Ukr authorities). Moreover, the following text has been added to the lead: Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution. Citation overkill follows (5 footnotes) but the sources provided fail to support the text: we have an allegation by an US official that they have undisclosed evidence of summary executions (which clearly doesn't belong the the lead for the time being), and all the remaining references are to the case of the British POW and to other cases of abuse and exposure to public curiosity, where torture was not alleged nor documented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is one incident (the shooting of a POW in knees). But even with two, that pales in comparison to the multiple dozens of instances of Russian war crimes. Hence it’s UNDUE to write the sentence as if the abuses on the Ukrainian side have been numerous. That’s also POV. Volunteer Marek 16:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Russian soldiers in the knees is absolutely torture and any allegations of sufficient weight should be included in the article.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is for summary of an article, not to give details on specific events. There should at most be one line regarding prisoners of war that summarizes well documented actions that constitute war crimes. One video of POWs getting shot in the knee is worthy for inclusion in the body of the article, but not in the lead. Furthermore, my attempts to remedy this issue in the past has led to partial reversions to only sections of the lead for accusations against Ukraine, giving a distorted balance that is not in line with neutral point of view.Shadybabs (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what WP:NPOV means. Please read the page I just linked. It doesn't mean that we create false balance. The preponderance of sources opine on Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity, and not the vague accusations leveled against Ukraine by Russia. However, if multiple reliable sources do comment on that at some point, it should absolutely go in the article. As far as "individual" and "small scale" events, we regularly include such things in article leads across Wikipedia if they're inherently notable, and obviously encyclopedic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should go in the article, but I don't believe it belongs in the lede per WP:DUE. However, I don't currently see it in the lede? BilledMammal (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lines in question keep being removed by editors trying to give proportionate balance then reinserted. Here's the content that I object to (in bold)

The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have allegedly been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence, and Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured and subjected to summary execution.

The first line is a good enough summary for the lead, the bolded section is unnecessary detail for the lead that gives disproportionate detail for accusations against Ukraine relative to the rest of the article. Shadybabs (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: while the consensus is leaning towards more detail in the lead and not less; I'll be adding more description on important aspects of the article such as sexual violence/rape as a weapon of war. I have previously trimmed such excess detail from both the Russian and Ukrainian side, but restoring detail for one side and not the other creates false balance. Shadybabs (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the most important points. How to identify them? "Not include detail on individual or small scale events" is a reasonable criterion: let's call it SCALE. Another one could be "include according to coverage by reliable source" (actually this would be closer to MOS:LEADREL, "relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources"): let's call it SOURCE.

If we adopt SCALE, then mistreatment of marauders and Russian-supporters qualifies for the lead, because RS reported (one month ago) at least 45 cases of mistreatment, which is suggestive of official state policy, plus two killings. Torture and killing of Russian POWs, however, doesn't qualify for the lead (three reported episodes) unless the Russian authorities claim it's been widespread (I haven't checked). But note that also use of phosphorus bombs by the Russians and wilful killing of Ukrainian children shouldn't belong to the lead according to SCALE.

If we adopt SOURCE, then public humiliation, torture and killing of Russian POWs belong to the lead (they've been wildly reported); mistreatment of marauders and Russian-supporters, however, wouldn't; and also arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists, etc., wouldn't qualify for the lead according to SCALE.

There's a third option: balancing SOURCE and SCALE according to common sense and discussion. That, however, requires a certain degree of mutual confidence and respect among editors, which I feel might be lacking here – and that's quite disappointing, considering the amount of time that most of us have dedicated to this work. How could anyone possibly read the lead (or the article) and think that our job here has been that of downplaying the Russians' responsibilities?!? I think that the lead as it is now, is actually quite balanced: the enormous scale of the crimes committed by the Russian army clearly emerges.

Maybe we could shorten it a bit: The Monitoring Mission and human rights organisations have also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment, public humiliation, torture and summary execution of pro-Russian supporters and Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine. That would mean getting read of marauders, bootleggers ... publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence ... abused, exposed to public curiosity. Do you like it more? But then I think we should also eliminate the reference to "phosphorus bombs" (as per SCALE and per SOURCE) as well as the sentence (recently added) Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war", possibly with tacit approval from their superiors: we already had a reference to "sexual assaults and rapes" in the lead and the "tacit approval from their superiors" is purely speculative and not supported by RS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need an actual source which calls mistreatment of "bootleggers, looters and marauders" a war crime. Not your own original research. A source.

With regard to the "public humiliation, torture and killing of Russian POWs" in the lede, there's a different problem. Aside from posting of videos of Russian POWs calling their moms and what not, these incidents of "humiliation, torture and killings" are isolated. In fact, it's basically... one (unless you count sketchy as fuck twitter/telegram claims not present in any reliable sources). The wording you insist on and even your revised wording gives the very very very false impression that these things are widespread however. That right there is the false balance and POV. Volunteer Marek 15:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly misinformed. Please check the sources. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I? If so can you link the specific source which calls the treatment of marauders, bootleggers and looters a war crime right here? Volunteer Marek 16:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the discussion of rape in the lede. Yeah, I guess the "tacit approval" can be removed. However, rape occurring during a war and rape being used as a weapon to terrorize the local population are actually distinct though related phenomenon and as such BOTH need to be mentioned. Volunteer Marek 15:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After Volenteer Marek's recent edits, in relation to Ruusian POWs the lead now states "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine". However the article includes:

• Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers (probably covered by above)
• Kneecapping of Russian soldiers (not covered by above)
• Execution of captured Russian soldiers (not covered by the above).

The lead clearly needs to include more details on the treatment of Russian POws.

In contrast, with regard to Ukraine Prisoners of War the lead states "Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution." Yet the article gives ONE reference of execution of Ukraine prisoners of war, which on a review is incorrect as it refers to "combatants" with no clear indication that it is referring to Ukraine prisoners of war! (NB: will delete this section). The Ukraine POW torture details in the article also appear flimsy. Ilenart626 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong and reverted. Shadybabs (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This way of storming the lead by repeatedly adding or removing contents without any agreement among editors (we were 2 against 2) is contrary to WP:BRD and to the way we've always proceeded so far: we've had extensive discussions on the lead and none has ever taken it upon themselves to massively change the lead without consensus. Besides, I strongly resent the highly polemical tone and the accusations of POV-pushing to me and fellow editors by @Volunteer Marek. We've spent dozen of hours meticulously documenting and describing innumerable war crimes committed by the Russian troops. Some of the comments here above (especially in the threads "Marauders etc" and "torture of Russian POWs") fall short of civility. Talk pages shouldn't be a battleground. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just falsely accused me of claiming that shooting prisoners in knees wasn’t torture, when I never said anything like that. I don’t think you get to lecture others about civility or battleground after that. Volunteer Marek 16:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as POW issue in the lead, it may be useful to read what UN report wrote about both sides [13] (page 9)

In the power of Ukraine:

48. OHCHR notes with concern the abundance of videos publicly available online depicting interrogations of POWs by Ukrainian forces following their capture. In the videos, POWs are made to apologise to the Ukrainian people, disparage their command, glorify Ukrainian armed forces, or call on relatives to put a stop to the war.

In the power of the Russian Federation:

51. Of concern, HRMMU notes a large number of videos with intimidation and insults of Ukrainian POWs following their capture. HRMMU has collected videos from media and open sources depicting interrogations of POWs immediately after their capture – some conducted by Russian armed forces and others by members of affiliated armed groups of self-proclaimed ‘republics’. In the videos, members of the Ukrainian armed forces and territorial defence were compelled to disparage their command and comrades, shout glorifying chants to Russian armed forces, and call on the Government of Ukraine to enter into peace talks with the Russian Federation or for Ukrainian soldiers to lay down their weapons. HRMMU notes that some POWs had visible signs of bruises.

This could be a good basis for a single sentence solution to the lede, as all other prisoner issues are single incidents and/or poorly verified.--Staberinde (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The HRMMU focuses on the videos of Russian POWs being questioned. Anything more than that is UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 17:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand, are you saying that the issue of publicising videos with PoW should be mentioned while kneecapping and execution should not? Alaexis_¿question? 19:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Videos of POWs are quite large scale phenomena, so a mention of it in lead is okay. If kneecapping starts happening repeatedly, then it would also deserve mention, but currently it is just a single incident. If we start listing various ugly single incidents in the lead, like Mariupol Children Hospital bombing, Chernihiv breadline bombing, E40 highway shooting, Yahidne human shields etc. then it is going to get very long very fast.--Staberinde (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't apply the SCALE criterion in such a mechanical way ("If kneecapping starts happening repeatedly, then it would also deserve mention"). First of all the guideline rather suggests SOURCE, and the kneecapping of Russian POW was widely reported. Secondly, what is "small scale" and exceptional here? Apart from the fact that the POW who got shot in the legs where 3 in that video, plus 4 or 5 already bleeding with similar wounds, which looks quite a systematic and large-scale way of proceeding to me; apart from that, we know that torture has been endemic in the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014-2021 (OHCHR estimates 1,500 people subjected to torture in Government-controlled territory and 2,500 in the self-proclaimed republics). Sure, they could have all stopped torturing POW at the onset of the 2022 invasion... we don't know, we don't engage in WP:RO. But SCALE and SOURCE suggest that when confronted with videos of torture and killings of Russian POW, we can put it in the lead that the HRMMU has expressed concern about them: it's quite relevant and well-covered in the article. Maybe the only exceptional thing here is that these videos have reached and shocked the Western public opinion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by how widely something was reported then Mariupol Children's Hospital airstrike, Chernihiv breadline attack, Kramatorsk missile strike all got lots of attention. Or if we are talking about scale of event then 50+ dead at Kramatorsk, 300+ human shields of whom 12 died at Yahidne etc. etc. And that's before we get to Bucha which easily beats every other single event by huge margin in publicity or fatalities, so if we start adding single events to the lead, then Bucha obviously should be expanded to full paragraph there. All in all, looking at the big picture, kneecapping is just one of the so many extremely tragic events that have taken place in this war. Btw, that OHCHR report notes that majority of detention issues happened 2014-2015, so actually claiming that it is all continuing same as it once used to would be WP:OR.--Staberinde (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously indiscriminate attacks are the most relevant (SCALE) and well covered (SOURCE) war crime since the invasion and they will always have the lion's share in the lead. Since the lead section was expanded on 3 April ([14]) we had a relatively long and informative first paragraph on the indiscriminate attack and cluster bombs, a second paragraph for all other crimes (deportations, sexual violence, deliberate killings, arbitrary detention, ill-treatment of POW), and a third and final paragraph on the legal proceedings. Many editors have modified the lead section many times, we've always found a way of reaching an agreement based on discussion and consensus. Bucha is obviously mentioned and briefly described. I'm not arguing that we should have a whole sentence on kneecapping, but I don't see why we shouldn't have that synthetic description that has always belonged to the lead, "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine, committed by police officers and members of the territorial defense". That sentence matches "The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine documented in the first month of the invasion the arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists, public officials and civil servants", which also belongs to the lead pretty naturally IMHO. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious issue with that sentence is that Monitoring Mission did not mention "torture" in relation to prisoners of war, so there is no basis for us to imply that they did.--Staberinde (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the "Update on the human rights situation in Ukraine. Reporting period: 24 February – 26 March", you're right - they only mention "torture" in relation to marauders, bootleggers and pro-Russian supporters; with regard to POWs they note "with concern the abundance of videos publicly available online depicting interrogations of POWs by Ukrainian forces following their capture" (also here). However, when the video showing Russian POWs being shot circulated, the Head of the Monitoring Mission, Matilda Bogner, said she was "very concerned" and spoke of "ill-treatment or possibly torture" (here and here). So I don't think that the formulation we used (The HRMMU expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war) was an overstretch; anyway, it was just chosen for its brevity and it can be improved. If there's no objection in principle to having contents on ill-treatment and torture of POWs in the lead, then we can modify it, if you think it's best: there's no short of sources, different from the HRMMU, that expressed concern about this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article just states "very concerned". The CNN interview video at twitter mentions "ill-treatment" and "possibly torture", but also very clearly talks about such issues being "on both sides".--Staberinde (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russians-told-to-kill-ukrainian-prisoners-of-war-c7kqcwl0g
• https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/ukraine-says-heads-of-women-pows-shaved-bald-accuses-russia-of-nazi-move-articleshow.html
• https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/army-experience-drives-ukraines-vereshchuk-secure-prisoner-release-2022-04-11/
• https://time.com/6168330/rape-war-crime-russia-ukraine/
• https://ms-my.facebook.com/inukraine.official/posts/ukrainian-women-pows-were-exchanged-looks-like-they-were-shaved-bold-by-russian-/2760816740892079/ Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Having a seperate article on this subject is a very good idea.

  Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 02:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes:

-create subsections for the Kharkiv and Mykolaiv cluster bombings in the "Use of Cluster Munitions" section, move the content below to the respective sections and move the "see also" things to these subsections (in addition, remove the parts of the section that already mention the bombings, as this version is just a improved version of that one).

Kharkiv:

On March 4, 2022, Human Rights Watch reported that on February 28, at around 10:00 AM, during the Battle of Kharkiv, Russian forces had fired Grad rockets cluster munitions into at least three different residential areas in Kharkiv,^[1][2] killing at least nine civilians and injuring another 27.^[1] Four people were killed when they left a shelter to get water and go shopping between curfews;^[3] a family of two parents and three children were burned alive in their car.^[4] The locations hit were residential buildings and a playground,^[5] dispersed between Industrialnyi and Shevchenkivskyi District. Explosions in the city were recorded as late as 2:23 PM.^[1] On 18 March, the number of civilians reportedly killed in Kharkiv exceeded 450 as consequence of the use of cluster munitions and explosive weapons in heavily populated areas of the city.^[6]

Human Rights Watch investigated the attack and concluded that the Russian forces used Smerch cluster munition rockets, which disperse dozens of submunitions or bomblets in the air.^[1] An international treaty bans cluster munitions because of their widespread damage and danger towards civilians. As there were no military targets within 400 meters of these strikes and due to the indiscriminate nature of these weapons used in densely populated areas, HRW described these strikes as a possible war crime.^[1]

 Done --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mykolaiv:

Cluster munitions were repeatedly used also on Mykolaiv during separate attacks on 7, 11 and 13 March, causing civilian casualties and extensive destruction of non-military objects.^[7], Nine civilians waiting in line on the street at a cash machine were killed in the attack on 13 March.^[8] The explosions also damaged houses and civilian buildings.^[9] Human Rights Watch analysed the incident and found that the Russian forces used Smerch and Uragan cluster munition on the densely populated areas.^[10]

Due to the inherently indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions, Human Rights Watch described their use in Mykolaiv as a possible Russian war crime.^[10]

2804:14D:4490:89D:ED76:7550:B27A:2D2 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Details about Mykolaiv already exist at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Mykolaiv bombing. Not sure about Kharkiv, but Battle of Kharkiv (2022) has some details that may help you. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but its suggested that the details about mykolaiv be moved to an subsection in the "use of cluster munitions" thing, or be expanded with new content. 2804:14D:4490:89D:6D85:5CE5:828:6D03 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of stuff is missing in this article, not only these bombings, important information about the Massacre of Borodianka, for a example, is missing. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify the following info: "Four people were killed when they left a shelter to get water and go shopping between curfews". Source (Civilian casualty report) doesn't support the statement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i also noted that, although it was probably just a small error when using the source. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now undoing these changes to the lead section: [15] [16]

• On what basis are we claiming that Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war."? In 2014-2016 rape was already massive and widespread in the Russo Ukrainian war, but OHCHR concluded that "there are no grounds to believe that sexual violence has been used for strategic or tactical ends by Government forces or the armed groups in the eastern regions of Ukraine". Things might have changed since then, but for now we haven't sufficient sources. The first source we quote has a wrong title, and the title doesn't count as source; if one reads the whole article, it's clear that the claim was made by Ukrainian officials and not independently verified by CNN. The second source mentions "rape as a weapon of war" but the claim is not substantiated; possibly the source is La Strada-Ukraine, but the point is not clear and in any case it doesn't belong to the lead: when the Monitoring Mission, a report by HRW or Amnesty, a piece of independent investigative journalism, etc., will claim that rape is being used for military ends, obviously we will publish this, but not now.
• In March 2022 the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressed the heightened risks of sexual violence and the risk of under-reporting by victims in the country. This is not notable enough and doesn't belong to the lead.
• After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv, according to The Guardian, there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians, including gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children. Apart from the gruesome details, there's nothing new: we were already accounting for allegations of sexual assaults and rapes in the lead, so there's no reason for duplicating the info nor for mentioning "The Guardian" in the lead section of this article. I'd rather suggest to change allegations of ... sexual assaults and rapes with widespread sexual violence ... by members of the Russian forces, so as to better clarify the massive proportions of the phenomenon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but widespread rapes by Russian military forces (which is essentially a matter of fact) do qualify as a weapon of war and sources say it [17]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Widespread rapes don't necessarily qualify as a weapon of war, as they are two different things, and that source is not sufficient for sustaining a claim as serious as that - that the Russian army is deliberately using mass rape as a military tool. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • But that is what sources say: Rape as a weapon: huge scale of sexual violence inflicted in Ukraine emerges. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your standards for what is notable enough for inclusion in the lead is inconsistent, as is your application of reversion policy to include systemically favor the edits made by yourself and llenart, despite the fact that they have been disputed since their inclusion.

Widespread, weaponized and systemic rape is certainly notable enough for mention in the lead in an article about war crimes. I can't believe this even needs to be argued. Shadybabs (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Widespread rape is notable: naturally it belongs to the lead and it was already mentioned there (indeed I'd just added the adjective "widespread"). 2) Allegations of rape used as a war weapon are not sufficiently covered by sources: we just have an article by "The Guardian" reporting allegation by "La Strada-Ukraine", a charity that campaigns against gender-based violence; they don't belong to the lead. 3) UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressing the heightened risks of sexual violence is not notable enough and doesn't belong to the lead; 4) "gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children" doesn't belong to the lead because of Wikipedia:Too much detail and/or because of SCALE (individual event): one must not lose sight of the need for balance. The whole paragraph has been recently added with no prior discussion, so we need to check if we really want these contents in the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that the expression "Rape as a weapon of war" is merely a popular reference to wartime sexual violence in general, i.e. this is basically the same. That's why it is used merely as a redirect page. Something like Genocidal rape would be a little different, but we are not using this expression here (yet). My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-rape-weapon-of-war-ukraine_n_62617db5e4b0e900dcd34011?uam= quotes Dara Kay Cohen, quoted in several 'rape' pages.Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified this discussion to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes If "rape as a weapon of war" were merely a popular reference to "wartime sexual violence" in general, then we could replace the sentence (now in the lead section) "Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war."" with the less ambiguous sentence "Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of engaging in mass rape" (or a similar sentence). I think that the expression "rape as a weapon of war" has a precise meaning: rape is being used as a tool for reaching military goals. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we should use wording from sources, and that is "Rape as a weapon: huge scale of sexual violence inflicted in Ukraine emerges" - see above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we just express the point about "huge scale of sexual violence" without mentioning the potentially misleading "Rape as a weapon" claim? We don't really know who said that rape was being used as a weapon - the sources we quote are not at all clear on this. And even if, let's say, a spokesperson from "La Strada" actually said that rape is being used as a weapon (i.e. strategically, to achieve military ends, being endorsed or accepted by the military hierarchy), that wouldn't be notable enough: it would be just their view. One needs evidence to substantiate a claim such as this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Rape as a weapon of war" is not a popular reference to wartime sexual violence; it refers to it being used as a particular tactic or strategy. Sloppy use of terminology, especially in a sensitive matter like this, has no place on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the discussion is still going on, I've added the tags "Attribution needed" and "Ambiguous" to the sentence. The first one refers to the fact that it's not clear by whom the allegation was made: "Ukrainian officials" and psychologist Vasylisa Levchenko (CNN), "La Strada Ukraine" and/or "Feminist Workshop" (Guardian)? "Human rights organisation" here is too generic and apparently applies only to "La Strada". The second tag refers to the fact that "rape as war weapon" might be "merely a popular reference to wartime sexual violence in general", as User:My very best wishes argued, or a reference to the use of rape for tactical and strategical ends, as I argued. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed these tags because this is simply what the sources to say. Keep in mind as well that the lede summarizes the article. If you want to elaborate as to what is meant by "weapon of war" then the place to do it is in the appropriate section. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re Attribution needed. Could you please copy and paste a quotation from sources? I don't see where they say that "Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a weapon of war". Note that the title of the article by CNN doesn't count as per WP:HEADLINES. So what's left?

Re Ambiguous. I can't "elaborate" as to what is meant by "weapon of war" in the appropriate section because the appropriate section doesn't mention rape as a weapon of war. This is a substantially new content that's been added to the lead without being covered in the article (for this reason alone, it should be removed). Plus, even if it were reported in the article, one couldn't elaborate on "weapon of war" without indulging in WP:RO: the point is, we don't know what they meant when they said "rape as a weapon of war" and we can only speculate; we don't even know who "they" are: "Ukrainian officials"? "La Strada Ukraine"? "Feminist Workshop"? So please tell me, re Attribution, who are they? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While the Guardian article is relevant and should be used, I don't think it actually specifically says that Russia is using rape as a weapon of war in the voice of the source. Certainly, the headline approaches that, but we should not be using newspaper headlines as support for a statement in wikipedia. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While the discussion is still ongoing, I'm restoring the tags "Attribution needed" and "Ambiguous", as I see that the editor who removed them didn't reply to my questions: 1) who made the allegation of rape as war weapon - "Ukrainian officials", psychologist Vasylisa Levchenko, "La Strada Ukraine" and/or "Feminist Workshop"? and 2) what did they meant - reference to wartime sexual violence in general or rape used for military ends? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the FT saying in their own words "Michel visited regions near the Ukrainian capital where evidence has mounted that Russians troops allegedly executed, tortured and raped hundreds of civilians." In this article "Human rights groups urged investigators to be brought in and steps taken to secure what they described as crime scenes. They say that Bucha — a short drive from Kyiv — is only one small window into what they believe is a pattern of unlawful killings, rapes and other crimes against civilians in swaths of eastern and southern Ukraine that were seized after the Russian invasion began on February 24" — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is NPR talking about rape as a weapon of war specifically: [18]. Since it's not paywalled I'll let y'all read the article in case you find useful quotes or don't see its coverage as accurate. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this last article by NPR is the most relevant source, so far, but it still fails to support the sentence "Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a weapon of war". At most, one could replace "HR organizations" with "experts", but also that would be imprecise because most of the experts they interviewed were cautious and hypothetical ("suggests something that is at the very least being tolerated by the command", "experts say there are indications that Russian soldiers are using rape in a number of ways ... as well as with perhaps systematic, genocidal aims"). I see that in the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine one reads "Lyudmyla Denisova, Ombudsman in Ukraine and The Guardian have said that sexual violence was being used by Russian forces as a weapon of war". I think that's the most we could say: but not in the lead (their views are not sufficiently notable). So I think we should remove the sentence from the lead and 1) add to the lead a reference to reports of "systematic and massive sexual violence", 2) add at the beginning of our section on "Sexual violence" either the above quoted sentence on Denisova and The Guadian from the main article, or alternatively "experts say there are indications that sexual violence might be tolerated by the Russian command and used as in a systematic and deliberate way as a weapon of war" (sources: CNN, Guardian and NPR). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz you are making good points, but please avoid extremely long paragraphs. If you break the same words into a few paragraphs it will be much easier to read.

NOTE: Studies show that many people will not read giant paragraphs. They just skip over them.

If you break the same writing into a few paragraphs it becomes much easier to read.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence says: "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, in violation of international law. The Russian military carried out indiscriminate attacks in densely populated areas exposing the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm.[1][2][3]" None of the three sources confirm what the sentence says. The title should be changed and we should try not to get caught up in all the emotion of the situation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather wrong sources than wrong name. Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarize the article. Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are good. What shall we rename this article? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

":I would be careful using Western sources desribing an Asian conflict. The same I am careful about your non-European sources. Xx236 (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source literally says "Amnesty International’s verification of the use of indiscriminate attacks by the Russian forces in their military operations in Ukraine, provides irrefutable evidence of violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law." Shadybabs (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say war crime have been committed? I cannot see it. All I can see is a whole swathe of editors misreading sources and creating wiki articles based on their own interpretation of what is happening. Look again at what you have spent time pasting here: provides irrefutable evidence of violations of international humanitarian law Right, next step is to go to The Hague. Use that evidence to get a decision that war crimes have taken place. That is what the International Criminal Court is for, as Amnesty International knows full well, which is why they choose their words carefully. Back to the article. What shall we rename it? How about "Atrocities in the Russo-Ukraine war". That would avoid using a defined term. Within the article stick to the universal approach to reporting these sorts of things before a court ruling, insert the word 'alleged'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, @Roger 8 Roger, that we should avoid stating as fact what are, for the time being, allegations. I've changed the lead so as to make it clear: "Russian authorities and armed forces were accused of" and "The Russian military allegedly". Other things, however, are brute, unchallenged facts, e.g the use of cluster bombs and the destruction of civilian objects - we can report them as such. Besides, I don't understand your point about the title. I think that for the purposes of this article the concept of "war crime" can be broadly construed so as to include any violation of IHL and also crimes against humanity and genocide. This looks quite reasonable to me because it reflects common parlance and because there would be no point in distinguishing, say, between war crimes and crimes against humanity (the letter being also war crimes, if associated with a war). Could you provide an example where we would be misleading the reader on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current title is fine and appropriate. Volunteer Marek 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, the title can be read in different ways so it probably doesn't need to change. Thanks for amending the text though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could anybody please explain why do we have in the lead and in the article info about "arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists, public officials and civil servants", and we don't have info about "torture and ill-treatment of people believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, and curfew violators"? As the editor who wrote both the section on journalists and the section on marauders and Russian supporters, I'm very interested in having an answer. The main source is the same - HRMMU report - and I don't see any difference apart from the fact that the former is responsibility of the Russians, and the latter of the Ukrainians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be mentioned on lead after finding description on body. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue for lead because of the incredibly small scale and impact. Shadybabs (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern here is with the body. This section, which I saved in a sandbox, has been repeatedly removed by the same editor, User:Volunteer Marek ([19], [20], [21], [22]) and has been restored by User:Dunutubble, User:Ilenart626 and myself. I'm now trying to settle this once and for all. The thread here above, "Marauders etc", didn't deliver a consensus for inclusion, but it was mainly Volunteer Marek and me bickering at each other, so not very useful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support including it in the lead and the body of the text, however I would change the title to Torture and ill-treatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters” as this more accurately reflects what the HRW report states, which is; "OHCHR is concerned by a large number of reports and video footage of torture and ill-treatment of people believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, and curfew violators in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine. HRMMU has received credible allegations of more than 45 such cases of torture and ill-treatment by civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence." Would also suggest we add a statement regarding the link between torture and war crimes ie "Torture is a grave breach of humanitarian law and is a war crime.^[1]" Ilenart626 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any large group of people who feel very strongly about something is going to contain individuals who are willing to break the rules in support of it. At the moment, the sourcing is nonzero but thin. The UN source does not say that the 45 cases were war crimes -- though I certainly wouldn't rule that out. The source also doesn't report any hallmarks of high-level planning to support the activity. All of this raises questions of whether or not the material is WP:DUE on which I am open to being persuaded either way. If it is included, we do need to contextualize mountains vs. molehills. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not hard to find additional secondary sources, ie the Sydney Morning Herald article on Matilda Bogner, the Australian-born head of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, plus her offical statement from the UN here. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have also reported it here Ilenart626 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ilenart626, I see that the OSCE report you shared settles the question we've being discussing for quite a while on whether torture and ill-treatment of marauders and Russian-supports belongs to this article. I'm now restoring the section. I've added references to the sources you provided and I've taken on board your other suggestion about changing the title and the text in order to reflect the sources more closely. I'm also adding the following sentence, taken from the OSCE report: "IHL prescribes that all persons should be treated humanely and prohibits any violence and outrage upon personal dignity": it's the sentence they use in commenting the incidents involving marauders and Russian-supports, so it's clearly relevant here. Under the ICC Statute, ill-treatment is a war crime if the perpetrator was aware that the victim belonged to the adverse party (Elements of Crimes, Rome Statute), and at least in the case of the Russian supporters this is a matter of course. With regard to the need to contextualize, it seems to me that the article already provides enough context: we're reporting dozens of terrible war crimes attributed to the Russian army, so IMHO when we're reporting crimes allegedly committed by the Ukrainian party, there's no need of commenting and comparing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Radio intercept discussion by a Russian soldier about torturing many Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians https://www.yahoo.com/news/intercepted-call-russian-admits-enjoys-184200516.html]

If an invading power abducts journalists etc. that's a war crime. If looters try to take advantage of a chaotic situation in the country being invaded and get caught and there's some vigilantism, then that may be a crime but it's not a war crime. This isn't actually hard. Volunteer Marek 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torture and ill-treatment of alleged Russian supporters is defintely a war crime. I'd be happy to provide you with scholarly references and quotations on this, but you would probably say that it's my "original research", so I won't do it. Nonetheless it's a war crime and belongs to this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be if it was in any way substantiated. But it's not. Hence UNDUE in the lede. Sources report that these are looters and marauders and speculate that they may be "pro-Russian supporters" but no sources has confirmed this. This also has been making rounds obsessively on pro-Putin social media for awhile and I see no reason why we should play into that. Also, I'm not gonna template you, but you're on 3 reverts. Volunteer Marek 00:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's simply not true, you don't remember what the UN Monitoring Mission said about this: "large number of reports and video footage of torture and ill-treatment of people believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, and curfew violators". They are not reporting that these are looters and speculate that they may be "pro-Russian supporters": they say that the videos show people attacked because believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what's a marauder in this context? Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can read an article on Kyiv Post describing the practice and also trying to justify it: [23].

Here a more detailed report by France24 Observers: [24].

And finally a joint statement by Ukrainian human rights organisations condemning the practice: [25]

Shall we publish? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed section for gross failure of WP:Verification Policy. Any attempt to restore the content, without complying with WP:Verification Policy, may constitute WP:Disruptive editing. After reviewing the sources I was unable to find ANY of them characterizing any of this as War Crimes. Crimes between civilians are not War Crimes just because they happen during a war, and even a crime by a domestic police officer against a domestic civilian is not a war crime just because it happens during a war. And in any case, it is WP:Original research for any of us to debate what does or does not constitute a War Crime. WP:Verification Policy dictates that we may only characterize things as War Crimes when that is a significant or prevailing characterization in WP:Reliable sources. Alsee (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(continued) Perhaps it will help if I invite Gitz to explain to Gitz why this does belong in the article. I just came across the following:

I'm not a judge nor a soldier. I'm a humble editor of Wikipedia and I stick to the sources. Are there reliable sources (RS) stating that something is a war crime? We publish. Are there not? We don’t. If a RS says that something is a war crime according to the US ambassador, the Ukrainian prosecutor or the Russian government, then we publish "according to the US ambassador, etc." But if a source simply describes a shelling with civilian casualties, we don't publish until a RS claims that it was a war crime, i.e. it was both deliberate and military pointless or disproportionate. It's simple as that. That's what WP:POV and WP:RS require us to do. And frankly it's not just pity editorial policy, it's also the right thing to do: if everything is a war crime, then nothing is a war crime. The concept of war crime becomes meaningless and the subject of this article boundless: "horrible things that happen during a war". Gitz 22:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[26]

How domestic citizens deal with domestic citizen looters, in the absence of effective policing due to the war, is surely one of the LEAST "horrible things that happen during a war". And it does not remotely belong in this article. Alsee (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer to you properly when I'll get a laptop with a stable connection but in the meanwhile you could read the thread "Marauders etc" where the point is akready discussed Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. that quotation of mine: please mind the date, 25 March. My point didn't get a consensus and since then we been publishing loads of contents that are not explicitly qualified as war crimes by RS. Bombing with civilian casualties is a good example. As my argument was rejected, most of the subsections of "Concerned areas" are not described as war crimes, and the lack of a proportionate military objective is a sheer speculation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz you are pursuing an idiosyncratic definition of "War crime" and making flawed/original leaps of interpretations of sources. For example the United Nations Human Rights office addressees human rights regardless of whether they are related to wars, nevermind whether they are related to war crimes, and their term term CRSV(combat related sexual violence)[27] encompasses sexual violence incidental to conflicts and unrelated to war crimes. You were making a wildly inappropriate leap of WP:Original research trying to claim "That's enough" to support your claim. To quote the lead of our own article on War_crime A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by the combatants. That reflects the overwhelming viewpoint of Reliable Sources. However, I do invite you to point me to the various other articles on other wars where we routinely include non-combatant domestic-on-domestic incidents as "war crimes". Because if you can't do that, there there is no chance whatsoever an RFC is going to endorse applying an interpretation entirely novel and unique to this war. Insisting on a futile RFC would be a total waste of the community's time. Either show that it is standard in our other-war articles to cover routine domestic crimes as "war crimes", or let it go. Alsee (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer later more thoroughly (now I'm moving home and it's a mess) but note that ill-treatment (and even torture and deliberate killing) of Russian supporters (which is mentioned in HRMMU report and in other RS as far as I remember) falls within the notion of war crimes mo matter how narrowly construed it is. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "21,000 civilians killed":

• From Siege of Mariupol: "Russia-Ukraine war: 21,000 civilians killed, Mayor of Mariupol estimates". The Jerusalem Post. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
• From Eastern Ukraine offensive: "Russia-Ukraine war: 21,000 civilians killed, Mayor of Mariupol estimates". The Jerusalem Post. 12 April 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2022.

Reference named "auto8":

• From What Russia should do with Ukraine: "Article 'What Russia should do with Ukraine' is evidence for future tribunal - Zelensky". Interfax-Ukraine. Retrieved 2022-04-05.
• From Siege of Mariupol: Patel-Carstairs, Sunita (18 March 2022). "Ukraine war: Videos show apocalyptic destruction in Mariupol as Russia says it is 'tightening its encirclement'". Sky News. Sky New. Archived from the original on 20 March 2022. Retrieved 20 March 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is already in the Siege of Mariupol article and is already cited there as reported as having "possibly been" Thermobaric bombs by the British newspaper The Telegraph. This is where the final standoff in Mariupol has been occuring as the last few hundred Ukrainian forces fight in the steel plant.

If true, this could very possibly be a war crime because there were 200 civilians (including children) there with the Ukrainian soldiers.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it out, these reports appear to be based on a video from a drone of the explosions, which the reporters are assuming are thermobaric weapons and are assuming are endangering civilians. None of the souces I could find mentioned it as a possible war crime and the Washington Post and ABC (Australia) do not mention thermobaric weapons. Ukraine is now reporting that all civilians have been removed from the Azovstal steel plant, so use of thermobaric weapons would have no restrictions. Note that we previously had a section on thermobaric weapons in this article which was removed as use on military targets is not a war crime. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the date of the alleged attack was before the final evacuation of civilians.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it out based on the "possibly been" language. There are plenty of things that definitely happened -- people definitely killed, children definitely bombed, and so on. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny -- that's why I didn't put it right into the article. But if there are any new developments on this, having it mentioned here first will help.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection uses name 'filtration', not 'detention'. Are there non-filtration camps either? Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a constant issue among editors, but apparently we haven't yet found a solution: how to summarise the section on the POWs in the lead? Here I submit a sentence on the treatment of the Russian POWs; I'd be grateful if we could come up with a similar short sentence covering the Ukrainian POWs.

Human rights organisations expressed concern about reports and videos of public humiliation,^[1] ill-treatment and torture^[2] of Russian prisoners of war in the power of Ukraine.

Any idea? One easy but perhaps not ideal solution could be:

According to the US government, there is evidence that also surrendering Ukrainian soldiers have been executed by the Russian army.^[3][4].

But I'm sure we can do better. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. So far it's a single case afaik. Volunteer Marek 17:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, also Bucha is "a single case" with multiple victims. The thing is: "single case" is not a criterion for exclusion. We already have a guideline on this, MOS:LEADREL, and there's no reason for departing from it. "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". Now in the case of the Russian POWs we have huge coverage. On kneecapping alone we have dozen of news outlets like CCN, BBC, etc., statemens by Human Rights Watch, Head of OHCHR, Ukr. armed forces chief and other officials, etc. And that is reflected by the relatively long section on "Russian prisoners of war" - more then 660 words. Something must be said in the lead and the problem is: what shall we say? how do we balance, if we balance it at all, with the relatively scarce coverage of torture of Ukr. POWs? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you genuinely going to put a widescale massacre of civilians including torture, mass rape and mutilation on the same level as a single incident in which a Ukrainian soldier supposedly shot a Russian prisoner? I'm sorry but I'm not even going to take that kind of argument seriously. The video was a "single case". Bucha was NOT a single case. It wasn't a single killing. It was hundreds. And it wasn't just Bucha. It was Hostomel, Borodyanka, Irpin and many other localities. The fact you're even trying to equivocate here raises serious questions.

And yes, it's precisely because "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" that we are NOT going to put this into the lede. Volunteer Marek 01:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second, I didn't put Bucha "on the same level" as the kneecapping of Russian POWs: I've just argued that the "one single case" criterion is not viable. You can explore the philosophical debate on Individuation and the principium individuationis to see some of the difficulties: the kneecapping of Russian POWs is as much individual (or collective) as Bucha, although it was admittedly less distructive (note, however, that on that occasion 3 POWs were shot and that more POWs were laying on the ground bleeding, so it must have been collective and horrible enough). Anyway, we're agreeing that the criterion we should follow is "coverage by sources", and we have different views on how to assess such coverage. Let's wait for other editors' views on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this revert @Volunteer Marek, you're saying: of course i object to it - i have explained it repeatedly on talk - since this is 1) alleged 2) the thing you refer to is an isolated incident and 3) the treatment of marauders and looters is not a war crime and it doesn't really change much if you sprinkle in "Russian supporters" in there. And on top of all that, it's clearly UNDUE for the lede as MULTIPLE editors have pointed out to you.

With regard to 1) we can say that HRMMU "documented allegations", but then also with regard to arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists; re 2) it's not an isolated incident: HRMMU mentions "credible allegations of more than 45 such cases of torture and ill-treatment", plus HRW documented several cases of mistreatment of POWs; re 3) I'd left marauders and looters out of the lead and I'd mentioned mistreatment of Russian supporters only, which is most definitely a war crime.

Most importantly, MULTIPLE editors since March have pointed out TO YOU that it's important and appropriate to have info on the Russian POWs in the lead: there have been extensive discussions on this, and I'm pretty sure the majority’s been for inclusion (most recently, pro: Gitz666, Ilenart626 and Georgethedragonslayer; against: Volunteer Marek and Shadybabs). Apart from short periods, we’ve always had some content about POWs in the lead section. So please, before removing these contents let's wait for other comments and let's see where does consensus lay. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek and @Shadybabs you are removing from the article ([28] [29]) contents that have nothing to do with the current discussion on POWs in the lead section. In particular: 1) Info on the failed resolution drafted by Russia (section "Human shields") and 2) Info about a Georgian Legion's commander who justified the killing of Russian POWs (section "Execution of captured Russian soldiers"). I'm now restoring these contents. With regard to Russian POWs, let's leave them out of the lead for the time being while waiting for other editors' views on the matter. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the edit summary, these were removed because of WP:UNDUE. Why is what some commander said notable? People say all kinds of things. Likewise the failed resolution is also UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please open a thread if you want to discuss this. But note that we have sections about phone calls between Russian soldiers speaking about torture and other war crimes: why is what they say notable? People say all kinds of things. So please if your argument is that what people say is not notable, be as equanimous and impartial as you can possibly be and apply your arguments throughout the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamulashvili's statement is somewhat important because a few days later Georgian Legion members were caught killing three Russian POWs. He's not just "some commander." Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave out "humiliation" of POWs in the lead as I doubt that they would amount to war crimes. At the moment the reports mainly appear to be primary sources, so would include a single sentence in the lead along the lines of "Reports of torture and execution of Ukraine and Russian prisoners of war are being investigated." Would probably include after the short 2nd paragraph in the lead. Once secondary sources and / or verified reports from HRW, etc emerge it could then be expanded. Ilenart626 (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be false equivocation. Volunteer Marek 06:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you need to explain yourself better, rather than your above meaningless statement Ilenart626 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is pretty clear. Your phrasing gives the impression that both sides are equally (that’s the word “equivocation”) guilty, which is not supported at all by reliable sources (that’s the “false” part). The word “that” is a determiner. “Would” is a verb. “Still” is an adverb which indicates that this has been discussed before. “Be” is also a verb. Does that help? Volunteer Marek 07:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nope, more meaningless statements. Suggest you provide alternative wording for consideration by other editors, rather than the rubbish you have just posted. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annnndddd it’s obvious this conversation is pointless. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless because you're making it pointless. You are claiming that adding "Reports of torture and execution of Ukraine and Russian prisoners of war are being investigated" to the lead, as Ilenart626 proposed, would be "false equivocation" because it would give the impression that both sides are equally guilty of torturing and killing POWs. Apart from the fact that you meant "equation", as "equivocation" has a different meaning, I don't understand which party would be more guilty of torturing and killing POWs according to you. If we let the sources answer the question, it isn't obvious that the Russian forces are doing much worse compared to the Ukrainian, as far as torturing POWs is concerned; on the contrary, so far we have extensive coverage of torture by Ukrainian forces. So when you speak of "false equation" do you mean that we'd be unfair to the Russians? I very much doubt it. I'm afraid both parties have practiced torture, and they both have a bad record in the recent past (please have a look to this report by the HRMMU); therefore it's vital that we have a few lines on torturing POWs in the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with VM: there is a difference between systematic war crimes covered in a lot of sources and a single case covered in a few sources. The latter deserves to be mentioned in the body of the page (probably), but hardly in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with VM and MVBW Elinruby (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-replace the content about the bombing of chernihiv with the following:

Bombing of Chernihiv:

On March 3,just after 12:00 (UTC+2), Russian forces destroyed two schools and several apartment blocks in Chernihiv with six unguided aerial bombs, killing 47 civilians,^[1] with 18 more wounded.^[2] Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch regarded the attack as a war crime.^[3][4] HRW commented on the case, saying that they found no evidence of a "significant [military] target in or near the intersection when it was hit, ... pointing to a potentially deliberate or reckless indiscriminate attack.", the HRW called for the International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine and the United Nations Commission of Inquiry to decide if a war crime had occurred and to hold to account the people responsible. The HRW investigation included telephone interviews with three witnesses and two other Chernihiv residents, and analysis of 22 videos and 12 photographs. The witnesses interviewed by HRW stated that they were unaware of military targets or operations in the neighbourhood.^[4]This action is regarded as a war crime by Amnesty International and HRW.^[5] Matilda Bogner, Head of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, stated that the bombing violated the principles of distinction, of proportionality, the rule on feasible precautions and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.^[1]'

On March 16, several civilians standing in line at a food store waiting for bread Were hit by a Russian air strike with eight unguided aerial bombs.^[6] 14 people were reported dead by Ukrinform.^[7] The incident happened at around 10:00 UTC+2.^[8] These civilians were unarmed and some of them survived the shelling; they were taken to medical facilities by Chernihiv police.^[9] James Whitney Hill, a 67-year-old US citizen from Minnesota was killed in the attack.^[10] Around four hours after the incident, the Chernihiv Regional Prosecutor's Office filed a legal case regarding the attack. The Chernihiv Oblast branch of the Security Service of Ukraine also started an investigation.^[8]

can someone please add this content to the page? mainly because of the false attribution that the people killed in the chernihiv breadline attack were killed in the first bombing, when in reality, its not true (they were killed in a later attack as said on this section). 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't find the reference to people in Chernihiv being killed "in the first bombing". Bogner said "on 3 March, 47 civilians were killed when two schools and several apartment blocks in Chernihiv were destroyed", which is pretty identical to what we have in the article. Moreover, I didn't find any references to 18 wounded people: what's your source? Apart from that, I added a reference to HRW report and I also moved some contents to "Killings and Torture in Borodianka", as you proposed - thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? well, i've added the source for the 18 people wounded. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i think you forgot to add the content about the Chernihiv breadline attack. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were the organizers punished? If not, it was 'de facto' legalization of such actions. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-pow-march-war-crime/26548667.html#:~:text=Ukrainian%20prisoners%20are%20paraded%20by%20pro-Russian%20separatists%20on,cursed%2C%20and%20hurled%20refuse%20at%20the%20haggard%20prisoners Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://svidky.org/ Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunutubble added this info on the Georgian Legion's commander justifying the killing of Russian POWs, which @Volunteer Marek removed. I restored and @Shadybabs undid. I restored again and I explained I'm not [now] restoring only the contents on failed UN resolution drafted by Russian and justification of torture by Georgian commander, which do not belong to the lead. I'll remove the controversial contents about POWs in the lead straightaway, and Volunteer Marek undid because No, there's explanations on talk and multiple editors object to this UNDUE "bothsideism" material, as well as to irrelevant info being added. Please get consensus before reinserting. Here above Volunteer Marek explained: Why is what some commander said notable? People say all kinds of things, and Dunutubble replied Mamulashvili's statement is somewhat important because a few days later Georgian Legion members were caught killing three Russian POWs. He's not just "some commander".
Working on this article is becoming increasingly difficult, as disruptive and tendentious editing are wasting precious time and energy that could be spent better (e.g. we need more on Borodianka and we need to reply to the thread here above "move some things and add more"). In case anyone wants to add their views on having these contents about the Georgian Legion commander's statements, I open this threat, and in the meanwhile I restore the text, which at least two editors think it's notable and compatible with WP:UNDUE; only one has argued against it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that what the Georgian Legion commander said is not only relevant because they allegedly killed a Russian POW; even if they had not, the order of "no quorter" is in itself a war crime, and as such belongs to this article. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The justification "statement is somewhat important because a few days later Georgian Legion members were caught killing three Russian POWs." is classic WP:SYNTH and the claim that it was "caught killing three Russian POWs" is basically based on one person's... probably perusal of pro-Russian social media. Which kind of says something about their purpose here (did someone say WP:TENDENTIOUS?). Sourcing is weak, no indication of notability, pretty much UNDUE given how many videos and statements are floating out there.

Also, you guys REALLY need to learn to get consensus for inclusion before you do the edit warring thing. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to add info about Borodianka, no one's stopping you, so please don't use that as an excuse or a justification for trying to add OTHER, sketchy, material to the article. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Georgian Legion's commander, Mamouka Mamoulashvili, statement justifying the killing of prisoners of war should be included. The source clearly states the whole story as a war crme. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we should include all the statements of Russian TV calling for genocide of Ukrainians in the article too? How about the Russian women in Australia who called for murder of Ukrainian children? Or the the Russian women in Sweden who said all Ukrainian women were whores and deserve to get raped? Or .... etc etc. there's hundreds of videos out there of people saying horrible stuff. You just happened to pick one that advances a particular POV. Volunteer Marek 02:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is a commanding officer! He's leading soldiers in military operations in Ukraine! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's to do with Anti-Ukrainian sentiment and incitement to violence, not war crimes. I don't see why a leading military commander giving an order of no quarter to prisoners of war in a section about executions of POWs is not notable. IDONLIKEIT or OTHERSTUFFEXISTS won't get one anywhere. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re trying to misrepresent the source and the situation. He didn’t “give an order”. He said something in an interview, most likely venting, after seeing the atrocities committed by Russians. There’s no source saying “he gave an order” so please don’t try to pull a fast one here. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only understand Volunteer Marek's reference to WP:SYNTH as implying that they haven't checked the source: this article from Le Monde. Sourcing is weak, no indication of notability?!? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single source. A search shows that there aren't any other major reliable sources reporting on it. Just like above with the nonsense about Bangladeshi students supposedly being held as "human shields". We keep replaying this scenario. Someone goes and scrapes the bottom of the internet for a single source to add something non notable to article to "balance" (i.e. whitewash, bothsidesit) Russian war crimes then others point out that it's not notable then we get these arguments. Volunteer Marek 02:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Meduza, Mamulashvili said that "Russian soldiers would not be taken prisoner under any circumstances." According to eurasianet, Mamulashvili later denied he meant to kill POWs, but has still had a criminal case lodged against him.

Le Figaro also covered the subject, portraying it as a contradiction of the Legion's claims to not be responsible for the killings. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde is not a sketchy source, if that's your definition of "sketchy," I don't know what is. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where I said that Le Monde was a “sketchy source”. Can you? No? Then you should probably strike the false accusation. Volunteer Marek 15:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, rather than perennially starting edit wars over objectionable material, if you really want to try and include this info, start an RfC. Volunteer Marek 05:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no. There must be a different easier way to get things done here. We can't let you waste everyone's time simply by raising pointless objections to any edit that doesn't fit your POV. We must find another way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are 'We'?Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not “wasting anyone’s time”, and that kind of accusation is a personal attack. I - and other users who have objected to this content (funny how you refer to yourself as “everyone” now) - have as much right to edit this article as you do. I could just as easily assert that you and Illenart are “wasting everyone’s time” by engaging in blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and failing to follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:ONUS (which is needed for inclusion not removal).

And User:Ilenart626, can you please stop edit warring? And stop making false claims of non existent consensus. Even if it was 2 v 3 then that’s still not consensus.

Both of you. Start an RfC if you feel strongly about it. That’s the proper procedure. Until you establish consensus the cherry picked undue material doesn’t belong here. Volunteer Marek 08:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. To focus on the content, are there any other reliable sources reporting on this? BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Le Monde is reliable enough. Please for a comparison have a look at this section of the article: it's the "Ukranskaja Pravda"and the "Mirror", and the story looks quite fishy to me (mummy encoraging her son to mutilate Ukr. POWs). No editors, included myself, raised any objections to that. Anyway, I've done a bit of research I can see that Mamuka Mamulashvili's statements (his unit "will no longer take Russian military prisoners") have atracted attention especially in non-English speaking media following the killing of a Russian POW by that same military group. In Italian we have Il Corriere della Sera (main national newspaper, comparable to Le Monde, FAZ, Times, NYT) and other national newspapers like Il Riformista, Libero and Globalist. Apart from Le Monde, in France also Le Figaro has covered the news. The Georgain news agency Interpressnews has an article on Russia launching a criminal case against Mamulashvili, which is confirmed by TASS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is valid source, but I would oppose to this because there is another problem. The whole section about Russian POWs [30] should be included, but it must be summarized very briefly, much shorter than it is right now. This is because we need to keep a proper due weight for various sections of this page. Meaning that something covered in a huge number of sources deserves a lot more space on the page than something covered in just a few sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The 12 April 22 OSCE report from page 10-15 discusses prisoners of war. This secondary source gives equal weight to both discussing the various issues with Ukraine and Russian prisoners. It specifically discusses the video of killing of Russian soldiers, plus it includes “On 2 March 2022, a declaration that no quarter will be given to Russian artillery soldiers appeared on the official page of the Command of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. “. Disagree that the section should be shortened, instead it should be expanded with this secondary source. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure this is a "secondary" source (a report by a human rights organization), but certainly a good source. What really matters are not any declarations (they are frequently disinformation or no one follows them in a military conflict), but the deeds, i.e.the actual crimes. Interesting, on page 13 this ref says that combatants from DNR/LNR and members of Wagner group may not qualify as POWs in this conflict. Who are these people claimed to be executed or kneecapped as "Russian POWs" (ones in the 3rd and second subsection here)? Did sources say it explicitly somewhere? I did not follow these sources a lot. Those in the 1st subsection ("Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers") were clearly defined in sources, no questions about them. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ordering no quarter or even threatening that no quarters will be given is a war crime in itself, and it doesn't matter if the order/threat is brought into effect or not ([31]); apparently in this case it was implemented. I remember we already had something about a no quarter threat on Facebook by a Ukr. commander, which was cancelled because WP:UNDUE according to some editors. Unfortunately I'm now in the process of moving home, so I won't have much time available in the next few days, but I'd like to retrieve that old text and check if it's about the same episode. Re POWs: huge amount of RS call them "Russian POWs", so unless we have very strong reasons for believing they are all wrong, they are POWs. OSCE report doesn't say anything which might be construed as questioning this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes we had this discussion in the past and the text on no quarter was this one, which is about the same declaration reported by OSCE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page is already too large, even though it uses many sub-pages. It should be made smaller and more readable by focusing on the most important and most widespread war crimes covered in a lot of sources. Single instances may or may not be covered enough or be notable enough to deserve inclusion even to the body of the page, much less to the lead. As about the monthly OSCE report, this is just one of many sources, there is no reason to cover everything on this page exactly as in the OSCE report (it is issued every month). My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @My very best wishes

    I would be very hesitent about removing single instances of alleged war crimes. They have notable validity unto themselves.

    Also, as such stories and their investigations develop, many will grow into larger stories.

    I think a better use of time is to focus on splitting into several articles.

    Chesapeake77 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored the section after having added more sources ("Corriere della Sera" and "Globalist.it") and contents. Note that the leading Italian daily newspaper "Corriere della Sera" explicitly says that the Georgian Legion's commander Mamouka Mamoulashvili acknowledged that that killing of Russian prisoners of war was done under his own orders by a patrol of the Georgian Legion:
    "The Corriere identified the self-styled commander of the killers' unit. His name is Mamuka Mamulashvili and he prides himself on that horror being the outcome of his orders (…) In fact, at least one of the members of the unit that killed the Russian POWs speaks Russian with a Georgian accent. And anyway, officer Mamulashvili himself recognises that unit as acting under his orders" (my translation). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If not already, and I missed it, this Georgian Commanders claims of executing Russian POWs should definitely be in the article.

    Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, why shouldn't we have the following contents about the failed UN resolution tabled by Russia? They'd been removed by Volunteer Marek and Shadybabs (in the section here above the diffs) but no reason has yet been given.
On 23 March, Russia tabled a draft resolution at the UN Security Council demanding from all parties "to refrain from deliberately placing military objects and equipment in the vicinity of such [civilian] objects or in the midst of densely populated areas, as well as not to use civilian objects for military purposes"; the draft was defeated by a vote of 2 in favour (China, Russian Federation) to none against, with 13 abstentions.^[1][2][3]
It seems to me that these contents belong naturally to the section on "Human shields", where I had placed it. However, as the controversial article of the Washington Post, which has been moved to "Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets", also these contents could be placed there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we include it? It would just be playing into Russian propaganda and there's been no lasting coverage of this cynical ploy. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be interested in propaganda and in counter-propaganda: too complicated. The focus should rather be: is this notable? Is it related to the subject of this article? Is it covered by sources (verifiable)? Relatively easy questions that we call (first and second) pillars. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It got scant coverage (below you got two primary sources). The one non primary source is about how Russia tried to pass off this cynical piece of garbage while simultaneously bombing children. This is yet another case where something UNDUE is cherry picked on the basis of sparse sources and then twisted around. Volunteer Marek 08:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess Russian and Chinese media have probably given full coverage to the failed UN resolution. E.g. TASS [32] [33] [34] [35], South China Morning Post here. In the English speaking world the news has been published by PBS here, Associated Press, here, ABC News, here (it's exactly the same article), and Reuters, here (this is different). I read the Italian press and I can point at the Italian news agency Adnkronos here, Tgcom24 here, RAI here. In my opinion a failed UN resolution on war crimes in Ukraine voted by Russia and China is per se notable and relevant in this article. Obviously it doesn't justify anything, but it shows that war crimes discourse doesn't belong to anyone and can be used instrumentally. I had added the info in the "Human shields" section to support the statement (verifiable and notable) that "Since the beginning of the invasion, Russia has repeatedly accused Ukraine of using human shields"; quotations follow and among them there was this info on the failed resolution. To me it is a matter of course that the failed UN resolution on humanitarian aid in Ukraine belongs to this article and the only problem for us editors should be - where do we want to put this information? The "Human shields" section, or rather the section on "Indiscriminate attacks"? Also the "International reactions" section could be an appropriate site. This is defintely not a game changer event, but still the info might be of interest for the readers of this article. Excluding it for political reasons is incompatible with NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this can be sourced, but the proposal of the resolution was a propaganda stunt by Russia. Hence, no, this is undue on this page (it might be included to other pages). We have a lot of materials about real war crimes for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" Firewall, I have not read it. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2022.2074020

If it does not belong here, where does it? Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It probably belongs to Russian information war against Ukraine. These online groups are actually a part of anti-Ukrainian propaganda. There is a question however. How representative views by users of these groups are for Russian society in general? My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But these subjects are related. Here is an excellent analysis by Ann Applebaum, Ukraine and the Words That Lead to Mass Murder. As she says, All of this—the indifference to violence, the amoral nonchalance about mass murder—is familiar to anyone who knows Soviet history. (yes, of course). So, as she puts some aspects of this:

all genocides have been preceded by genocidal hate speech. The modern Russian propaganda state turned out to be the ideal vehicle both for carrying out mass murder and for hiding it from the public. The gray apparatchiks, FSB operatives, and well-coiffed anchorwomen who organize and conduct the national conversation had for years been preparing their compatriots to feel no pity for Ukraine. They succeeded. ... As Russians occupied Ukrainian cities and towns, they kidnapped or murdered mayors, local councilors, even a museum director from Melitopol, spraying bullets and terror randomly on everyone else. ... Yet even as these crimes were carried out, in full view of the world, the Russian state successfully hid this tragedy from its own people. As in the past, the use of jargon helped. This was not an invasion; it was a “special military operation.” This was not a mass murder of Ukrainians; it was “protection” for the inhabitants of the eastern-Ukrainian territories. This was not genocide; it was defense against “genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime.” The dehumanization of the Ukrainians was completed in early April, when RIA Novosti, a state-run website, published an article arguing that the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine would require the “liquidation” of the Ukrainian leadership, and even the erasure of the very name of Ukraine, because to be Ukrainian was to be a Nazi: “Ukrainianism is an artificial anti-Russian construct, which does not have any civilizational content of its own, and is a subordinate element of a foreign and alien civilization.”

So, perhaps something like that could be included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday you were arguing that "this page is already too large, we must focus on the most widely covered/publicized materials", and that therefore we shouldn't have included war crimes documented by OSCE, and now you are proposing we include a purely speculative, highly subjective and biased academic reflection on how the Soviet past might have influenced the Russian approach to war crimes. And why not also the Ukrainian approach, as they also shared the same Soviet past? It's entirely irrelevant, not notable and as far as their fringe theories on the roots of distorted violence perception are concerned, not verifiable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see it was 'perhaps', not 'let's include'.

I have proposed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_information_war_against_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1087400249

No cooperation.

There exists basic difference between Putin's growing imperialistic propaganda and the Ukrainian one changing since 2004. The separatists have views similar to the Russian ones and there exists radical difference between the separatists and Ukrainian government, even military one since 2014.

If there was a danger for Ukraine it was OUN/UPA cult, not professed by Zelenskyy.

'biased academic reflection' - you break Wikipedia rules.

Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was replying to this comment by My very best wishes. As they said that the analysis by Ann Applebaum was "excellent", I'm free to disagree and argue that that analysis is simplistic and biased. By doing so, I don't see what Wikipedia rules I would have broken. With regard to the article you mentioned, this one, I think that it may be relevant for the main article Bucha massacre. In fact, I now see that it is already quoted in the section "Social media comments". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should have at least a mention, and yet the legal section does not at this moment include the Ukrainian court system at all. I just did a pass through the article, but it was a copy-edit secondary to reading/acquainting myself with the article, so I don't want to stop and add this right now; I am currently focused on spinning material down from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also, I saw this on CNN, so I do not have links at my fingertips. I am working on Legal aspects so I will come back and take care of this if nobody else does, but for now this is a note to myself or others.

This trial is notable because it is the first war crimes trial, and also because nobody expected the government of Ukraine to be functioning well enough to have a justice system. Apparently the Ukrainian theory is that trying some of these crimes as soon as possible may give pause to other Russian soldiers' sense of impunity. As I understand it, the soldier was with a group in a tank/vehicle that broke down; they obtained a civilian vehicle and were leaving when they came across a 62-year-old man on a bicycle and the soldier who is on trial was ordered to shoot him because he might tell the Ukrainian soldiers about them. Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I came back I found the section; I had just missed it. I added a section about the war crimes trial Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee as promised, my arguments on the point you've raised. As the point is of general interest, I open a new thread. The subject of this article is "war crimes", including genocide and crimes against humanity. Do we mean "war crimes" according to the legal terminology and sources (crimes "stricto sensu") or do we mean "war crimes" according to common parlance (crimes "lato sensu")? The former are the ones defined by the Geneva Conventions, the ICC Statute and its Elements of Crime, and by customary international law. The latter are "crimes" (serious violations of human rights) committed during war and in strict connection to the war, plus any other violation of IHL, even if it doesn’t amount to a war crime "stricto sensu".

1. If we adopt the notion of war crimes "stricto sensu", then ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of pro-Russian supporters fall within the scope of this article. It is true that article 4 Geneva Convention IV defines "protected persons" as those who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict "of which they are not nationals". But the Elements of Crime [36] state: "With respect to nationality, it is understood that the perpetrator needs only to know that the victim belonged to an adverse party to the conflict". Knut Dörmann, War Crimes Under the Rome Statute [37], explains that art. 4 Geneva Convention IV had already been interpreted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia as implying that "allegiance to a Party to the conflict", rather than nationality, may be regarded as a crucial test, and quotes the Tadic Judgment, IT-94-1-A para. 166. The same point is explained by Alexander Schwarz, "War Crimes", in Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law, 2014 [38].
2. The war in Ukraine is not only an international armed conflict but also an internal one [39]. In a civil war both parties share the same nationality, yet war crimes can be committed, and this reflects both customary international law [40] and treaty law, in particular Common Article 3, which prohibits, among other things, "cruel treatment and torture" of persons not taking active part in the conflict. Based on this, ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of marauders, bootleggers and curfew violators qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu"; the same applies a fortiori to pro-Russian supporters.
3. Finally, let's get to war crimes "lato sensu". When in March I was arguing that we shouldn't cover every attack with civilian casualties but only "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" ones, because only these qualify as war crimes under current IHL, some editor – I don’t remember who – told me: why should we stick to the law, if the law is bad and allows for the killing of civilians? I don't object to this, it's an interesting point, and anyway it justifies the editorial line which de facto prevailed, so that we are now covering many crimes that our RS don’t explicitly qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu": see sections "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", "Bombing of Kyiv", "Bombing of Borodianka", bombing of "Zhytomyr Oblast", "Bombing of Odessa", "Chemical weapons", " Kidnapping of Ukrainian children". Is this a problem? Maybe not. It seems to me that the rationale is that any violations of IHL as well as any violations of human rights which is closely related to the war fall within the scope of this article: crimes committed during the war and because of the war, strictly related to the war, but not necessarily prohibited by IHL as war crimes. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example, the latest one, of what one could call human rights lato sensu: [41]. Does this pertain to this article's subject? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None replied to my comment here above, but the subject of this thread always re-emerges as a constant issue. What is the topic of this article? War crimes "stricto sensu" (serious violation of IHL giving rise to individual criminal responsibility - basically those defined by art. 8 ICC Statute) or war crimes "lato sensu" (any violations of IHL, plus any violations of human rights which is closely related to the war)? On this we need to make an editorial choice. One caveat: if we go for war crimes "stricto sensu", we are likely to loose "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", various subsections of "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" (e.g. "Bombing of Kyiv", "Bombing of Borodianka", bombing of "Zhytomyr Oblast", "Bombing of Odessa"), "Detention camps". Moreover, if we agree that the label "war crime" must be used by the RS we are quoting, or otherwise we would be engaging in WP:OR, as proposed by User:My very best wishes, we would also loose clear cases of war crimes "stricto sensu" (if verified) such as "Chemical weapons", "Abduction and torture of civilians in Kherson", "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children".

I ping the editors who have been most active on this article: @Boud, @Chesapeake77, @Volunteer Marek, @Ilenart626, IP 187.39.133.201 (on their talk page), plus I ping the editors who have recently discussed the issue, @My very best wishes, @The Four Deuces. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I already responded below: this should be decided on a case to case basis. In many cases, these are just typical war crimes (such as summary executions, abduction and torture of civilians, and especially children by military forces, use of chemical weapons against civilians); there is no any dispute that they qualify as at least potential war crimes. In other cases, this is not clear or there is a disagreement about it. Then, one must provide RS saying that a specific action X by military forces A in the war has been investigated as a potential war crime or qualify as a potential war crime (at least). For example, the subject of this thread, i.e. "ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals" (by whom?) belongs to the latter category, where one would need a direct confirmation in RS that a specific incident might qualify as a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i really think we should follow stricto sensu on this page, although id support making a separate page documenting other human rights abuses during the war like the ill treatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters, detention camps (both Russian and Ukrainian ones (in the case of Ukraine that would be the use of detention camps for immigrants)), targeting of nuclear power plants and humanitarian corridors, as well as several bombings (kyiv, odessa, borodianka, zhytomyr, etc), the page could be called something like "Human rights violations during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something similar. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility but note that "Human rights violations during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" would run the risk of both being over-inclusive (most of the war crimes here reported consist of HR violations - should we duplicate the contents?) and under-inclusive ("targeting of nuclear power plants" is a violation of IHL that doesn't qualify as war crime but doesn't imply a violation of HR either). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will suggest another thing, we could turn parts like detention camps, mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters, etc into other pages, in that case, mistreatment of pro-Russian supporters could be called "Mistreatment of pro-Russian supporters during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and the detention camps of both Ukraine (in the case of immigrants being kept in camps) and Russia (filtration camp system in ukraine) could be merged into a single article, called "Detention camps during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and we could link these articles in the "see also" section of this page. as i think we should follow strictu sensu on this page, we could merge the content about targeting of nuclear power plants into the impact of nuclear plants article, and, as always, link this page in the "see also" section. now, about some of the indiscriminate attacks part, we should take a close look and see which do qualify as war crimes, and, the ones that do not should be instead moved to their respective articles, or removed if the content already exists in these articles, the same with alleged disrupting of humanitarian corridors, that content should, instead, be moved to Siege of Mariupol or other articles, although i still support keeping the sections about use of chemical weapons, kidnapping of ukrainian children, as well as abduction and torture of civilians in Kherson. now, about the intercepted calls about alleged killing of Ukrainian POWs, i think we should wait until something else happens to either prove ACTUAL murder of POWs, or for it turn out to be either propaganda or just a random Russian soldier talking about killing them, the same could go for the alleged "Overt command to kill civilians" section. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposition. I don't know how "Attacks on nuclear power plants during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine" coordinates with Battle of Enerhodar - @Ilenart626 knows better. Maybe we could just create a section there. I could start working on "Mistreatment of pro-Russian supporters during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". "Targetting humanitarian corridors" has been recently renamed "Denying free passage to civilians" by @My very best wishes, but that's frankly ridiculous: what war crime is that, MVBW? I've never heard it. "Denying free passage" is something you'd expect to read in Emer de Vattel, Le Droit des gens, not in an article on war crimes. So I'll try to see if that can moved to Siege of Mariupol. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

good, also, there is already a article on nuclear power plants during the invasion, i had forgotten that, so i proposed that we merge the contents here into that article, in addition, if you start making a draft or something for the articles that i mentioned, i could help on making it. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 there is a Redirect from Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant attack that goes to the “Battle of Enerhodar” page, I think that is the reason for the link on this page. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant also has a section on the attack. When I last did a major edit on the “Targeting of nuclear power plants” section on this page I copied some of the info accross, however some of this info has been deleted. I believe this page has the most detailed description. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised the “See also” is going to Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast page. No idea why, see my comments below in the “Targeting of nuclear power plants” for an alternative Ilenart626 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally support "stricto sensu" however the reality is that it will be months if not years before we know what is determined to be War Crimes by the international courts. Therefore I believe we need some general rules of what "stricto sensu " means and helps to determine what should be included / excluded from this article. Some of my thoughts include:

1. There is a massive propaganda war going on at the moment with both sides accusing each other of war crimes. Therefore we have major WP:VER and WP:NPOV issues. Initially I believe we should be fairly open with including information, so long as they are supported by RS as per the WP:reliable sources list. Some qualifiers to this:
   1. any information based on Ukraine or Russian primary sources should be qualified ie "alleged" or similar wording;
   2. the initial sources should be supported and / or replaced by Secondary sources detailed in point 2 below, say within a month or two. If these secondary souces do not include the allegations they should be removed. This complies with WP:SECONDARY and means questionable / unsupported allegations will be removed.
   3. Also need to comply with points 3 and 4 below.
2. Where Secondary sources such as the UN Human Rights Commission, United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Committee of the Red Cross, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe or similar report serious violations of and / or grave breaches of International Humanitarian Law, then they should be included. They will also provide a cross check as detailed in 1.2 above.
3. Sometimes it is simple where a RS states that it is a War crime, and we include. However even in the above sources detailed in 2 above there are examples where a source does not explicity state that it is a War crime. We then need some criteria to assess and this United Nations page provides a list of war crimes. I would suggest this list could be used as rhe basis of deciding whether to include or exclude. Gitz, note that reference to this list would resolve some of the concerns you have raised with excluding "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", "Bombing of Kyiv", etc as a quick review appears to show most of these items are included in the list.
4. We also need to ensure that we are talking about a "crime" ie "..an illegal action or activity for which a person can be punished by law. We need to ensure we only include "actions or activities" which are potential war crimes. For example, to commit the crime of murder you need to physically kill someone, talking about murdering someone is not a crime of murder.

Overall consensus by Editors determines what should be included. However I believe having some rules will assist in shortening some of the ongong discussions, so we can all focus on improving this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 @Gitz @Ilenart626, @187.39.133.201 @My very best wishes, @The Four Deuces @Mathglot @Boud @Staberinde @Shadybabs @187.39.133.201 @Symmachus Auxiliarus @BilledMammal @Alaexis @187.39.133.201 @Xx236 @Ixtal @Georgethedragonslayer @Xx236 @TFD @Q.E.D. @187.39.133.201

I think you use both "stricto sensu" (strict legal) and "lato sensu" (NOT-strict legal definitions from notable sources) of what a "war crime is" but take the time to explain what each "definition" is-- in the article.

FOR EXAMPLE: The Mariupol mass-shelling super-massacre will need time to develop "legally" but has already been called a "war crime" by many sources. Do we delete it all from the article because it hasn't developed legally to the level of "stricto sensu" yet?

I think not. But what you can do is appropriately state in the article the different meanings of "war crime" being used.

For example, When a President calls something a war crime, that is notable and should be included, when a human rights organization calls someting a war crime that is also notable, ditto for other notable sources. However each may have different definitions of "war crime".

Don't exclude any-- Instead provide the specific definition of war crime provided (or not provided) by each notable source.

We are not human rights lawyers. I suggest that we provide all of the information and let the reader decide. So long as accusing sources are notable (by Wikipedia standards).

The only standard should be that a "war crimes accusation" should come from a notable source. And the sources definition of a war crime should be included (or lack of definition should be noted in the article).

Rather than restricting information-- we should be providing more information-- (regarding various "War Crimes definitions" being used - or not used).

We shouldn't be evaluating cases here, we should be reporting things that happen combined with how notable sources define them.

(Boldface only used here to emphasize key points)

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 21:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

while i agree with some points, i have already proposed to move content from here to other articles and link these articles on this see also section, that way, we can keep this article clean while not removing important information. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like just to say with regard to Mariupol that indeed many RS qualify the siege of Mariupol as a war crime - especially the theatre airstrike (600 killed) but also the hospital airstrike and the shelling of residential areas. All these contents shall stay. We were just discussing about the section formerly (wrongly) called "targetting humanitarian corridors", then "disrupting humanitarian corridors", and now "denying free passage to civilians", ie. the failed evacuations of 5 and 7 March. We don't have a RS qualifying those episodes as "war crimes". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "We don't have a RS qualifying those episodes [Russian blocking of humanitarian corridors] as "war crimes". There are many.

No "legal standard" is required because we are not lawyers.

The only requirement is that a notable source called it a war crime. It can also be noted what their definition is, if provided.

Readers, not us, can look at the "strictly legal" War Crimes accusations and the other War Crimes accusations and make their own decisions.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 22:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the Voice of America News: ***Ukrainian officials accused*** the Russians of purposefully shelling the civilians, saying Russian commanders knew they were non-combatants trying to use an escape route as Russian drones had been flying over the area just moments before the thump and crump of mortars turned a road leading from a buckled bridge into a killing zone. Here is the link-- https://www.voanews.com/a/kremlin-accused-of-using-ceasefires-humanitarian-corridors-as-war-tactic-/6473226.html

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 23:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civilians began to evacuate from Mariupol along a humanitarian corridor to the city of Zaporizhzhia. As civilians entered the evacuation corridor, Russian forces continued shelling the city, forcing evacuees to turn back.

Here is the link-- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60629851

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 23:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Civilians had been unable to evacuate the city [Mariupol] due to repeated ceasefire violations, attacks on agreed-upon evacuation corridors, and direct attacks on civilians attempting to evacuate.

Here is the link-- https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/07/russia-ukraine-war-us-collecting-evidence-of-possible-war-crimes-nbc-reports.html

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that notability has not been established through reliable sources. I would expect to see an actual article about war crimes in this war, instead of numerous articles about individual cases. If we wanted to create an article about Nazi War crimes for example, we could use the book The Scourge of the Swastika: A History of Nazi War Crimes During World War II and similar sources to establish notability.

While I should not have to explain why notability is essential for good articles, the existence of sources helps to establish context and hence objectivity. The Scourge for example explains how Nazi war crimes were "on an unprecedented scale." It compares them with other war crimes and explains their connection with Nazi ideology. This article should explain the extent to which war crimes by both sides compare with war crimes committed by belligerents in other wars and how the ideologies of the respective states affect this. For example, were war crimes committed on a higher level than by U.S. troops in Iraq? What is the culpability of the Russian government? Instead, by presenting a rapsheet without context it implies that Russian war crimes were extraordinary and are a result of either Russian nature or the current government.

Are there any sources that establish notability? If not, the best course of action is deletion.

TFD (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "the best course of action is deletion", are you referring to all contents that don't qualify as "stricto sensu war crimes" based on RS (hum. corridors in Mariupol, targeting of nuclear power plants, most of the contents in the indiscriminate attacks sections, etc.) or are you just replying to Chesapeake77 and referring to hum. corridors in Mariupol?

Anyway, I agree with the point you made in principle, but as this article deals with recent events, we don't have truly secondary sources, and we're basically summarising info reported my mass media. That's an inevitable constraint and there's not much we could do about it. Hopefully in the future someone will be able to add some perspective to all this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not have truly secondary sources and are merely summarizing mass media, then we have not established notability, which is a requirement to create an article. The only policy based action is to delete the article.

At some point, I expect that there will be serious studies of war crimes in this conflict and we can write a neutral article. By neutrality I mean the Wikipedia policy, which means we use expert opinion to determine the scope of the article, what qualifies as a war crime and the extent of coverage we would give to various incidents. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will agree with the weight used in the article, just that it will reflect the weight used in reliable sources.

I recommend that editors read the beginning of The Scourge of the Swastika, which shows how articles of this nature should be written. If we had similar sources for this article, we would not have reams of discussion.

TFD (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed also that the original version of the article mentioned that the former Ukrainian prosecutor Gyunduz Mamedov was building a case for war crimes prosecutions. If there are adequate sources about this, there might be a reason for an article. TFD (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made a detailed comment above and I see a few other editors have also made detailed replies. Have also been reflecting on how this page has been working, particularly some of the recent discussions. There are a number of editors with strong views on this war, which means achieving consensus has been very difficult. Therefore I now believe we need to keep it as simple as possible and Glitz's suggestion of "stricto sensu" would be the best way of achieving consensus. Therefore I support a requirement that we need a reliable source to explicity state that the particular incident was a war crime. If it does not it should be removed from this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have had a more inclusionist criteria (maybe because I'm lazy and don't want to throw away the good work done) but I see that there's an overwhelming consensus among editors on the "stricto sensu" approach. If that's the way we intend to go then we need to create new articles and/or split the contents of this article into other already existing articles. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking on the original subject on the top, i.e. "ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals", that could be decided on a case by case basis, but something like this [42] is totally unrelated to any war crimes whatsoever. People in Ukraine are punishing (in a very peculiar manner) their own people who were caught red-handed while looting. They are not pro-Russian supporters, and even if they are, that's irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm now creating an article on "Vigilante and summary justice during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine". HRMMU says that they are believed to be thieves, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters or curfew violators. I would particularly benefit from MVBW's help: "Caught red-handed", you say, how do you know that? How do you know that they are not pro-Russian supporters, and why would that be "irrelevant"? Clearly MVBW has lots of information on the topic which I lack. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Vigilante and summary justice...". OK. So it is indeed not on the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

actually, when the victims are punished because they are Russian supporters, it's definitely a war crime, but I don't have a source that says so explicitly. Given the criteria for inclusion we've agreed upon, I accept that it doesn't belong to this article until we'll have such a RS on the point. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the article could have another name, although i do think that the current name is good, because, "Vigilante and summary justice during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine" quite makes sense when the targets are both thieves, curfew violators, bootlegers AND pro-Russian supporters, im open to discussion about that though. about the detention camps thing, can someone start working on merging the contents of Filtration camp system in Ukraine with some content we had on this page about "Irregular migrants in detention centres" by ukraine, and possibly name it "Detention camps during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something similar? now, about the targeting of nuclear power plants, the attacks on humanitarian corridors and most of the stuff in indiscriminate attacks, as i said before, put this content in the respective articles (example: bombing of Kyiv to battle of Kyiv) and remove the content if it already exists in the article in question. in the topic of putting war crimes only if RS claims it is a war crime, while i do not think it would be the right choice, if we are in fact breaking a rule, then, it would be better to do that, although that would require too much analysis and judgement. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, coming back to this article a few days after my last response, and i see that most of the stuff i suggested still isn't implemented, so, im willing to revive this discussion here, do we do what i suggest (moving detention camps and illegal migrants to detention centers, as well as mistreatment of marauders, pro-Russian supporters and stuff into separate articles (Detention Camps during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Vigilante and summary justice during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine), move sections about denying free passage of civilians to siege of Mariupol, move stuff about attack on nuclear power plants to Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants, and move some of the indiscriminate attacks sections to their respective battle or bombing articles)? in addition, i still think we should move "bombing and capture of kremmina" to the killing of civilians section, as it doesnt talk about a shelling or bombing, but a tank or troops firing into civilians; i also think we should remove the section about the "overt command to kill civilians" as 1- its already covered in the intercepted calls section, and 2- inews.co.uk is owned by daily mail, a unreliable source; for the section about "intercepted calls about killing of Ukrainian prisioners", we could move it into the section above and rename it "Killing (or murder) of Ukrainian POWs", maybe also move the content about mistreatment of ukrainian POWs to a section of their own below the "Killing (or murder) of Ukrainian POWs) section. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Re Detention camps, I'm afraid the two things (Ukr detention camps for irregular migrants and Russian detention camps for Ukrainians who are either fleeing from the war or being forcefully deported) are too much different one from the other for being the subjects of the same article. Maybe I'm wrong but the risk of WP:SYNTH is high. 2) I've started to gather sources and materials on "Vigilante and summary justice" here. I'm not sure there's enough for a self-standing article. If you want to improve/complete, be my guest: I'm now abroad and I will not work on this in the next few days. 3) Re Mariupol, I agree. There's been a discussion with no apparent consensus. I moved the subsection to "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks". I still think it needs to be dropped as no war crime is alleged. 4) Re nuclear plants, I agree entirely. There's a discussion on this talk, "Targeting of nuclear power plants". 5) Re Kremmina, when I looked into this I had the impression that there were allegations of indiscriminate attack (indiscriminate attack can also be a tank firing too hastily on an object they don't know if it's military or civilian). Maybe I'm wrong, I'll check again later. 6) Re overt command to kill civilians, RS are CNN and the Guardian and the topic is not covered in the intercepted calls section, which deals with POWs. Here the intercepted officer said something like "it doesn't matter if they're civilian, fire", and so it belongs to wilful killing of civilians rather then torture of POWs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, makes sense, although this content (irregular migrants in detention centers) needs to go somewhere, maybe make a separate page about it or something, about the mistreatment of pro-Russian supporters, new stuff was added, so i will move it to this article you are talking about, and, sorry, i misread the section about the overt command to kill civilians thing. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should follow your original proposal, "Human Rights in Ukraine during the 2022 invasion", and place there both migrants + marauders and Russian supporters. Apart from migrants, also cases of discrimination against people fleeing from Ukraine were reported ([43]) which could be stuffed there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

true, although it could maybe be named "Human Rights Abuses in Ukraine during the 2022 invasion" or something similar like you proposed, and, ive added more content to your sandbox, although i removed a part that seemed a bitch sketchy, as 1 of the sources itself claimed that the accusations were false, if you want to, i can begin moving the content i mentioned about the migrants to your sandbox page. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section Torture and mutilation of Ukrainian soldiers is highly questionable.
First of all, it doesn't deal with torture and mutilation directly, but only with intercepted phone calls where it is alleged that Russian soldiers speak about torture and mutilation. As far as we know, and as far as our RS tell us, torture and mutilation might have not taken place. So the title of the section should rather be "Intercepted conversations about torture and mutilation". @Shadybabs doesn't agree, but as per MOS:HEAD and WP:TITLE, the section heading should be the description of its topic, and the topic here are the interceptions.
Secondly, the phone calls were released by the Ukr army and were never independently verified. With regard to the first episode, NPR says it explicitly: "NPR can't confirm the authenticity, and there's no indication that the Russians acted on this statement". With regard to the second episode, the sources (Ukrainskaja Pravda and the Mirror) are not very reliable and the contents are exceptionally unlikely if not grotesque: "Russian Konstantin Solovyov tells his mother Tatiana Solovyova that he likes torturing captured Ukrainians. The mother replies to her son that she would "get high" in his place (...) The aggressor recalls the heroic behavior of Ukrainians who, even under the most horrific tortures, do not submit to the invaders (...) the occupier is surprised by the resilience of Ukrainians, who, despite being tortured, say that for every Ukrainian killed, there will be twice as many occupiers (...) The mother reacts positively to her son's story and claims that "Ukrainians are not people" and that she herself would be "high" in such a situation". Maybe @Adoring nanny might reconsider their opinion that this material is not fishy and deserves to be included? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and have removed this obvious misinformation, if it needs to be included it should be in the Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis article. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should go by sources. NPR is unquestionably a good source. So insofar as this is sourced to NPR, it should stay. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That however applies only to the first part of the section recently removed. As NPR says "there's no indication that the Russians acted on this statement", the heading should be "Intercepted conversations about torture and wilful killing". I personally wouldn't object to heaving a section like that, because NPR is reliable, the conversation looks credible and the heading would not be misleading. However, the second part of the section (Ukrainskaja Pravda and the Mirror) is not well sourced and is very suspicious. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilenart626 No it is not misinformation, it is incomplete, not fully verified information. Misinformation implies mis-use of information through either 1) poor critical thinking or 2) malicious intent. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 02:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the text makes it clear that these are intercepted phone calls and that NPR hasn't independently verified them - as the current text does - this material is perfectly fine and belongs in the article. Trying to present this as "disinformation" is absurd. Volunteer Marek 05:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that "both sources are about same issue so not SYNTH", @Volunteer Marek? [44]. The info added by User:Shadybabs [45] is about "torture and mutilation in the town of Borodyanka"; the intercepted call about torture and mutilation was allegedly made by a Russian solider in Kharkiv Region (so says Ukrayinska Pravda), which is 500 km away. The very fact that we are discussing about this proves it's a case of WP:SYNTH.
I think there might be a rough consensus on retaining the info published (but not verified) by NPR, provided that the heading of the section complies with our guidelines (e.g. "Intercepted conversation about war crimes"), but there's no consensus on adding info about mummy getting excited over torture and mutilation of heroic Ukrainian soldiers. That's too fishy and was published only by unreliable/deprecated British tabloids (Daily Mail, Metro UK and Daily Mirror) plus Ukrayinska Pravda ([46]). Note that Ukrayinska Pravda has a link to the Facebook page where the Ukrainian military intelligence service first published the interception: that post, which should be here, has been removed and is no longer available. So I'd say no: this utterly fails WP:V and should not be published. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're both about "Torture and mutilation of Ukrainian soldiers" (though perhaps it should be "prisoners"). The idea that the two are linked is yours alone - used to justify this WP:SYNTH claim. But there's nothing in the text that says they are about the same incident (rather than the same "thing" - torture and mutilation). Volunteer Marek 20:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek, how do you know they were soldiers? The people who were found killed and mutilated in Borodianka were likely to be civilians, not soldiers. The RS we quote (actually not so "R" really: the Mirror...) doesn't say they were soldiers, and all the account we have from Borodianka (e.g. [47][48] [49]) talk about mass killings of civilians, not soldiers. So now the subsection is not only WP:OR; it is also bad original research. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And all that means is that we adjust the section heading appropriately. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadybabs with regard to this edit of yours that you restored, could you tell us why do you think that the "dead bodies showing signs of torture and mutilation in the town of Borodyanka" belonged to Ukrainian POWs? The source you used ("The Mirror") doesn't mention "prisoners of war". Note that the title of the subsection (which you restored yourself) is "Torture and mutilation of Ukrainian prisoners" and the section is "Ukrainian prisoners of war" - so why do you think those people were POWs instead of common civilians? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article praised the Ukrainian state and the government of Volodymyr Zelensky. It dismissed the presence of far-right and fascistic forces in the Ukrainian state apparatus and the army as nothing more than a “myth”. Ukraine demanded in practice that US/NATO engage in direct military confrontation with Russia, likely provoke a nuclear war. It would be nice if the Wiki were independent and less biased. We should stop believing that just because the American intelligence service and all the mainstream media declare that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is true. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which text are you specifically referring to? Zelensky is mentioned TWO times in the text and neither one "praises" him. There is no text here "praising" the Ukrainian state. There's no text which "dismisses the presence of far-right and fascistic forces"/

If you're gonna come to an article in order to push a particular POV it helps if you actually bother reading it first, otherwise the WP:ADVOCACY and the WP:NOTHERE are kind of obvious. Volunteer Marek 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very tiny presence of far-right forces in the Ukrainian military is not significant.

Relying on Russian state-controlled media for information about Ukraine is a real mistake.

The extreme-Marxist Left in Europe makes this mistake quite often.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 02:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an English language Wikipedia, so not 'OTAN' but 'NATO'.

Does 'praised' mean that it does not any more?

Ukraine fights so it demands. NATO countries decide what to do.

Russia also demanded and demands, an example "The demands include a ban on Ukraine entering Nato and a limit to the deployment of troops and weapons to Nato's eastern flank" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato

Russia terrorizes the world with nuclear weapons.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

The Russian state is authoritarian, close to totalitarian. Russian state ideology is far-right and fascist. President Zelenskyy has Jewish roots, is a Russian speaker from Eastern Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that The Guardian is pro-American? French and German media? Name them.Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this edit by @Volunteer Marek, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't wait for the info to be published by some reliable sources before reporting it ourselves. Basically it all comes, if I understand correctly, from this post on Facebook by Lyudmyla Denisova (yesterday I could read it but now it has been removed for some reasons). That post has been reported mainly if not exclusively by tabloids (Daily Mail, Mirror, The Sun, Daily Star) plus the two sources we quote (Daily Beast and Yahoo News). Obviously they all say the truth (and we as well): "According to the Ukraine’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova", "according to the Ukrainian Ombudswoman", "The report is so far unverified". But is this enough? Shouldn't we wait for truly reliable outlets (Guardian, NYT, BBC, CNN, Le Monde, etc.) to first publish the news? If we import these contents with no check and no filter, it's as if Denisova were writing herself our article - she publishes on Facebook, tabloids echo, and we import the contents. I think it shouldn't work like that Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are easy to find. See CBS or CNN ("The United Nations has called for the increasing reports of rape and sexual violence against Ukrainian women and children during the Russian invasion..."). Also note that Daily Beast is not Daily Mail and can be used per "WP:perennial sources". My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources are easy to find but they need to be appropriate and relevant for the point under discussion. None of the sources you mentioned talks about "1 year old boy died after being raped", "two 10-year-old boys, triplets aged 9, a 2-year-old girl raped by two Russian soldiers, and a 9-month-old baby" who was raped in front of his mother. All this comes - if I'm not wrong - from a Facebook post by a Ukrainian politician, with no independent journalist oversight/fact-checking, so it's basically a primary source.

However, I agree we could use CBS and CNN as sources for a text such as the following: "On 13 May UK representative to the UN said that there were credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops [CBS]. The issue of sexual violence against children had already been raised by human rights activists and Ukrainian authorities at the beginnings of April [CNN]." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on the first diff under discussion [50], the claim is clearly attributed to well known Ukrainian official (ombudswomen Denisova) and the source seems to be reliable enough to document that see said it. This is not Facebook, but Daily Beast (however, if there is such her post in Facebook, this is another confirmation she said it). So I do bot see a huge problem with this.My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt she said it; as I said, I saw her Facebook post myself before she removed it. The questions I'm asking are the following two: 1) The fact that that statement was made is notable enough for the purposes of inclusion? You know, Russian politicians say lots of things all the time, but usually we don't include them unless there's been some kind of independent oversight on what they've said. So with regard to the statement the point is WP:N; 2) That statement of hers (rape and killing of 1-year-old baby, etc.) is sufficiently verifiable? The topic of this article is not ombudswomen Denisova, but war crimes. So with regard to what's been stated the point is WP:V. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, mainstream RS (CNN and CBS) say that "there were credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops". The Ukrainian official responsible for documenting such claims, Lyudmyla Denisova provides some details. Was she ever found to lie about something? Not to my knowledge. So, I would consider her claims very much credible. And this is not an extraordinary claim, given what we know about Bucha and other places. Besides, Zelensky said the same: [51]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified this discussion to RS/N here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, per discussion at talk on Attack on Snake Island if someone makes a statement and then that statement is then reported on in RS then we can include it. Volunteer Marek 23:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the discussion starting with your "We only include Russian claims if they’ve been widely reported in reliable sources. Otherwise we’d have to include all kinds of ridiculous shit (we dont)"? I see it's quite a long discussion. Could you give us the gist of it and tell us why do you think it's relevant? Or are you arguing that we should include Ukrainian claims only if they’ve been widely reported in reliable sources? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is an additional, newer ref [52] (by official Ukrainian news agency Ukrinform, attributed to the same Lyudmyla Denisova). I do not insist all such atrocious details should be included to the page, but a summary should. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Based on this discussion and on the discussion at RSN, I'm now making a few changes to the article that hopefully will enjoy consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this [53]. So, basically, the Ukrainian authorities were unable to protect people in their custody from attacks by Russian forces (just as they were not able to protect their own people). How that can be a war crime by Ukrainian authorities? My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for having opened the thread. We have some independent human rights organisations (HRW and Global Detention Project) arguing that the behaviour of Ukrainian authorities (not letting detained migrants flee) qualifies as a violation of Protocol 1, Article 58C, of the Geneva Convention: "The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible ... take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations". That view of theirs is notable enough, as it has been reported by several reliable sources: "The Guardian" and "Al Jazeera" (quoted) plus "Der Spiegel" (which I didn't quote because it's firewalled). So I believe it passes the thresholds both wof WP:N and WP:F. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "This could be a human rights issue, but not an alleged war crime." Violations of human rights carried out by military forces during war are by definition war crimes. In any case, we let rs determine what are alleged war crimes rather than Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. And yes we let RS determine what are alleged war crimes. The point is that in this case none of the RS call this a war crime. Volunteer Marek 08:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian forces should of released the migrants so they could escape. They did not so they breached Protocol 1, Article 58C, of the Geneva Convention, as stated by RS, so it could be found to be a war crime and we should include in this article Ilenart626 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Which RS say that was a "war crime" by Ukrainian government? Perhaps I missed it after looking at sources? And if the source does not say it, then just arguing about international law (as above) qualify as WP:SYN. Do these sources even say that was an illegal detention by military forces? After quickly looking [54], I understand that was a lawful detention by civilian authorities, pretty much as it would be in the USA. Not a good practice and possibly a human right violation, but not a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't the reason you gave for removing the text, either in your edit summary or when you set up this discussion thread. Did you just automatically delete text you didn't like without reading the sources and provided the first excuse you could think of? TFD (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the page not the editor.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think all these reasons are applicable here, or perhaps they are different ways to say the same: that content does not belongs to this page.My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My very best wishes, if you want a source to also explicitly state that it is a war crime to be included in this article, then we would need to delete a number of other sections.  For example the "Intercepted conversation about killing of Ukrainian prisoners" would have to be deleted as it does not explicity state this is a war crime.  I also had a quick look at "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" and could not see any explicit claims that this were war crimes, by your logic this section would have to be deleted.  My very best wishes, do you also support deleting these sections and any other sections that fail to explicity state it is a war crime? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking in this thread about other sections. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Why shouldn't policy should be enforced the same whatever side we are discussing? TFD (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This thread as about 'Migrants'. If you want to discuss an another subject, please create your thread.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who's likely to know better the contents of this article, I can confirm that if we were to apply MVBW's criterion to the article, circa 1/3 of its contents would be removed. That criterion has never been used in the past: if RS don't use the words "war crime" but describe the wilful killing of civilians or cluster bombing in highly populated areas, we've always published so far. Besides, in this case the decision for inclusion is even easier because the RS themselves qualify what they describe as a violation of IHL, and they even provide us with a specific reference to a source of law (Protocol 1, Article 58C). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree some content in some other sections should be removed on the very same policy-based grounds, while most of the content on the page is fine, but this should be discussed on a case by case basis. My very best wishes (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, we need to be consistent accross the article, it is obvious you are pov pushing, have reverted your change Ilenart626 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that is your argument. So far I saw ZERO RS in this thread above which would call it "war crimes". Hence this is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MVBW's criterion, "do RS call it a war crime?", has never been used in this article. If adopted rigorously it would destroy almost half of the article, and if adopted selectively it would destroy only those parts that report allegations against the Ukrainian authorities. Note that if we were to apply MVBW's criterion rigorously we would lose (if I'm not wrong): "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", "Detention camps", various subsections of "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" (e.g.the bombing of Odessa). I'm afraid that even clear cases of war crimes (if verified) such as "Abduction and torture of civilians in Kherson" and "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children" wouldn't pass MVBW's criterion! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC) truth be told, MVBW's criterion has already been used once in this article: to prevent the publication of a section on torture and killing of marauders and Russian supporters by Ukrainian authorities... Q.E.D.[reply]

This is not my criterion, but a policy. If something was not directly defined in RS as a war crime (in this example), then this is not war crime and does not belong to this page. Same goes for any other pages. There is no any policy specifically for this page. All arguments above in this thread are as follows: I think this is war crime because... Well, that can work for something which is plainly obvious for everyone to be a war crime. But that one is not. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguement does not make any sense. You cannot selectively argue that a certain criteria can apply to one section that does not apply to the rest of the article. Gitz has provided a detailed response, you need to address what he is saying and justify your position. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said above that the same criteria should be applied to different pages and of course to different sections of the same page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pot calling the kettle black here - you and Gitz have repeatedly held different sections to different standards to give relatively excessive detail to incidents committed by Ukraine. Shadybabs (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is false equivocation. Nobody disagrees that bombing schools or raping civilians is a war crime. But there is a dispute as to whether the conditions of foreign nationals who end up being trapped in a territory that’s been invaded and who are held for one reason or another (in one case because they crossed into the country illegally and in another because it was unclear what their status was) is a “war crime”. That’s why you need to provide sources for the stuff that’s disputed. Volunteer Marek 08:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, this whole “well, this *might* be a violation of Geneva convention so it’s a war crime” is indeed pure original research as, putting aside the “might be” part, not all violations of Geneva convention are “war crimes” (“grave” breaches are). So yeah, find sources that actually support what you want to add or stop trying to cram this into the article. Volunteer Marek 08:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot adopt ad hoc criteria for inclusion based on the party (Ukrainian or Russian) against which war crimes allegations were made; that would be a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Volunteer Marek filled this article with various contents where no RS claims a war crime has been committed. So I invite them to share their views on how to better define the subject of this article (war crimes "stricto sensu", according to legal scholarship and sources of law, or war crimes "lato sensu", according to common parlance, as serious breaches of IHL and HR violations connected to war) here above in the thread Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#On_the_subject_of_this_article,_and_ill-treatment_of_pro-Russian_supporters_and_other_individuals. I'm confident that once we've settled this fundamental issue co-operation among editors will be much easier. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously going to claim that shelling schools or raping civilians is not a war crime (and no, I didn't "fill this article" with that content) Volunteer Marek 09:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not matter if something was Russian or Ukrainian. It only matters if we are including massive and well documented in RS war crimes as opposed as anecdotal and poorly documented cases, such as a single video of something which is opened to interpretations. The latter should be arguably removed from the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition we should not include pure propaganda to this page, it belongs to other pages. For example, putting [55]: Putin appealed directly to Ukrainian troops and urged them not to allow "neo-Nazis and Banderites to use your children, your wives and the elderly as a human shield in section about the alleged Ukrainian war crimes is nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. On the contrary it shows how war crimes discourse works "on the other side" of the conflict, which is indeed very interesting (that is, notable) and fully within the scope of this article. I very much doubt that anybody could fall prey of Russian propaganda by simply reading that according to Putin the whole Ukrainian population is used as human shield by their own government..., and if they do, well, there's nothing we can do about it, can we? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this info worth including, but not on this page. It belongs to Russian information war against Ukraine, public opinion in Russia, whatever. This page is already very large, and want to focus on real war crimes please. Actually, all this section should be removed. If the claim was baseless, as this section tells, then why include? My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please move the content about kremmina to the "willful killing of civilians...." section? id suggest merging them into something like "Killings in Kremmina" or something similar, in addition, id suggest adding content about the Bilohorivka school bombing, it should be a subsection in the luhansk oblast section.

Bilohorivka school bombing

On 7 May 2022, a school in Bilohorivka, Luhansk Oblast, was hit by a Russian airstrike during the Battle of Sievierodonetsk, setting the building on fire and trapping large numbers of people inside.^[1][2]. The death of at least two people was confirmed while authorities said the actual death toll was close to 60,^[3] Governor of Luhansk Oblast Serhiy Haidai also repeated similar claims.^[4][5], About ninety people were sheltering inside the building's basement at the time,^[6] At least 30 people were rescued.^[7].

The attack was condemned by the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry,^[6] and UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, who said he was "appalled" by the attack.^[8][9], Liz Truss, the British foreign secretary, said that she was "horrified" and described the attack as constituting war crimes.^[10]

187.39.133.201 (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes changed the heading of the section "Disrupting humanitarian corridors" to "Killing civilians during their attempted evacuation" because "Here is a typical illustration to the discussion at talk page. Of course "disruption" would not be a war crime, but this is not the issue" [56]. Then they probably noted (my hypothesis) that there was no RS supporting the new heading and that Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol was already covered in the article, and changed the heading again to "Preventing civilian evacuations" (edit summary: "or at least that") [57]. But the problem remains: "preventing civilian evacuation" is not a war crime, or at least we don't have a RS unequivocally stating that it's a war crime. So I'm asking to MVBW: do you agree that, based on the criterion you are defending here above in the thread Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#On_the_subject_of_this_article,_and_ill-treatment_of_pro-Russian_supporters_and_other_individuals, we should drop the whole section? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two issues here. First, "disrupting" is incorrect (hence my edit). This is about intentionally preventing evacuations, allegedly with intention to get people killed. Is it a war crime? I think it is, but one needs to check sources (I did not). Secondly, I think this section should be a little rewritten (with additional sources) to make clear that "being targeted by Russian forces" means Russian forces shooting at civilians cars and killing people. Then the relevance to this page would be more clear. My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Russian forces shooting at civilian cars we have "Shooting on passing civilian vehicles" (which I myself published). The section we are now talking about has a different history, different contents and different sources. The section has been repeatedly discussed in recent past (as you know well), here and here, and Ileanart and I made the point very clear: "We have no RS claiming that the Russian army targeted the humanitarian corridors. I've read carefully the section again, checking the sources" (Gitz, 01:42, 2 April 2022) but at the time you and Volunteer Marek where not at all impressed by that argument. Now I see you've changed your mind - so, shall we remove? do we have a full unrepentant consensus on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed per cited sources like that one [58]. It say: "Russian forces continued to shell the Ukrainian city of Mariupol on Saturday, despite agreeing to a ceasefire just hours earlier - throwing an attempted mass evacuation of civilians into chaos.". So that was the issue which clearly qualify as a war crime. This is shelling which prevented the evacuations.My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article does not mention war crimes. By your own criteria that you raised in “ Migrants” above, your statement “ So that was the issue which clearly qualify as a war crime.” is original research. Ilenart626 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, I'm sorry: BBC doesn't say that that was a war crime. This is the criterion you've been arguing for, so how can you change your mind so abruptly? Russians and Ukrainians hadn't agreed on a detailed evacuation plan (time and routes), as the ICRC clearly said, therefore the Russian didn't interrupt the shelling. That that was a war crime is at least veeeery doubtful, and you need to provide a RS claiming that that was a war crime: "one must provide RS saying that a specific action X by military forces A in the war has been investigated as a potential war crime or qualify as a potential war crime" (I'm quoting MVBW). So, based on your criterion, the section falls - there's no way of avoiding this logical consequence of your argument. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to an explanation by PBS,

Possible war crimes that have been reported in Ukraine: widespread destruction of people’s homes, firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors, targeting hospitals, using indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs in civilian areas, attacks on nuclear power plants, intentionally blocking access to humanitarian aid or basic needs like food and water.

That does include "attacks on nuclear power plants" (your thread below) and "firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors" (this thread). Perhaps this needs to be phrased better/differently and be better sourced, but such things do belong to the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs to be better sourced because the source you provide doesn't do the job. As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS that source would be reliable if we were discussing about "what war crimes are" and "what options exist for bringing those responsible to justice", these being the principal topics of the publication. Here, however, we are discussing about the siege of Mariupol and how the Russians behaved on that occasion, and we need a reliable sources claiming that they committed a war crime by "disrupting" (delaying, not-agreeing on opening or even targetting) a unilaterally declared "humanitarian corridor". That source doesn't even mention Mariupol in that context, so the article is simply about something else. "Firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors" may well be hearsay, because the source doesn't tell us where and when this happened. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you asked for sources, and here is it. It says specifically about this Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it lists specific types of alleged war crimes committed by Russian military forces. Mission accomplished. Speaking about another disputable section [59], do you have any RS which say the same about migrants? Meaning that the lawful imprisonment of migrants by civilian Ukrainian authorities during this war constitutes a probable/alleged was crime by Ukrainian military forces? That even sounds strange. No? I guess so because no one provided such RS in the corresponding section. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: failing to take precautions to protect detained migrants is not a war crime "stricto sensu", but only a possible violation of IHL and a violation of human rights related to war (war crime "lato senso"). But this is irrelevant here. Also failing to agree on the route and timing of a humanitarian corridor from Mariupol is probably not a war crime, and so far you haven't been able to provide a RS qualifying that as a war crime. Until you find a source of the sort, all you can say is just an attempt at "climbing on mirrors", as the Italians say (roughly equivalent to "clutching at straws"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that denying free passage by the occupying military authorities is either a war crime or a violation of international conventions [60],[61]. But this issue can be framed as "firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors" [per citation above] for inclusion, unless this is already included. That is what had happen on a number of occasions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gitz that your PBS article is WP:UNDUE It is also WP:SYNTH Ilenart626 (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the Voice of America News: ***Ukrainian officials accused*** the Russians of purposefully shelling the civilians, saying Russian commanders knew they were non-combatants trying to use an escape route as Russian drones had been flying over the area just moments before the thump and crump of mortars turned a road leading from a buckled bridge into a killing zone. Here is the link-- https://www.voanews.com/a/kremlin-accused-of-using-ceasefires-humanitarian-corridors-as-war-tactic-/6473226.html

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 23:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civilians began to evacuate from Mariupol along a humanitarian corridor to the city of Zaporizhzhia. As civilians entered the evacuation corridor, Russian forces continued shelling the city, forcing evacuees to turn back.

Here is the link-- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60629851

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 23:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Civilians had been unable to evacuate the city [Mariupol] due to repeated ceasefire violations, attacks on agreed-upon evacuation corridors, and direct attacks on civilians attempting to evacuate.

Here is the link-- https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/07/russia-ukraine-war-us-collecting-evidence-of-possible-war-crimes-nbc-reports.html

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources such as International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) explain that the two parties hadn't reached an agreement, and none of the reliable sources you mention (VOA, BBC, CNBC) claimed that what happened was a crime. In the immediate aftermath of the events, only Ukrainian and US officials (who don't qualify as reliable sources) alleged it was a war crime.
In detail: VOA says "Ukrainian officials accused the Russians of purposefully shelling"; BBC says that "Russian forces continued shelling" but makes no allegation of war crimes; CNBC (misquoted: that's the wikipedia article Siege of Mariupol) reports allegations made by US officials (National Security Council spokesperson, US ambassador to OSCE and Secretary of State Antony Blinken) and makes it clear, "The United States is collecting evidence ... The U.S. is also investigating, etc.". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pending discussion, I'm moving the section to where it belongs logically (Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks> Donetsk Oblast) but I think that it fails the (very restrictive) test we've apparently agreed upon (war crimes stricto sensu as reported by RS) so I welcome other views on the topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brief recap. The section "Human shields" has always been very controversial among editors. At the end of April/early May we had extensive discussions/edit wars, which can be read here in the thread Human shields. Those discussions had left the section in this miserable state until on 7 May I made an "inclusionist" proposal so as to unblock the situation: here the edit and here the explanation in the talk page. Nobody objected and the discussion was closed and the issue settled. But consensus can change, so instead of dismantling the section piece by piece ([62], [63]) with edits that enjoy no consensus, we'd better have a meaningful discussion. But first a point of order: shall we first restore the text that we had before my 7 May edit or rather the text after that edit? Because the text that is now online doesn't reflect a consensus and cannot be imposed through edit war ([64], [65], [66], [67]). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version of this section is fine. One could say that Russian claims about Ukrainian side should be excluded because Ukrainians did not use human shields according to the text, but still keeping it (as a couple of phrases only!) is arguably OK as a controversy about the alleged war crimes appearing in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Plus there's a whole bunch of detailed and (in principle) verifiable claims the Russian army made about Ukrainians using human shields here and there (so, not in generic terms, "the whole Ukrainian population", but rather "at school N° 1 in Odessa on the x of May"), which were reported by non-deprecated Russian sources (e.g. TASS). As we've being reporting unverified allegations by Ukrainian officials (and even extraordinary allegations about raping of infants, children used as human shields, etc.) it's difficult to find a neutral reason for excluding these info from the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the criterion "we need a RS qualifying the incident as a war crime" (otherwise it's WP:OR), this section must be dropped (unfortunately: I would like to keep it). In fact, the incident has been discussed extensively (even at the Security Council) and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv had tweeted "It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant", but the only reliable and independent source discussing the legal point (this) concludes that "It is less likely that the operation satisfied the threshold for the associated war crime, as articulated in article 85(3)(c). Given that there was in fact no radioactive leak and that there seems to have been relatively little collateral damage, it does not appear that those who engaged in the attack would have known at the time that excessive civilian loss would arise from it". So we need a reliable sources (not the US Embassy) claiming that that was a war crime, because the only RS we have on the point says that it wasn't actually. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here is RS that say it [68]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is an in passing reference that doesn't outbalance a scholarly article, written by a legal expert, entirely devoted to the topic of the legitimacy of targeting nuclear plants: that article said it doesn't amount to war crime, so unless you find an equally reliable source, this is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and most importantly doesn't count as reliable source as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply above [69]. RS provided. Your source is not particularly assertive ("it is less likely"), and it also discusses it as a possible/alleged war crime. Here is a citation from your RS: The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv tweeted, “It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant.” So whatever these different RS have to say on the subject of shelling the nuclear plant being a possible war crime need to be summarized and included to this page. Given the huge coverage and significance of this incident in RS, that absolutely must be included. This is not a video of doubtful origin. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't get it - are you claiming that a tweet from the US Embassy in Kyiv is a reliable source? Because here, once we've adopted your strict notion of verifiable war crime, we need reliable sources, not tweets by ambassadors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that your source [70] is an RS. That is where the info about the Embassy appears, and it does not matter how the Embassy (or whoever) communicated their claim. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the incident as a possible "war crime" is notable and appears in multiple RS (e.g. [71]), which justifies its inclusion to the page as a possible "war crime" during this war. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a crystal clear case that must be included to the page per coverage in RS. These RS (including one in the beginning of the thread [72], PBS, CBS and others) extensively and explicitly discuss if the incident was (or could be) a "war crime". Hence belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the first source you mention the one that explicitly rules out that the attack was a war crime? how can we build upon that basis an argument for inclusion? I didn't check PBS, but CBS merely reports the tweet by US Embassy in Kyiv; apart the tweet of the US Embassy, no one called this a war crime, not even the "Lieber Institute for Law & Land Warfare at West Point", which explicitly excluded that. So I think we need to find a criterion for inclusion different from "RS labelling as a war crime". But maybe in the thread "On the object of this article" IP 187.39 has just had an idea for solving the issue. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... You just said this content should be included in your opinion [73], and now you argue it should not? My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be included based on my preferred criterion - war crimes lato sensu; it should be excluded based on the criterion you'd like us to follow - war crimes stricto sensu. As that criterion of yours succeeded in blocking new sections on Russian supporters and migrants, I reluctantly embraced it, as NPOV dictates, and therefore I'm now arguing that valuable contents that qualify only as war crime lato sensu, such as this one (a mere violation of IHL), need to go. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the takeover of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant a war crime is a stretch. Yes the Kiev US embassy called it a war crime, however this was retracted by the US State Department and the analysis by Lieber Institute West Point said it as probably not a war crime. However I would support keeping it in this article as there is a lot of miss information still being reported. We could reduce the size of this section with some of the details transferred to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant article and amend the current "See also" link (now going to "Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast"?) to point directly to this updated section. Happy to do this if we have consensus Ilenart626 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants. I mean, if the stricto sensu approach prevails, then NPOV demands that it is consistently applied throughout the article, and we need to find a proper venue for the undoubtedly notable and good-quality contents of the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see that one, yes that could be expanded with this info Ilenart626 (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment above in "On the subject of this article, and ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals" now support removing this section from this article and tranfer to another article, probably expand Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple of edits have now been done. Note that the facts of what happened has now been established by the NPR Video Analysis report, which means some of the uncertainties in the international scholars' reports have been cleared up. For example, Russia's allegations that Ukrainian forces initiated the action by firing anti tank missiles has been confirmed, as per this quote from the NPR report:

"Just before 11:30 p.m. local time, someone began livestreaming the plant's security footage on its YouTube channel. The livestream rolled on as Russian forces began a slow and methodical advance on the plant. The column of armored vehicles, led by the tanks, used spotlights to cautiously approach the plant from the southeast along the main service road to the facility. Around an hour and 20 minutes later, one of the two tanks that led the column was struck by a missile from Ukrainian forces and was disabled. That marked the beginning of a fierce firefight that lasted for roughly two hours at the plant." Ilenart626 (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But then this needs to be stated clearly. Either we quote that source immediately after "Had the Ukrainian forces initiated the action ...", or we drop the "as alleged by the Russian army" and write "As the Ukrainian forces initiated the action ... that might have breached...". As the second option might be questionable because of WP:SYNTH, I'd go for the first one and I'm now modifying the article accordingly. If anybody doesn't agree, I'd suggest we restore the original formulation ("Ukrainian forces initiating the action by firing anti tank missiles may have breached the Passive Precautions section of Article 56, paragraph 5") which is perhaps more simple, short and entirely correct. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the discussions we've had (not only here above but also elsewhere in the talk) came to a somewhat paradoxical "nonconclusion". On the one hand, most of the editors (including @Volunteer Marek, possibly with the sole exception of @My very best wishes) agree that we don't have enough reliable sources qualifying what happened as a war crime. We could even say it openly: the attack to the nuclear plants was not a war crime. On the other hand other editors - including myself and perhaps including @AdrianHObradors and @Ilenart626 - feel that it would be a pity to drop the whole section: we think (or at least, I think) that this is the kind of information that someone interested in "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion" could be eager to know. So what do we do? I see three options.

1) Rigorist approach: we stick to our "stricto sensu" and "strict verifiability" approach. The section goes away, no matter what.

2) Cherry picking/ad hoc approach: who gives a damn? let's WP:IGNORE our criteria and the section stays as we want it to stay; this is just an ad hoc exception to otherwise undefeatable criteria for inclusion.

3) Adjust the criteria for inclusion so as to get to a reflective equilibrium between the criteria and the contents we feel should remain. E.g.: not only "stricto sensu" (legally determined) war crimes but also any serious violation of international humanitarian law and/or serious violation of human rights connected to the war (my preferred solution); or "loose verifiability" (a not independent, non reliable source alleging that something might "possibly" be a war crime suffices for inclusion - this might be the stance taken by MVBW in the above discussion). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gitz, I couldn't have expressed it better. I am with you on that regard. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would also support what Gitz is saying, so would would include in this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many contents in this section are not supported by RS qualifying the incidents they report as war crimes. To facilitate an orderly discussion, I'd start from the beginning and move on: "Donetsk Oblast. On 24 February, the Russian Armed Forces, working together with pro-Russian rebels, besieged the port city of Mariupol, leading to heavy casualties as supplies were cut from the locals". Source: Reuters. No mention of war crimes. Let's drop? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "widespread destruction of people’s homes" [together with people] by the military forces, as had happen in Mariupol, qualify as a war crime (see citation above). My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to find a source that describes “ …besieged the port city of Mariupol, leading to heavy casualties as supplies were cut from the locals.” as a war crime. Otherwise the sentence should be deleted Ilenart626 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes you're wrong: "widespread destruction of people’s homes" [together with people] by the military forces" doesn't necessarily qualify as a war crime. It's a war crimes if that destruction isn't justified by sufficiently important military objectives. If there's a weighty military reason, then it isn't a war crime - so for instance it is still controversial whether the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and the bombing of Dresden during WW2 qualify as war crimes. It is not obvious and uncontroversial that the bombing of Mariupol belongs to this article based on the criterion you provided - which, let me say it again, is a bad criterion, which will have disruptive consequences not only for the incidents involving the pro-Russian supporters and the migrants, that you don't want in this article, but also for other contents that you (and I as well) would like to retain. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not wrong, simply because this is not my opinion. I plainly cited a source [74] and it is directly on the subject. On the other hand, what you say above about Dresden is not on the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't beg the question. You need a source saying that the siege of Mariupol, "leading to heavy casualties as supplies were cut from the locals", was a war crime. A generic source saying that "widespread destruction of people’s homes" is a "possible war crime", without even mentioning Mariupol, is of no use, you need something specific on the use of siege warfare in the case of Mariupol (we already have the a section on "Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol). To put it more clearly: the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is a war crime according to IHL; is that what happened in Mariupol? Has anyone ever argued that that war crime was committed by the Russians? I don't know. By the way, I've just noticed that the quoted source, Reuters, doesn't support the statement "leading to heavy casualties as supplies were cut from the locals", which therefore is entirely unverified. Therefore I'm now removing it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

id suggest removing stuff about the Sumykhimprom ammonia leak and the bombings of factories and armored plants in zhytomyr instead, due to these being Legitimate military targets. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is entirely correct, but as many contents in this section must be removed because they no longer qualify as "stricto sensu" war crimes, I suggested we proceed in order, starting from the beginning of the section. I personally don't subscribe to that very restrictive criterion for notability (war crimes as defined by sources of law) and for verifiability (they must be qualified as such by a reliable source) and I think it's going to have serious affects on the article. I'd suggest we create parallel articles on "Violations of international humanitarian law during the 2022 Russian invasions" (for violation of IHL that don't qualify as war crimes: targetting nuclear plants, maybe "disrupting humanitarian corridors" (?), maybe interviewing POWs and sharing their personal information, etc.) and "Human rights violations during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", as you yourself proposed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IP. You are mistaken. Sumykhimprom is not a military target. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know on what basis you say that. Any reliable source at hand? I'm not a military person but I'm inclined to think that chemical factories (as well as airports, pipelines, steel factories, highways, etc.) qualify as military objects: they have military value, there can be good military reasons for wanting them destroyed. On the other hand, schools, hospitals, apartment blocks don't qualify as military objects unless they are used for military purposes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, civilian manufacturing facilities do not qualify as military by default. You need some RS saying that it was a military facility and what kind of military equipment it produced. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong: per WP:ONUS it's you the one who needs to achieve consensus for inclusion and, and based on WP:V and the criteria for inclusion we have agreed upon, you need to find a RS qualifying this as a war crime. By the way, we have a dedicated article on this, Sumykhimprom ammonia leak, which doesn't even mention war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. If a facility was described in RS as a civilian facility, then it is a civilian facility per WP policies. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Civilian facility" and "protected object" are two different concepts in IHL. I could point at a few scholarly references on this point which however is quite obvious: a bridge, a steel factory, a highway are all civilian facilities but they are not protected from attack: in a war there may be sound military reasons for destroying them. Anyway it's not up to me to prove the point. Based on YOUR criterion of inclusion (stricto sensu) you need to provide us with a source explicitly qualifying this as a war crime; anything less (e.g. speculations about what follows from certain targets being civilian facilities) is OR. There's no rush, but I'm now removing these contents until a source is found. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be probably qualified as an environmental crime per sources like [75]. Is it also a war crime? See here: Environmental destruction is a war crime, but it’s almost impossible to fall foul of the laws. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hoover.org/research/ukraine-and-cloud-genocide Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have a page Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sure, that is a genocide, exactly as Putin elaborated himself in his speech (see your ref.). My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion piece by Norman Naimark, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. While you might find it persuasive, it only becomes fact when it gains consensus support among genocide experts. According to a U.S. intelligence official speaking to NBC News, "Genocide includes a goal of destroying an ethnic group or nation and, so far, that is not what we are seeing."[76] Not all wars, whether just or unjust, are motivated by genocide. TFD (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that MSNBC ref is dated April 15. Right now, after some investigations, this is different. And these crimes are indeed currently described as genocide in RS [77]. According to a report by "leading experts" on genocide, the following qualify as genocide [78]:

As examples of the evidence that Russia is breaching the convention, the experts highlight repeated statements made by Russia's President Vladimir Putin who has made it clear he believes Ukraine has no right to exist as an independent state. They also point to the dehumanizing language used by top Russian officials to describe Ukrainians -- including worlds like "bestial," "subordinate" and "filth" -- as well as their portrayal of Ukraine as a "Nazi state" and an "existential threat" to Russia... It says that the well-documented massacres and summary executions in Bucha, Staryi Bykiv, and in Sumy and Chernihiv regions, Russia's deliberate attacks on shelters, evacuation routes and healthcare facilities, as well the indiscriminate targeting and bombardment of residential areas, rapes, sieges, grain thefts and forced deportations to Russia all amount to "genocidal pattern of destruction."

With regard to discussion above on this talk page, all these examples of the genocidal destruction/genocide during the war also qualify as war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naimark is a genocide scholar, and others have been commenting and writing reports too, so why don’t you quote them, instead of an anonymous US intelligence official who gets the UN definition of genocide wrong? —Michael Z. 20:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can't blame me for not referring to a report that was published after I posted. I will see what reception it has had. And while Naimark is a genocide scholar, he was writing for the Hoover Institution, "a conservative American public policy institution and research institution that promotes personal and economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited government." Not exactly a mainstream, neutral source. TFD (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Lines Institute says it is "the first to address one of the more contentious and consequential questions of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: whether the war is genocidal in character." I assume that means that no report has called it genocide before. I cannot find much about their parent body, the Fairfax University of America. It has 65 students, has low entry standards and was almost closed down for its poor academic rigor. So we will have to wait to see if it gains any acceptance. TFD (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's a novel argument btw. Nazi Germany considered Austrians to be Germans, absorbed Austria into Germany and killed people who thought Austria should remain independent. But they were never accused of genocide for this. TFD (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[79] Here is link to their report, see pages 41-47 with a long list of experts who contributed to the publication. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Anschluss itself was similar to Russian annexation of Crimea (no one calls it genocide either). This war is very much different. Moreover, right after Anschluss, Nazi did commit actions that can be viewed and probably have been described in sources as a part of their genocide of Jews (although I did not check it now). My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have seen the report. The only recognizable expert is Naimark. It may be that the conclusion was predetermined. I realize at the time, people compared the annexation of Crimea with Anschluss. However, the the current invasion has much more in common. Putin claims that both Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. Hitler claimed that both Germans and Austrians were the same people. This is different from their position on the Jews. The Nazis did not claim Jews were German citizens, they claimed they were not. Similarly, in North American, aboriginals were not considered citizens. Putin's justification for invading Crimea was different in that he claimed its land had been part of the Russian republic inside the USSR, while Austria had never been part of Germany Empire.

Putin also claims that Belarus is part of Russia, but that has not attracted any genocide claims either.

My point is that situations similar to Ukraine have never been described as genocide in the past and we have to see what degree of acceptance they have in future. And before you claim that this is OR, we are able on talk pages to assess to what extent a novel claim should be treated as a REDFLAG.

TFD (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, authors are experts, see this thread [80]. Yes, Putin said (incorrectly) that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. But he also said that Ukrainians have no right to exist. That's why sources above say about incitement of genocide. Furthermore, his military forces, paramilitaries and FSB has actually accomplished the genocide (as these and other sources say). My very best wishes (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see how the discussion above can justify removal of the brief mentioning of genocide on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly put: no, it isn't. No point in looking for RS qualifying it as such because none can be found. So given the stricto sensu and strict verifiability approach we've decided to follow, the section needs to go. Not a big loss anyway because its contents are already covered in the dedicated article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. The UN distinguishes between war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.[81] TFD (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course not every genocide is also a war crime. No one said that it was. For example, Holodomor was a genocide (according to many), but not war crime. However, certain war crimes can be also a genocide, for example Srebrenica massacre. Same according to citation in the previous thread. The source lists specific war crimes during this war that may also qualify as genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the genocide hypothesis, Russians are committing horrible war crimes because they intend to wipe out the Ukrainian culture, language and people. War crimes would be the means and genocide the end. However none argues that genocide itself is a war crime because it isn't: that would be sloppy terminology. So since genocide is not a war crime I suggest we write about genocide in the dedicated article instead than here. Where is the RS qualifying this pavented genocide as a war crime? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to cited sources, the "well-documented massacres and summary executions in Bucha, Staryi Bykiv, and in Sumy and Chernihiv regions, Russia's deliberate attacks on shelters, evacuation routes and healthcare facilities, as well the indiscriminate targeting and bombardment of residential areas, rapes, sieges, grain thefts and forced deportations to Russia all amount to "genocidal pattern of destruction." Same things have been described as war crimes. Obviously, there is an overlap of these subjects, and it should be reflected on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if the conclusion of the sentence you quote were "... all amount to an attempt to terrify the Ukrainian people and weaken their resistance", would you have created a section "Attempt to terrify and weaken"? I don't think so. Why? Because the subject of the article are war crimes and not their rationale and underlying purpose. I don't see the point of this as we already have a dedicated article on genocide - I'm not maintaining that we should suppress contents but jus organise them in a consistent way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course genocide can be a war crime! Wth? Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram here? Genocide can happen internally when a country is not at war. Then it's not a war crime. Genocide can happen while a country is being attacked, invaded, occupied by another country. Then it is a war crime. The argument appears to be that because there are cases of genocide out there which aren't a war crime then genocide can never be a war crime. Jesus. This isn't hard and removing this info looks insanely bad faithed. Volunteer Marek 15:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers begins with two sentences that imply that showing photos and videos of killed soldiers is a war crime. The source is this Washington Post article ^[1], but as far as I can see that is taken from the subheading (not reliable sources per WP:HEADLINES) and it is not explicitly called a war crime in the body of the article. As far as I can see no other source calls showing these photos and videos a war crime (but I could not read some that were behind paywalls). Also, the section refers to Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention which is not about the treatment of POWs, not about the deceased. There are rules about the treatment of the dead and against them being "despoiled" but as far as I know photos and videos are not prohibited. I suggest that the text "photos and videos of killed Russian soldiers,[283] soon followed by" is removed. Sjö (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What image are you talking about? Russian POWs on the image are alive (in section "Russian POWs"). My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section I linked at the beginning of my post it will become clearer. I am talking about the photos and videos mentioned in the Washington post source. Sjö (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Military_of_the_Russian_Federation_captured_during_the_Battle_of_Sumy.jpg ? There is on any other with Russian soldiers. I do not see an obvious problem with it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, some of them (actually most if them) were dead. Washington Post says "But the tactic also could be interpreted as a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which say governments must “at all times” protect prisoners of war from “insults and public curiosity"". Then they interview an international law professor, Rachel E. VanLandingham, who says it's prohibited by "the law" (meaning IHL). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what part of the campaign is he talking about? Showing POWs or showing soldiers that died before they became POWs? The way I read the article the prohibited part is that which is against the thirteenth article of the Third Geneva Convention, i.e. subjecting them to public curiosity. The Geneva conventions do not say much about the treatment of fallen combatants, and certainly nothing about exposing them to public curiosity. Sjö (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The humiliation of POWs is a war crime. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never questioned that. My post is about photos and videos of dead soldiers that are not POWs.Sjö (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must clearly link to a photo/video you are talking about to avoid misunderstanding. Also, no, showing photos and videos of killed soldiers is not a war crime, and not a crime at all. Journalists do it all the time. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WoP claims, if I understood them correctly, that the campaign (they called it "tactics") by the Ukrainian government of systematically circulating gory images of dead Russian soldiers plus interviews to POWs violates the Geneva convention. There might be an important legal distinction here that is missed, which WoP doesn't trace, doesn't make clear or neglects, between living POWs and images of dead Russian soldiers. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus to remove the text as i suggested, so I am going to do that.Sjö (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus whatsoever. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out already not all violations of Geneva conventions are war crimes. Agree with Sjo. Show sources. Volunteer Marek 09:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps would be sensible to wait until there is any kind of consensus before removing content citing "per talk". AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how are violations of the Geneva conventions not war crimes? And even if they aren't, I think the correct way of proceeding would be to rename the article to "War crimes in ... and violations of the Geneva conventions". But still, war crimes are violations of the laws of war which include the Geneva conventions, don't they? AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include. 2. "serious violations" of Geneva convention are war crimes. Not everything that is a violation of Geneva convention is a war crime. Do you really think there will be international prosecution of someone because they posted a photo of captured Russian soldiers online? Volunteer Marek 15:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have multiple RS (Amnesty International, HRW, ICRC, Washington Post, Times of Israel, etc.) claiming that the Ukrainian authorities might have violated the Geneva conventions because "prisoners of war and detained civilians must be treated with dignity" and because they are "absolutely protected against ill-treatment and exposure to public curiosity including images circulating publicly on social media". If you think that this is not serious enough a violation to qualify as war crime and/or international prosecution will not be pursued (does it matter?), that's an interesting point: could you provide a reliable source on this?
Speaking about of (lack of) sources, could you please tell us why do you think that drafting a law (was it eventually approved?) facilitating the adoption of Ukrainian children amounts to a war crime? The sources I read speak of a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So I removed your contents on this [82]. I also added a few new contents on the alleged war crime of deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia: [83]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss whether invading armies kidnapping children is a “war crime” or not please start a separate section and we can talk about it there. However since the motivation here appears to be some kind of “if you want let me put in what I won’t into the article I will remove text you added from it” WP:POINT revenge edit, I have doubts if such a discussion will be productive. Also, because, you know, you’re arguing that kidnapping of children by armies isn’t a war crime. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek please, try to refrain from making personal attacks and assumptions. @Gitz isn't arguing that kidnapping children is or isn't a war crime, that is not the subject of discussion there. And I don't think is either for him nor you to decide. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part you tried to remove was obviously background and there are other sources, already in the article which explicitly call this a war crime. Your argument seems to be that ALL sources must explicitly call it a war crime. That’s not how it works.

This is actually a pretty good contrast regarding the respective pieces of text. On one hand for phenomenon of kidnapping of children there are multiple sources calling it a war crime as well as some other sources which refer to specific treaties. You’re arguing that ALL sources have to call it a war crime to merit inclusion. On the other hand for the phenomenon of posting pictures of captured Russian soldiers there are NO sources which call it a war crime but you insist on including it anyway because… you think some sources use language which, according to you, is “close enough”. You see the problem here? Volunteer Marek 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if violations of Geneva conventions are not war crimes, it would seem sensible to put them in this article. The attack of the nuclear plant is in this article, and that wasn't a war crime. Yet I don't think it should be removed. Just make the information clear. Perhaps the whole article should be renamed "War crimes and violations of the Geneva convention", or have another section for the Geneva convention violations that don't qualify as war crimes? Just removing the information doesn't seem like the best path to take. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You guys really need to stop it with these WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. As it happens I have no strong opinion either way whether an attack on a nuclear plant is a war crime so you bringing it up here is completely irrelevant. And no, I don’t think we should rename the article as such - though this is an implicit admission on your part that the info you’re trying to add is outside the current scope. I’d support renaming the article to Russian war crimes during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine since that’s what 90% of this article actually is, with other stuff people are trying to add for sake of some misguided and non policy compliant “bothsideism”. Volunteer Marek 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Still, I believe this: Such violations might seem minor (...) but they could chip away at Ukraine’s ability to hold Russia accountable for violating international law.^[2] deserves being in the article. It is directly related to Russian crimes of war, and important information. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC) AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support renaming the article to Russian war crimes during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine since that’s what 90% of this article actually is

The reason it's that way is because other editors have been removing any mention of Ukrainian war crimes from the page.

some misguided and non policy compliant “bothsideism”.

Show me where "Bothsideism" is a policy. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's that way is because other editors have been removing any mention of Ukrainian war crimes from the page No, the reason it's that way is because Russian forces have committed the overwhelming proportion of war crimes and these were far far far more horrible than anything Ukrainians have done. On one hand we have mass rapes, murder and torture. On the other hand we have... posting of captured POWs on the internet. Gimme a fucking break. That's about as sick of an equivocation as you can make.

Show me where "Bothsideism" is a policy. Here: WP:UNDUE.

Volunteer Marek 21:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek, something being on this page doesn't mean that it has the same weight as some other item just because they are on the same page. Readers won't go "Oh no, offensive pictures of soldiers have been posted on the internet, and it is on this page, it must be as bad as killing children!". But we shouldn't protect Ukrainian military from being accused of the things they do. Multiple agencies have told them to stop it and that it is a wrong thing to do and that it breaks laws, and even that it could chip away their ability to hold Russia accountable for violating international law. And I agree with many of your edits (not all), and I am not saying that you are not familiar with it, but perhaps it would be beneficial if you eyed the Wikiquette. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is about opinions/pseudoscientific material, not about article content/real events. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it's not. Please actually read the policy. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some explanations are needed here.

1. I don't want to discuss whether kidnapping children is a “war crime” or not. Denying that would be as absurd as denying that shooting a POW in the leg amounts to torture. I myself have just added info on allegations of forced deportation of children to Russia: they are allegations of war crimes.
2. However I don't think that approving (not even approving: "drafting") a law on easing adoption procedures for Ukrainian children is a war crime. As you first inserted these contents, and now reverted my removal, as per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD I think it is you who should open a discussion and explain your reasons. Reverting my revert is not collaborative and it only forces me or someone else to revert you again.
3. With regard to interviewing Russian POWs, "sometimes blindfolded or bound, revealing their names and personal information, and expressing regret over their involvement in the invasion", I think the legal issue is whether POW abuse passes the threshold of "humiliating and degrading treatment" under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, in which case it may well qualify as a war crime. It all depends on the circumstances of the cases and on delicate assessments. We don't have enough information and our RS don't have them either: so some of them say it's article 13, but others (WoP and HRW) don't exclude humiliation and intimidation; most of them speak of the Geneva conventions without specifying the provision. So unless you have an authoritative source that clearly settles the question and explains that these are not war crimes as they fall under article 13 and not under article 3, I think we should leave the section as it is. Note that when in 2014 pro-Russian separatists organised a parade of Ukrainian POWs in Donetsk, reliable sources said this was a war crime: [84] [85]. I don't see these episodes as being significantly different.
4. With regard to WP:UNDUE we clearly have different readings, and we'd better find a place to discuss them, as here it might be off topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the approving of the law, yes, that itself is not a war crime (at least our text doesn't claim it is). BUT, it is the background and context within which the war crime is being committed. It is providing the legal veneer for a war crime. See for example Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany. What's the point of removing it? And whats the justification? It's important and relevant context, and the rationale is provided that "this itself is not a war crime".

As another example, think of a situation where some prominent politician, Russian or otherwise, goes on TV and says "mass murder of Ukrainian civilians is totally fine!". Saying that itself may not be a war crime but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it here, because it's the CONTEXT within which a war crime is being committed.

In regard to #3, look, it's simple. Find a source which says it's a war crime not just your own "it may well qualify as a war crime". Have Ukrainians organized a parade of Russian POWs? No? So what's the relevance? Volunteer Marek 22:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have Ukrainians organized a parade of Russian POWs?

Yes.^[3][4][5] Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try but I assume you are capable of telling the difference between "organizing a parade" of POWs and some outlet referring to putting a POW on tv "parading in front of the cameras". Please stop playing games. Volunteer Marek 15:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me understand this. Your text was 20% war crime (Russian authorities have also kidnapped more than 121,000 Ukrainian children) and 80% "background and context" (some parents were killed, the Duma drafted a law, the Ukrainian ministry said there was a blatant threat of illegal adoptions, called on the UN etc etc.). Well, I think that circulating pictures of dead soldiers is also background and context, and actually accounts for less the 5% of the section. WoP itself calls the two things - pictures of dead soldiers and forced interviews to POWs - as part of a "tactic", a unitary propaganda effort; so they belong to the same context. Re war crime, as I said RS speak of violations of IHL and I believe that we should not rule out that some of them amount to war crimes: the issue there was not just privacy concerns but also coercion, humiliation, inhumane and degrading treatments, which qualify as possible war crime under common article 3. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that circulating pictures of dead soldiers is also background and context Background and context to what? Volunteer Marek 15:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are breaches of the Geneva convention, a war crime. Significant sources describe these warcrime, they belong here.BaderBad (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No the sources do not describe these as a war crime. Which is the whole point ten-edit WP:SPA. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here, single purpose account with barely any edits, you're using false (but very laconic and sparse) edit summaries [86] [87] (the whole point is that HRMMU doesn't say anything about war crimes). The purpose here appears solely to exacerbate the dispute. We're in WP:NOTHERE territory now. Volunteer Marek 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:SPA"? Looking at their contributions, Baderbad has 27 edits as I write stretching back to 2020, before the war even started. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhhh! Twenty seven edits! Basically 8 edits to "establish the account", then the rest to pick fights with me. And "stretching back to 2020" just means that he is still WP:STALKING my edits two years later [88] <- here calling my good faithed edits "vandalism" two years ago. It's a freaking sleeper WP:SPA account. And let's remember that another user got topic banned from this area precisely for calling other editors' edits "vandalism"

I'm sorry but if you're going to defend this obviously WP:NOTHERE account, just because it jumps in on your side to edit war, I'm not going to be able to take anything you say seriously. Volunteer Marek 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]