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

There are now available a few independent secondary sources, in particular this one and also this shorter statement by the OHCHR. I think we should read them carefully and use them to review the article. In particular, I have the impression that the sections on "Thermobaric weapons" and "Targeting of humanitarian corridors" may not be verifiable and supported by the most reliable sources. Note the following:
1) With regard to thermobaric weapons, the allegations of war crimes seem very week. Basically there's no allegation at all: our RS don't claim that this kind of weapons has ever been used on protected objects. And with regard to weapons in general OHCHR very much insists on cluster munitions. There's the following list: "a) munitions with a large blast radius, such as large bombs or missiles; b) weapons that tend to have a less accurate delivery system, such as unguided indirect fire weapons, including artillery and heavy mortars; and c) weapons designed to deliver munitions over a wide area, such as multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and cluster munitions." No mention of thermobaric weapons. They are especially concerned with shelling and airstrikes with unguided munitions on urban areas.
2) If I'm not wrong, there's no mention of attacks to humanitarian corridors. The RS we quote were very quick on blaming the Russians, but the only independent reliable source I've found, this, is more cautious (mentioning the "absence of a detailed and functioning agreement between the parties"). I'm quite worried that in case of future evacuations people in Ukraine could read our article and rely on our rendering of primary sources' accounts, which might not be correct, and be scared and refuse to evacuate. So before reporting that the Russians are used to bomb humanitarian corridors, I'd like to have more RS. The OHCHR's silence on the issue of humanitarian corridors suggests extra care. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh no, there are many secondary sources about it, basically by every major news outlet. Something like HRW is not better than NYT per WP:RS. It is another matter that most of these sources are making an attribution, for example, "according to statement by...". We should do the same. If we are making such attribution, this is fine per policy. When we do that, then yes, it does appear that Russian forces intentionally block the evacuations, intercept and impound buses, transport Ukrainian citizens to Russia, while confiscating their documents (that is what human traffickers usually do), but that is simply what the sources say. Now, speaking about thermobaric weapons, it appears that Russian military has officially confirmed using such weapons in Ukraine [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with thermobaric weapons is that RS say that they are not forbidden. Their use against civilians (or in the nearing of populated areas) would be unlawful, but otherwise they are legitimate. So now we have Ukraine's ambassador to US accusing Moscow of using vacuum bombs against a military base, Moscow admitting of using vacuum bombs (according to the UK Foreign Minister) and legal experts saying that they are allowed to do so, provided that they target military objects, which they did. USA and UK also use thermobaric weapons ([2], [3]) I don't see the point of the whole section, honestly, it looks completely irrelevant.
  But the real problem here is the humanitarian corridor section. OHCHR doesn't mention the deliberate shilling of humanitarian corridors. RS say that in Mariupol it took them 2 days to set up the evacuation route, there were misunderstandings, "The failed attempts in recent days underscore the absence of a detailed and functioning agreement between the parties to the conflict." (ICRC) "Russia and the Ukraine National Guard have accused each other of preventing a humanitarian corridor from being opened up in Mariupol." (El Pais). There are reports by RS (which now I cannot find) claiming that the Ukrainians were shooting at the Russians in the area. Nothing in the RS suggests that the Russians have deliberately targeted the civilians. What reason might they have had for targeting the corridors they had voluntarily created? Claiming that they target the corridors, if it’s false, is dangerous, because people could decide not to trust the Russians and remain in the cities. So we should be very careful here and very responsible about what we publish. Therefore, I want to delate the section on humanitarian corridors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would agree that the Thermobaric comments / section be removed, particularly as the section states that it was used on a military target, which is not restricted, and the US and UK have also used on military targets Ilenart626 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would also agree that we use the UN report to review the whole article in general and the Targeting of humanitarian corridors section in particular. There are limited independent RS so this report should have precedence to both Russian and Ukraine statements. Glitz, two examples of the RS you could not locate that report Ukraine forces shooting at Russian forces near the Evacuation corridors are here and here. Were Russian forces shelling the civilians or firing back at Ukraine mortars? I suspect the later is far more likely, therfore describing these actions as war crimes would be problematic. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I remove the "Thermobaric weapons" section, because there's basically no allegation of war crime ("had they been used against civilian" is not enough; the Russians might perhaps have confirmed using these weapons precisely because they are not forbidden under IHL). I understand the humanitarian corridor case is more complex from an editorial point of view, as noted by MVBW, so I leave it online for the time being and very much welcome further discussion among the editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The source for the first reference in this discussion section now has an article: UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine or HRMMU. Talking vaguely about "the UN" is popular in "reliable" mainstream media, but leads to all sorts of confusion: UNSC (Security Council) != UNGA (General Assembly) != HRMMU (monitoring mission in Ukraine). Boud (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We have no RS claiming that the Russian army targeted the humanitarian corridors. I've read carefully the section again, checking the sources, I've checked the sources that Ilenart626 has shared (the incident is accounted for in the section "Irpin shelling" and there were no humanitarian corridors there), and I've also read the account and the sources in Siege of Mariupol. Russia and Ukraine blamed each other for the delay in providing safe passage to civilians fleeing Mariupol and there's no specific reference to war crimes whatsoever; the only indirect reference is here, [4], "Ukraine accused Russia of attacking an evacuation corridor". I don't think it's enough and if unopposed I intend to remove the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Have to agree, I also reviewed the articles and cannot see any mention of Russian forces deliberately targeting Humanitarian corridors. The main supporting article has a link to Russian “shelling” which takes you to an article detailing the Irpin refugee column shelling, where their was no Humanitarian corridor established Ilenart626 (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What in the world are you talking about? Every single source in that section addresses the topic and all of them are RS. Volunteer Marek 17:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want to go digging looking for stuff. Could you please, if you find something, point the specific source and quote the relevant part? Thanks AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Volunteer Marek, could you please point me to RS holding that the Russian army have targeted humanitarian corridors in Ukraine? I've spent quite a bit of time looking into this and haven't yet found any. During the Siege of Mariupol, 5-7 March they couldn't agree with the Ukrainians on the route of the corridors and on the timing of the ceasefire, so the Russian army continued to shell the city, but they didn't target the civilians directly, as far as I read. So please a RS is needed otherwise I don't see how we could keep the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to the reliable sources ALREADY in the article (CNBC, Red Cross, BBC, DW etc.) all of which discuss Russian shelling of the corridors we also have Amnesty International [5], NPR [6], NY Times [7], CNN [8], WaPo [9] and many more.

  This seems to be a really disingenuous denial here. Volunteer Marek 22:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1) AI doesn't say that the Russian forces have tagetted HC, it says that HC must be established, the agreements of 3 March must implemented + refers to the attacks in Irpin (where no HC had been agrred upon); 2) NPR says that Ukraine will not open any humanitarian corridors as Russia continues to shell and bomb cities; it doesn't say that Russia is targetting the HC they had agreed upon; it also mentions that "Russian troops have previously fired on agreed-upon humanitarian corridors" but it doesn't specificy when and where, so there's no way of verifying the allegation; 3) NY Times doesn't even mention HC and deals exclusively with the attacks in Irpin. I've worked a lot on Irpin refugee column shelling with other editors; please have a look - no HR there. 4) Same as before: Irpin. Note that Irpin is already covered also in this article (indeed it was a heinous war crime, but not "targetting HC"); 5) again, Irpin.
  We need to remove the section until someone provides a RS on "targetting HC". We mustn't leave unsupported or false allegations on a matter as this one. Please mind what I'm writing: we are not helping the Ukrainian people telling them that the Russians are bombing the HC if that's not the case, we are putting them in danger. Please find a RS otherwise the section must be dropped. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have completed a review of the whole article and made a few minor changes. Overall it looks pretty good (ie horrible stories, but I guess that's the subject). Few issues for consideration:

• Bombing of Kyiv - shopping centre bombing - evidence it was used for a Ukrainian missile system, including The day after the strike, Ukrainian authorities detained a man who they said shared footage showing Ukrainian military vehicles parked near the shopping centre on TikTok in late February, None of the references mention a war crime therefore suggest we remove.
• Zhytomyr International Airport no claims that it was a war crime so again suggest we remove.

Have also checked the above two incidents to this report and none of them are mentioned.

• Legal proceeding
  • International Criminal Court - should some of this information be cut and pasted to the International Criminal Court article ie list of List of countries that referred the situation in Ukraine to the ICC?
  • Other legal aspects - should some of this information be summarised ie statements by the US and UK? (Not sure what legal basis / effect these statements have?).

Overall there are plenty of sections which are obvious war crimes and probably will be expanded ie Hospitals and medical centres, Mass killings of civilians in Bucha, etc. Suggest we concentrate on those ones and remove and / 04 shorten the above. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is excellent work. You raised 4 points and I'm now giving my views on each one.

1) Shopping centre bombing. I agree RS don't mention a war crime, so we should remove. Actually, the episode might constitute a war crime on the part of the Ukrainian forces under art. 53 Protocol I (here): "avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas". No RS, however, has raised the issue, so I agree we should drop the section.

2) Zhytomyr International Airport. I agree, and if I'm not wrong I had already raised the issue somewhere. Airports probably qualify as military objects under IHL because they may contribute to the military effort and their destruction may offer some military advantage. Anyway RS don't claim it was a war crime, so I'd drop any reference.

3) I agree. Let's move the "List of countries that referred the situation in Ukraine to the ICC" to the appropriate article.

4) I don't see why we should summarise their statements, but in any case I would do that in the appropriate article, non in this one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have removed the Shopping centre bombing, the Zhytomyr International Airport & the British & US statements. Looks like someone else has already transferred the List of countries to the International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine article Ilenart626 (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On thermobaric bombs, I think there is only one confirmed use in this war and that was on a Ukrainian military base. Horrible, but not illegal under international law.

I urge people to keep an eye on the issue, however, because if Putin keeps losing, he might get desperate and start using them on civilian centers.

That would be a war crime (vaporizing hundreds or thousands of civilians).

Keep in mind, recently Putin and his henchmen have been making threats of using (tactical)-- (small) nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

I read somewhere that the Russians like thermobaric weapons becase they can vaporize bodies. Very convenient since bodies can be evidence, unless they are vaporized.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian government acknowledged yesterday that Ukrainian civilians in Kharkiv killed two Russian soldiers and hospitalized 28 others of the 3rd Motorized Rifle Division by handing out pastrys/cakes to Russian troops that contained poison. This has been reported in a wide range of reliable sources, see these articles [10], [11], [12] for examples. The use of chemicals of any kind in warfare is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention, see here [13] and as noted on the History of Chemical Warfare wikipedia page, the use of poison is one of the oldest forms of chemical warfare. This incident appears to me to warrant inclusion on this page, however it was removed by two other editors, one who merely said it was "whitewashing". It seems to me that if this page is going to maintain NPOV that this incident must be included.XavierGreen (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong, none of the sources claims that this is a war crime, nor qualifies the episode as "chemical warfare". If we were to qualify it in that way, we would be engaged in WP:OR. Besides, when one speaks of chemical warfare one thinks about gas in the trenches; this episode to me sounds like something else. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chemical Warfare Convention applies to all chemicals, not just gas. And the Hague treaty specifically makes it a warcrime to use poison as a weapon as User:BilledMammal linked below.XavierGreen (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's different viewpoints here, and they're all WP:OR. My reading, based on the preceding "international armed conflict" clause, would suggest that use of poison by an invading or occupying force is a war crime but domestic use by forces resisting occupation is not. Either way, our opinions don't matter and we need a reliable source to categorize the poisoning as a war crime before inclusion. Shadybabs (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it before seeing this discussion; if we are to describe it as a war crime, we need reliable sources to do so - and we cannot use sources such as this to do so, as that would be WP:SYNTH. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that is obviously NOT a war crime. Killing of occupantsoccupiers by civilians who resist occupation is well known as resistance. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My very best wishes, did you mean to wrote "occupiers"? Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My mistake, that is how that word sounds in Russian. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious case of WP:OR. No source has been provided which actually describes it as use of chemical weapons. Also whole story is based on a facebook post of dubious reliability.--Staberinde (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonings by civilians are not a war crime, just a crime under Ukrainian law. War crimes are perpetrated by state actors. If the these poisonings were perpetrated by the armed forces of Ukraine, then it would be a war crime. Also, as made clear in Article 1, the Chemical Weapons Convention only applies to sovereign states and the actions of the same, not human beings. Unless you got any proof that the Ukrainian government was involved here in any influential way, this incident was not a war crime. Fluffy89502 (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was terrible and also very unwise. But was it a war crime or self defense?

The Russian soldiers were occupying peoples homes, making the residents sleep in the basements and then raping the women and eventually torturing or killing some family members. The residents were absolutely terrified-- so some of them may have thought "just poison these guys before they rape, torture or execute us."

Under the law that would be self defense, not a war crime.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, that the overwhelming portion of the war crimes discussed in this article have been perpetrated by Russian forces (per all the reliable sources). There are also some war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces but their number is much smaller than those on the other side. As such I think it might make sense to split this article into Russian war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and a corresponding article for the Ukrainian side. Otherwise, the title of the article itself suggests a false WP:BALANCE. Thoughts? Volunteer Marek 18:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rush? I agree with you regarding the overall balance but still there is quite a lot of uncertainty and in many cases the evidence is indirect. I think it makes sense to wait until the dust settles and decide then. Also, there are quite a few precedents of general War crimes in XXX war articles, for example War crimes in the Kosovo War. Alaexis_¿question? 19:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this would just be an attempt to hide under the carpet war crimes perpetrated by Ukrainians. There's no need to split the article as it correctly deals primarily with allegations regarding Russian war crimes, without ignoring allegations regarding Ukrainian war crimes. What we should be doing is stop misrepresenting reliable sources, removing sourced info and adding fake description to photos, as Volunteer Marek has been doing the past week.Anonimu (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then the fact that the overwhelming number of these crimes have been perpetuated by Russia (and we're not even including the worst ones because they're so horrendous no one wants to talk about them!) needs to be made clear right at the beginning. Volunteer Marek 21:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Splitting the article would ensure there's a page seperate for Ukranian war crimes, one that is just as visible as the Russian one to users. I would agree that if a particular editor is in fact misrepresenting reliable sources, removing sourced info and addking fake descriptions to photo's that would be a problem, one that can be addressed. I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion, as it only serves to muddy the waters and inflame what already seems to be an edit war between the two of you. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea actually. Writing the lead section has been a constant struggle and the problem always emerges: if you add a crime allegedly committed by the Ukrainians, that inevitably looks as if you were downplaying the crimes allegedly committed by the Russians, so the info gets moved towards the bottom of the page (POW treatment) or even deleted (as was the case of other sexual offences different from assault). Having two separate articles would solve the problem of balancing what cannot be properly balanced. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose it. At least temporarily, a future merge could come once the dust settles. Right now this article is a bit confusing. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, including the problem caused by the sense of equivalency. I came here from Russian war crimes, and I'll also note the existence of Russian war crimes during the Syrian civil war (ok, that's just a redirect). For now I created a redirect based on the propose name. After the sploit this article can became a disambig. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think it's better not to split the article into the seperate articles 1) Russian war crimes and 2) Ukrainian war crimes.

This is because Ukrainian perpetrated war crimes are far less in comparison to Russian war crimes (in the current conflict, as we know so far, to date).

Consequently, creating an entire article about Ukrainian war crimes at this time would cause problems of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The section "Claims of intent" and the subsection "Genocidal intent" do not belong to this article. Some of its contents could be added to What Russia should do with Ukraine and perhaps also to Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, but the section has nothing to do with war crimes. It deals with "hate crimes" and to "disinformation", not with war crimes/crimes against humanity. The notion that the genocidal intent of the Russian authorities and troops could be legally proved (in a future trial for a crime that has not yet been committed) pointing at the essay by a very minor Russian racist, Timofey Sergeytsev, is entirely speculative and at odds with WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:UNDUE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources which link these "claims of intent" to the behavior of Russian troops, particularly the war crimes committed, then that part would belong here. If it just discusses these "genocidal intent" without mentioning the war crimes, then you're right, it doesn't. Volunteer Marek 23:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it mentions war crimes (Bucha), but just because Timothy D. Snyder finds it appalling that the "handbook" was published "two days after the first revelation that Russian servicemen in Ukraine had murdered hundreds of people in Bucha" - so it's particularly bad taste on the part of author; but if you're a racist or a fanatical nationalist, you are what you are before and after Bucha, I guess, and I don't see how this is relevant for us. Plus the author claims "From a legal perspective, the existence of such a text ... makes the charge of genocide far easier to make", but Snyder is not a lawyer, he's a historian, and if we were to report his point of view that would be WP:UNDUE and frankly digressive. If and when Russia will be charged with genocide and the Prosecutor will use this heinous pamphlet as evidence of something, then we will mention the fact; in the meantime, it's just talk, people exchanging views, and WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:UNDUE suggest we leave this aside. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of genocide has been made several times, enough to meet WP:DUE and be included in the article. However, we should mention that the claims are disputed: https://www.justsecurity.org/80998/is-genocide-occurring-in-ukraine-an-expert-explainer-on-indicators-and-assessments/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/15/genocide-ukraine-russia-zelensky/ .Sjö (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RIA Novosti is a Russian state-owned domestic news agency. The government controls the agency and defines what is published. The text is not a 'heinous pamphlet' published by an emotuional journalist, but some political statement. Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Finkel https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61017352

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/09/russia-putin-propaganda-ukraine-war-crimes-atrocities/ Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC says: "Has Russia committed genocide in Ukraine? There is no consensus on this ... Eugene Finkel, an associate professor of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University, believes genocide is underway", and point to the article by Sergeytsev to argue that "rhetoric coming from Moscow that tips over into genocidal intent". Foreing Policy reports that the article was removed from the webstite of RIA Novosti after a few hours, which suggests it's not official state policy, and claims that "Kremlin’s propaganda [has gone] into full genocidal mode". Based on these sources, I keep on thinking that there's nothing here of interest for the article on "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". All this pertains to public opinion formation, war propaganda and, at the most, hate crimes. Publishing (for a few hours) an op-ed doesn't amount to committing genocide. It's purely speculative that the article might have legal value as evidence of "intent" on the part of the Russian authorites of committing a crime they have not yet committed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the “Clains of intent” section should be removed from this article. When does publishing an article for a few hours on a website anount to a War crime? This article should be focused on the real war crimes (ie attacks on hospitals, etc), rather than talking about some essay that has already been removed. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy didn't say that the article was removed from the [website] of RIA Novosti after a few hours. The Sergetseyev article has been archived since 3 April about 221 times, including on 12 April 2022, and at least this particular 12 April version appears similar to the original. What Foreign Policy said is that the "Mission Over" article (The coming of Russia and of the New World) was published on 26 Feb and then withdrawn within a few hours (after being archived). The text we have is about Snyder's opinion of the Sergetseyev article, not about the 26 Feb few-hours-only-mission-over article. Boud (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. A claim of genocidal intent is not a claim that a war crime will be committed. However, it is a necessary element for a major event to be classified by courts or historians as genocide (rather than a crime against humanity, or "just" a war crime). In other words, it's part of genocide, but it's not genocide on its own; and mass killing is (usually) part of genocide, but it's not genocide on its own. Several leaders (such as Zelenskyy) have said that genocide is being committed, apparently without giving the detailed reasoning behind it except for "these are morally appalling events", which is not historians' or courts' definition of genocide. We have "genocide" mentioned several times in the article, but without genocidal intent, there's no genocide.

Here we have a Wikipedia-notable historian, Timothy D. Snyder, who considers the Sergeytsev statement to be significant, and asserts genocidal intent. We do not know if any courts will consider that particular statement, or other statements (such as those by Putin), to be evidence of genocidal intent by people high up in the command chain of the mass killings. But genocidal intent is a highly significant part of genocide. Genocide is not just mass killing. If there is no genocidal intent, then it's not genocide, not matter how horrible it is. (It's also not genocide if there's only intent, and no killing or systematic deportation or other actions satisfying the legal definitions.) Readers interested in war crimes (in the general sense including, at least, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, leaving aside the crime of aggression) will want to know what is known (stated by notable people) about why these might be classified in one category or another.

I'll once again ping Buidhe, whose Wikipedia editing shows extensive knowledge of this general topic, for comments. Boud (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Finkel appears to be a Holocaust scholar (stated by multiple mainstream media), which would clearly qualify him as a reliable source on this topic: The Independent; Washington Post. From the Wash Post: As a scholar of the Holocaust and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I am well aware of the need for caution, and in the past have criticized the governments of many post-Soviet states — including Ukraine, where I was born — for misusing the term. Not now. ... perpetrating genocide does not require large numbers of victims. The intent and logic of targeting are the key. ... Yet massacres alone are insufficient to meet the genocide criteria; an intent to destroy a protected group is required. ... Russian thinking shifted from colonial to genocidal. ... evidence of this shift is abundant, ... The combination of official statements denying Ukraine and Ukrainians the right to exist, and mounting evidence of deliberate, large-scale targeting of Ukrainian civilians, leaves little room for doubt. The threshold from war crimes to genocide has been crossed. This is more than just Sergeytsev's article, although Finkel mentions that article. Boud (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. The intent is important and belongs to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All this is entirely speculative and we are magnifying the views of a couple of academics in order to build up the following paralogism: "X says that Ukraine is not and cannot be a nation state, therefore X is justifying genocide; X published on a state-owned outlet, therefore the Russian state intends to commit a genocide; readers interested in war crimes want to know why these might be classified in one category or another, therefore we must tell them that certain war crimes might be classified as genocide because X published, on a state-owned outlet, an essay claiming that Ukraine cannot be a nation state". Once we open the article to a section "Claims of intent" so broadly construed, anything could fit in, and one could publish a subsection on the owner of a war zone mobile hospital who said on TV that he wanted to castrate the Russian POWs because that would show that the Ukrainian state intended to commit torture on the POW. We have a reliable source, we also have the Russian Investigative Committee opening a criminal case into his comments. But we are not writing an "amicus" brief for the Prosecutor in a future trial for genocide (or on POW torture) and we should leave all this nonsensical war talk out of the article, as it belongs to propaganda, disinformation and the like. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genocidal intent is a component of a type of war crime called genocide. This article is about war crimes, including possible genocide. So we should cover things that are components of war crimes, including genocidal intent that is a component of the war crime called genocide.

Killings of civilians, rapes and deportations are also parts of war crimes, so we also cover killings of civilians, rapes and deportations, when sources say that they are parts of war crimes.

In both cases, we are supposed to use WP:RS to make the judgment. In the case of genocidal intent, Eugene Finkel is a recognised Holocaust scholar according to SIAS of Harvard University, where he is a faculty member. He says that this part of a war crime (genocidal intent) has happened.

Separate issue: Newsweek says that the Investigative Committee of Russia (SKR) has opened a criminal case, not a war crimes case, based on a verbal, not written, statement encouraging war crimes to be carried out, by the owner of a war zone mobile hospital; and the person apologised and withdrew the statement afterwards; Newsweek doesn't mention genocidal intent in the SKR case. Russia does have a legal system, including the Criminal Code of Russia. Wikipedia currently, in these two articles, has no information suggesting that the Russian legal system and/or SKR are unreliable, or intervened in by the Russian political hierarchy (even though common sense says so), so if you have some reliable sources saying so, or saying the opposite, then please add them in those articles. Information about how independent a legal system of a country is from political intervention during a given epoch is notable information. Does the Russian legal system include war crimes legislation? That would help understand how relevant this separate issue is for this article. Boud (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snyder part of the section could be condensed a bit, but other than that I don't see any glaring issues.Staberinde (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why on earth do we have a section on "genocidal intent", mens rea, if we don't have a section on "genocidal conduct", actus reus? Shouldn't the whole section be moved to that new article Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Having it here is a shining example of WP:UNDUE: we are giving undue weight to the views of a non-encyclopedic Russian journalist called Timofey Sergeytsev (red wikilink: had you ever heard of this name before?) just because an op-ed of his has been criticised by others as implying or justifying genocide. This is an important and highly visible article, "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and we should keep it strictly focused on its subject, which is serious enough, instead of losing the thread in a bunch of war propaganda chitter chatter. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, "allegations of intent" require a higher burden of proof. "Claims of intent" do not, but should only be represented as "claims".

Second, putting "Intent" in a subtitle doesn't work, unless the subtitle also reads "Claims of genocidal intent".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Ukraine's parliament adopting a resolution recognizing the genocide, and other countries indicating they will follow suit, should the genocide question be split into a separate article? The resolution alone warrants its own article IMO. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Votes by parliaments on the title "genocide" can be seen as political statements rather than statements of knowledge by academics (genocide scholars) or legal decisions by law courts. If the votes specifically claim genocidal intent (see the above discussion section), then they could be included in the #Genocidal intent subsection. If they only claim "genocide" without genocidal intent, then they would only qualify for the "Reactions" article (as political statements).

If the claims of genocidal intent are sufficiently notable, then more or less the whole of the current war crimes article is about the genocide. If the claims of genocidal intent are not sufficiently notable for an article move (title change), then I don't see what the topic of the new article would be.

For hints on likely outcomes of a proposal to rename the whole article to "genocide ..." rather than "war crimes ...", check out similar discussions:

• Talk:Uyghur genocide (highly controversial) – see the box This page has previously been nominated to be moved that lists the 6 discussions: 3 successful, ending in Uyghur genocide, 3 unsuccessful afterwards;
• Talk:2017–present Rohingya genocide – apparently uncontroversial, with a bold move that was unopposed after no opposition on the talk page;
• Talk:War crimes in the Tigray War#Crimes against humanity page – almost certainly crimes against humanity, and very likely ongoing genocide-by-deliberate-famine (following genocide by massacring male adults and teenagers and systematically raping women), but not seen as a priority page move by Wikipedians (given the sources, level of editor activity and page maintainability).

For a new article, what would the article title and scope be? (The resolution on its own may be notable; many notable laws have individual Wikipedia articles, e.g. Russian foreign agent law, Law of 4 February 1794, though a parliamentary resolution is not a law.) Boud (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Genocide" is not even a section, much less "a big enough section yet". If the section comes into being and then also gets a lot larger then it would be warranted to move to a new article, but that is not the case at this point. Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A Wikipedian put a lot of effort in creating Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Discussion of possible name changes, or an AfD if people think that it could obtain consensus, should take place at Talk:Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Boud (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't the controversial section "Claims of intent > Genocidal intent" be moved to that new article on genocide? Why do we have a section on "genocidal intent", mens rea, if we don't have a section on "genocidal conduct", actus reus? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks didnt see that article, it should be linked in this one, somewhere, because I didnt even see it previously. Seems sufficient, came here to edit because I saw Latvia and Estonia's parliament made an official recognition on the matter. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is too much overlap between the alleged crimes in this article and genocide in another article. Keep them in the same article. Re-merge if neccessary. Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should have a section on "Genocide" in this article. No need of adding "Claims of" in the title but in the text we should make clear that we are reporting claims of genocide made by a, b, c politicians/parliaments/organisations etc. The text could basically be a summary of Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and obviously we would have the "Main article" tag on top of the section. The new section on genocide should be merged with the current section "Claims of intent > Genocidal intent", that also needs to be shorten and summarised a lot. It may make sense that the integral text of that section on intent were moved to the main article, "Claims of genocide". I ping as interested editors @ArsenalGhanaPartey (main editor of "Claims of genocide") and @Boud (author of the section on intent). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @BLKFTR: Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was only created on 18 April, after the discussion here started. Now it seems like it's unlikely to be deleted, especially with the increasing number of sources.

    @Gitz: Actus reus is probably most of the sections of this article, the War crimes article (the killings, sexual violence and deportations that happened), but that depends on which scholar or parliament or other notable person/organisation makes a claim of genocide and what she/he/it says in a RS. I agree that the existence of the Claims of genocide article now requires a rethink of the section here and the Claims of genocide article. Shifting the current #Claims of intent section over to the Claims of genocide article; and then bringing a summary of Claims of genocide back to this article makes sense. I think the section title here should still be open to debate, but I think we could start with Genocide, with a clear statement of attribution, as suggested.

    @Chesapeake77: There is very little overlap between the content of the two articles, and the scopes are complementary. There might in the future be a time when scholars agree that most of the war crimes together consitute a single overall genocide, in which case a merger might make sense. But that would also mess up the distinction between the horrible things that have happened (and are happening), versus the legal/political interpretation of what happened. Boud (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I've been bold and reorganised the Claims of genocide article, and brought the updated summary back here. I think there's still quite a bit of improvement to be done to Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I think that after updating the summary over there, there should be more or less matching updates done here in the #Genocide section of this article. I've started a list of suggested work needing to be done at Talk:Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Cleanup suggestions. I suggest that the main discussion on genocide take place at Talk:Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or by directly editing that article. Boud (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you @Boud. I'm pinging @ArsenalGhanaPartey because for some reason which I don't understand my previous ping didn't work. I've just read the new section in this article and it looks perfect to me, thanks. However, I'm having second thoughts about the title of the section, "Genocide", which I myself had suggested. "Claims of genocide" wouldn't work because everything in this article is "claim". However, there might be a difference between the claims of genocide and the claims of other war crimes: the latter are claims that certain crimes have already been committed - indiscriminate attacks, torture, wilful killing of civilians, etc. On the other hand, nobody claims that a genocide has already been committed, if I'm not wrong - they claim that a genocide is under way. So maybe we should highlight the difference in some way. What about then having "Planned genocide" as a title? Or can you come up with something better? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I interpret the "yes genocide" claims as stating that genocide has already been committed, as well as being ongoing. Genocide includes destroying a group in part, not necessarily as a whole. Some parts of the group "Ukrainians" have already been destroyed. (Aside: I'm just wondering if there's a risk of readers misinterpreting "genocidal intent" to mean a description about "intent 'now' to commit a future crime", while the intended meaning is "an intent at a time A in the past that links to genocidal acts at time B in the past, where B happened after A". We might want to think of places where clarifications should be added.)

    I think that Claims of genocide would be OK as a section title here, without "forcing" this article to be renamed as Claims of war crimes. The difference is that some of the genocidal claims are more likely to be challenged than war crimes claims, since genocidal intent requires more interpretation, together with the link between intent and act needing interpretation in terms of political and command responsibility/hierarchy. Another possible section name could be Genocide analysis (although the parliaments' and leaders' statements are presented more as statements than analyses). Or maybe Genocide claims and analysis? Boud (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If "Planned genocide", "Potential genocide" or even "Unfolding genocide" do not match the sources, then of the three titles you propose my favourite one is "Claims of genocide", for the sake of clarity and simplicity, and because it succeeds in signalling that the claim of genocide is somewhat different from the other war crimes/crimes against humanity that are the subject of the article. If there's consensus, we could go for that. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 24 April 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]

Started going through this article and cleaning up sections, particularly where there is already a Lead article on a particular topic ie International reaction - Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, International Criminal Court - Main article: International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine where I have deleted minor sections and / or tranferred details and left a summary in this article, particularly where they refer to War crimes. Believe this article is already too long and does not need to include details better suited in particular topic articles. Plan to go through the rest of this article, other Editors let me know if you have any comments. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say but your edits are problematic. Here. You are removing sources like the Guardian or ABCnews and pretending that this is because "it's sourced to twitter". It's not. These are reliable secondary sources.

You are also including info from opinion pieces about supposed used of human shields by Ukraine. The title of the source is Why we need to challenge Russia’s human shields narrative. I.e. it's basically saying this claim is bullshit. The whole point of the source is actually that Russia is making these bogus claim as a justification for murdering civilians. That part is somehow nowhere in the text your added. This is a straight forward, clear cut case of WP:CHERRYPICKING and manipulating sources. Volunteer Marek 19:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no more of this "article cleanup", you need to open a discussion here instead.

Create a discussion section (on this Talk Page) put down your concerns and everyone will discuss it / vote.

In the West we are free to discuss and vote so thats what we need to do here.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs a cleanup. Not everything needs to be discussed, quite the opposite, be WP:BOLD. If @Ilenart626 makes any changes you find problematic, you can revert them and raise the problem here on the talk page and it can then be discussed. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianHObradors In principle you are right, but in practice the editor you are supporting has been putting Russian propaganda into the article. Please read this discussion ^^^^ more carefully. Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesapeake77 I disagree and object to your statement that I have been "putting Russian propaganda in this article". Of the 25 edits I have carried out on this article since the 16 April, I note only two which have remained reverted after discussions. On the issue of "propaganda", which I assume relates to Russia's claims of Ukraine using civilians as human shields, there are plenty of sources that raise this issue. For example the Washington Post article here documents the issue clearly and highlights that many of the war crimes listed in this article may not be war crimes at all, due to Ukraine's actions. Other references on this issue are here and here and here and for a general analysis of the issue not relating to Ukraine, see this article here. Yes Russia is pushing this issue, however to dismiss the issue as "Russian propaganda" and excluding from this article, means an important topic that could impact on many of the War crimes in this article is not even mentioned. How is that maintaining a WP:NPOV? I also note that the Human Shields article highlights both Russia and Ukraine's claims. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilenart626 wrote: "and highlights that many of the war crimes listed in this article may not be war crimes at all"

Ok, then start a new section and call for a discussion on this issue.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what "Russian propaganda" are you talking about? I've quickly reviewed Ilenart626's edits from 25 to 26 April and I might have missed something but they all look perfectly fine to me (some of them aggravate the charges against Russia, e.g. [14]), so if you could be more specific and point out the edits that need to be discussed, that would be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the second post in this section (that we are writing in now), be sure to read the whole post, carefully.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had read it and I think that the point is relevant and should belong to this article: "Russia has also accused Ukraine forces of using human shields, by deliberately using civilians as a screen to defend legitimate military targets". Indeed a Russian spokesman said, according to a reliable source, that "the Kyiv regime uses the residents of the city as a ‘human shield’ for the nationalists who have deployed artillery units and military equipment in residential areas of the capital". I don't see why we shouldn't publish that claim attributing it to the Russian authorities. We have already published loads of analogous claims by Ukrainian authorities. Why should the intentions of the author of the article, "challeng[ing] Russia’s human shields narrative", be of any relevance to us? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets look at the Siege of Mariupol as an example. 95% of structures there in that city have been widely reported as significantly damaged by Russian shelling, also confirmed by military-intelligence satellite photos. Keep in mind Mariupol was a city of nearly half a million people.

Now, were there "military targets" in all of Mariupol's apartment buildings? No way, not even close.

Yet 95% of apartments in the entire city were significantly damaged and 40% were totally destroyed.

Why? To terrorize the residents and force them to submit, that's why.

To psychologically crush and subjugate people.

That was massive targeting of Ukrainian civilians, not the Ukrainian military

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that: we have a subsection on "Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol", which is entirely appropriate for this article. We are not in disagreement. The points I was trying to make are the following two:

1. As far as I can see, Ilenart626 edits were good and useful, as they usually are. We should either thank Ilenart or simply let them work. Obviously if something is wrong or not covered by consensus, the edit should be reverted and a discussion might start. In that case, I suggest we focus the discussion on the point at issue. We have already lost an editor, which is always a pity.

2. Using human shield is a war crime, and accusations of this kind can be reported on this article. Note that there are two ways of using human shield in a war: placing the civilians close to military objectives (which I very much doubt the Ukrainian army would do with their own civilians) and placing military objectives close to civilians - and I'm afraid that this could happen in a war as this one. E.g., instead of leaving your trucks, weapons and equipments in the military barracks where they might get bombed, you move them to an empty mall, an underground garage, or even to an hospital. So claiming that Russia’s human shields "narrative" is simply "bullshit" might be too hasty: we don't know, we are just humble Wikipedians, and if there are RS saying "the Russian spokesman said this and that" IMHO we shouldn't enquire too deeply. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have already received thanks from a couple of Editors for my recent work on this article. No need to say anything more.

@Chesapeake77 I agree with you that their are some terrible atrocities taking place in Ukraine that are obviously War crimes, the Bucha massacre being one. I note that the United Nations Human Rights Commission has just released another update on Ukraine, which will be grim reading. However there does appear to be incidents where Ukraine actions are resulting in civilian casualties. You have raised Mariupol above as an example, note that the Washington Post article I quoted above has stated "Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses". Like @Gitz6666 has mentioned above, its not our job to decided what is and is not a War crime. If their are RS then we should report.

I have some spare time this afternoon, so I am going to start a new section called "Human shields" in this Talk page and draft a proposed section discussing the above. Then we can reach consensus on what should be stated in this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm glad you are taking your draft through a discussion process here on this Talk Page. I also see that you do acknowledge that there are obvious war crimes in the current invasion of Ukraine.

Regarding the Washington Post article about militarization of civilians-- first, that is a "blanket observation" (synthesis) with no specific proof. Second, in each case of apartments being bombed or shelled, specific proof should be provided that that each specific apartment was occupied by armed people or soldiers or outfitted with missiles etc...

In Mariupol, almost all buildings were seriously damaged or destroyed at a great distance. No follow-on attempt was made to then occupy these specific buildings for any military purpose. Terrorism is a way of attempting to control people by instilling traumatic terror. I would say such mass-shelling is terrorism, not "military". See state sponsored terrorism.

There are different definitions of war crimes out there. Wikipedia is under no obligation to use one particular definition of "war crime" over another.

For example, someone might reason that destroying an entire city with a population of 400,000+ people is a war crime, period, even if it was a military objective as well. Who is to say such a definition is less legitimate than the one that suggests-- "do anything you want to civilians as long as there is a military target nearby".

Perhaps we need to get sources into the article that state that the "anything goes" definition is deeply flawed... I'll bet such sources are available.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I made this edit which Volunteer Marek has reverted and requested consensus on the Talk page, To me its a clear case of stating what the reference says, which is the children were riding "...in coaches in front of their tanks", not "...forcing them to sit on top of their tanks as they withdrew", which is now the current wording. I assume Volunteer Marek will provide his reasoning for this revert, can other Editors provide their opinions either for or against this edit, so we can reach consensus. Feel free to suggest alternative wording. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are doing a fantastic work with your cleanup, and I don't have much free time lately, otherwise I would love to help.

About the edit, you are right it doesn't mention anywhere on the source anything about sitting on top of tanks. He does say "putting them on their trucks" at one point, but hard to get from that if he means on top of the trucks or just inside.

Also I don't really like the way it is worded "According to witness accounts gathered by the Ukraine's attorney general". Seems to indicate it is true, as if the witness accounts were seen or investigated by any RS. When it is actually a doubly non reliable source, a claim by the Ukrainian government about claims by witnesses, where "the cases were being investigated by the country’s attorney general, but he was unable to provide further details". I already rose this problem here before on the talk page, about giving Ukrainian claims too much veracity.

I did do some OR trying to find a single picture of a kid on top/inside a Russian tank/truck, but couldn't find anything. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Russian soldiers placing children on tanks to protect their vehicles when moving".
• "Russian soldiers have used Ukrainian children as hostages, putting them on their trucks. They’re doing it to protect their vehicles when moving"

You're trying to make it sound like they gave them a ride or something. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on sticking to the source, "Coaches of children were said to have been placed in front of tanks in the village of Novyi Bykiv ... It was further alleged that children had been taken as hostages". The image of children sitting on top of the trunks (tied with ropes?) is frankly ridiculous and it's taken from some kind of Mad Max imaginary. We don't know what happened, obviously, but what the Ukrainian authorities claim is clear enough. Besides, we should start the section using the same cautious and honest approach of our RS ("The Guardian"): "Russia has been accused by Ukraine of using children as human shields", or something similar so as to avoid WP:COPYVIO. "According to witness accounts gathered by the Ukraine's attorney general" is not acceptable; the article is reporting statements made by Ukraine’s attorney general, by Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman and by a spokesman for Ukraine’s ministry of defence: that's all we know and it's all we should say. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above feedback suggest we replace:

"According to witness accounts gathered by the Ukraine's attorney general, Russian units leaving the area near Kyiv used children as human shields by forcing them to sit on top of their tanks as they withdrew. In the village of Novyi Bykiv Russians allegedly placed Ukrainian children in front of their tanks to protect themselves."

with

"Ukraine has accused Russian forces leaving the area near Kyiv of using children as Human shields. Russian units leaving the village of Novyi Bykiv allegedly placed coaches of Ukrainian children in front of their tanks to protect themselves."

Ilenart626 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

now updated as per above Ilenart626 (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I made this edit which Volunteer Marek has reverted and requested consensus on the Talk page. The reason for the edit was described in the notes to the edit deleted Ukrainian MP statement, already covered by statements from the Ukrainian foreign minister, Prosecuter General & Ombudsman. In other words, there are already three other statements from Ukraine governemt officals in this section, plus a general statement from "Ukrainian authorities", as well as statements from UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and Human Rights Watch. With all these statements already included I believe MP Lesia Vasylenko's statement is not required in this War crimes article. Note that her statement may be better suited in the Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and violence against women article, as this is a broader article and Ukrainian MPs Lesia Vasylenko has already been quoted in this article.

I assume Volunteer Marek will provide his reasoning, can other Editors provide their opinions either for or against this edit, so we can reach consensus. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is more subjective than the editing dispute in the section immediately above (on this discussion page). The specific topic is big enough for Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a separate article, even though that article also includes sexual violence that is unlikely to count as war crimes (such as the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces beating semi- or fully naked victims - welcome back to the 1500s?). However, currently, most of the content is rape-as-a-likely-war-crime, so I think that this article (as well as Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and violence against women) should mostly have summaries of that article, though with slightly different focuses (in one case, only war crimes, excluding human rights violations that are not war crimes; in the second only women, excluding sexual violence against men).

So for this specific edit dispute, I would tend to support removal of the sentence here at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

A "radical" editing option, which would help reduce the length of this article, would be to use essentially that part of the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that concerns likely war crimes. It seems to me that that would mean using what are currently the first three sentences of the lead there, after checking that content here is fully integrated into that article. Summaries and leads should be short, and should, by definition, summarise. Boud (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that rapes by Russian soldiers are most likely under reported is significant and AFAICT is not anywhere else in the article. Volunteer Marek 19:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the claim about rapes being unreported could stay as it is sufficiently different from other statements by Ukrainian authorities, but I agree with Boud's "radical" option: we'd better use the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as the section now is too detailed and runs the risk of duplicating that article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the feedback from the above, I have reviewed and edited @Boud‘s radical approach, as detailed below. I have checked the references and they all support the corrosponding statements. Just to be clear, I understand that the proposal is to replace the whole “Sexual Violence” section in this article with the wording below, with the details being transferred to either Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and / or Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#War crimes and violence against women.

"Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is mostly attributed to the Russian Armed Forces,^[1][2] with 25 rapes recorded in Bucha following its liberation,^[3][4][5] and suggestions by Lyudmyla Denisova, Ombudsman in Ukraine and The Guardian that sexual violence as a weapon of war was being committed by Russian forces.^[4][6] Underreporting was seen as a serious problem in assessing the amount of sexual violence.^[2][6]”

In fact this atrocious sentence: "Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is mostly attributed to the Russian Armed Forces is a perfect example of how sources are being misrepresented to push a particular POV. Where the hell does the "mostly" come from? It's ALL Russian Armed Forces. But someone sure tried to weasel even that. Look at the first source: [15] Every single incident described is rape by Russian soldiers. There's no "mostly" there. Look at the second source: [16]. Nope. No "mostly" there either (putting aside the source is very outdated". Stop trying to falsely insinuate that both sides have done it. Seriously, this kind of crap needs to end. It's a gross violation of Wikipedia policy and just basic decency. Volunteer Marek 20:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ilenart626 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Though it might be better to wait until the result of the AfD for the sexual violence article. Boud (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, lets wait for the outcome Ilenart626 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was keep, so will carry out the changes as per above. Will also ensure that anything removed is in the other two articles as detailed above, but may not complete for a day or two Ilenart626 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I most strongly object to these changes. They downplay and whitewash the extent of rape and torture committed. Basically most of the info was removed and replaced with the equivalent of "maybe Russian forces committed some rapes". Just no. You want to shorten it or edit, that's fine but this is a no go as is. Volunteer Marek 14:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the lead section of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is now very sketchy. Ideally one should improve that lead and then copy and paste it here, or - as Volunteer Marek suggests - shorten and edit our section, which now is way too detailed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and I think that's because some of the sketchiness here got copied over as sketchiness to over there. Volunteer Marek 16:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, I think that the removal is not justified. Currently the section is based on Ukrainian sources and two witnesses from Mariupol who spoke with the Guardian. Haaretz spoke with other refugees from Mariupol who described the events as evacuation and said that the filtration was more akin to registration. Per WP:NPOV we should mention it. Hopefully in future human rights organisations or other third-party sources will publish their accounts and we'll know whether it was mostly forced or mostly voluntary. Until then we can only report anecdotal evidence and the positions of the parties of the conflict, as reported by reliable sources. Alaexis_¿question? 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we can only report "anecdotal evidence and the positions of the parties", but precisely for that reason why we shouldn't construe the article by Haaretz as falsifying the charge of deportation or objecting to that charge. "Other witnesses described it as evacuation" suggests that they didn't qualify it as deportation but rather as (voluntary) evacuation. But that's not the point of the article. Indeed it says that "At some point, the buses of the Donetsk People’s Republic began evacuating people in the direction of Nikolske, say the women." but that doesn't imply anything about the coercive or voluntary nature of the evacuation; plus, one reads "They forced us to go out", which sounds like a deportation to me ("Neighbors said that soldiers from the People’s Republic of Donetsk had passed through in the night and said we had one day to evacuate before they ‘cleansed’ the place. That’s what forced us to leave, even though we didn’t want to leave our homes"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be precise they don't say "they forced us to leave" but rather that the warning made on the previous day forced them to leave. Anyway, we can wait for more accounts and update the article then. Alaexis_¿question? 08:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is about deportations TO Russia. That particular sentence is about evacuations to other towns in Ukraine. There were evacuations. There were also deportations. The source does not say they were the same thing or that they were perceived in different ways by different people. This is simply confusion and WP:SYNTHESIS. You need a source here which says that *the deportations* were perceived as “evacuations”. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this sentence from Haaretz is about these people moving to Russia as is clear from the rest of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 07:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe using the Haaretz article to support “Other witnesses described it as evacuation” is problematic as the source is not clear on this point. What is clear is that the Sukhorukov family, who were transported to Russian controlled territories, are not stating that they were “forced” . Plus the Haaretz article makes it clear that the Mariupol families transported through Russian controlled territories to Ukraine controlled Zaporizhzhia did not face any major issues. This is also supported by this Human Right Watch report which states in the "The Route Out" section "None of the Mariupol residents described serious mistreatment by soldiers at the checkpoints." As an alternative we could insert after "Human Rights Watch has not been able to verify these accounts" something along the lines of "...however no major issues have been reported from Mariupol residences travelling through Russian controlled territories to Ukraine controlled Zaporizhzhia." and reference both the Haaretz article and the HRW report. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence specifically refers to people who were taken to Nikolske, which is in Ukraine, though under control of Russian forces. The article also notes that some of the people were surprised at where they were going. Anyway, with this source the sentence as is is WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are both right. First, the article says that the buses of the Donetsk People’s Republic began evacuating people in the direction of Nikolske, say the women which is not relevant for this section. Then it says

.

So this family clearly wasn't deported to Russia, no matter how much the definition is stretched. They went in their own car and were checked twice, in Novoazovsk and on the border. Of course, this doesn't mean there were no deportations. It does contradict the Ukrainian officials' claims that all the Ukrainian refugees in Russia were deported there. This is just 6 families and the only reason I suggested to include it is that the section already mentions two Mariupol women who said they were deported. Alaexis_¿question? 21:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the Ukrainian authorities are claiming that all the Ukrainian refugees in Russia were deported there. What they are claiming is that "over 402,000 Ukrainians had been forcefully taken to Russia". They might be exaggerating the numbers but that's not the kind of claim that one can contradict or falsify by reporting the case of a family that wasn't deported to Russia against their will. Besides, I even doubt that our task here is to contradict or falsify claims of war crimes. If there are reliable sources, we report the claims, and if they turn out to be false, sooner or later lies will be exposed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Let's wait for RS to cover it then. Alaexis_¿question? 11:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ukrainian civilians and soldiers take shelter under a bridge in Kyiv.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. It was an AP News photo so it was copyrighted and ineligible for Wikipedia use.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 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: [17] 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.[18] 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[19] 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]

[The BBC News article about this is here-- https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-61176372 ]

Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 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 [20]. I'm sorry but the source [21] 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]

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] 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]

1- add in the Bombing of Borodianka to the Kyiv Oblast section, and a new section to the "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" section called "Murder and Torture in Borodianka"

2- add more information about the 2022 bombing of Odessa

changes:

Bombing of Odessa section:

At around 12:00 local time on 2 March, Russian forces shelled the village of Dachne to the north-west of Odessa, setting fire to nine houses and a garage. This was followed on 3 March by the shelling of the nearby villages of Zatoka^[1] and Bilenke, killing at least one civilian in the latter village.^[2] Russian warships also shelled the Ukrainian civilian vessel Helt in the port of Odessa, causing it to sink.^[3] On 23 April, a Russian missile strike hit two residential buildings,^[4] killing eight civilians and wounding 18 or 20, according to Ukraine.^[5] One missile that struck a residential building killed a three-month old baby, the mother, and the baby's maternal grandmother.^[6][7]

Bombing of Borodianka section (Kyiv Oblast section):

As Russian forces fought in and near Kyiv, Borodianka, which is on a strategically important road,^[8] was targeted by numerous Russian airstrikes.^[9] Most of the buildings in the town were destroyed,^[10] including almost all of its main street.^[11] Russian bombs struck the centers of buildings and caused them to collapse while the frames remained standing.^[10][11] Oleksiy Reznikov, minister of defense, said many residents were buried alive by airstrikes and lay dying for up to a week. He further said that those who had gone to help them were shot at by Russian soldiers.^[12]

Some residents hid in caves for 38 days.^[9] On 26 March 2022, Russia, repelled from Kyiv, progressively withdrew from the region to concentrate on Donbas.^[13] Borodianka's mayor said that as the Russian convoy had moved through the town, Russian soldiers had fired through every open window. He estimated at least 200 dead.^[14], Only a few hundred residents remained in Borodianka by the time the Russians withdrew, with roughly 90% of residents having fled,^[11] and an unknown number dead in the rubble.^[9] The retreating Russian troops placed mines throughout the town.^[11]

Murder and Torture in Borodianka section (Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians section):

Russian soldiers were accused by Iryna Venediktova, prosecutor general of Ukraine of "murders, tortures, and beatings" of civilians in Borodianka.^[15][16]

187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 28 April 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 [29] (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 ([30]) 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]

I'm trying to involve other editors in our recent discussions: [31]. POV pushing, disregard for consensus and disruptive editing have brought us on the brink of an edit war and have seriously affected the balance of the lead and the integrity of the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there, and corrected this page accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 1 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: [32] [33]

• 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 [34]. 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: [35]. 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 ([36], [37], [38], [39]) 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: [40].

Here a more detailed report by France24 Observers: [41].

And finally a joint statement by Ukrainian human rights organisations condemning the practice: [42]

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)[43]

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)[44] 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 ([45] [46]) 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]

-move the "kremmina elderly home attack" and "capture of kremmina" sections to the "ill treatment...." of civilians section, merging them and naming them "Killings in Kremmina" or something similar

-move the sections in the bombing of borodianka that are not related to airstrikes to the "Killings and Torture in Borodianka", especially this part:

"On 26 March 2022, Russia, repelled from Kyiv, progressively withdrew from the region to concentrate on Donbas.^[1] Borodianka's mayor said that as the Russian convoy had moved through the town, Russian soldiers had fired through every open window. The retreating Russian troops placed mines throughout the town.^[2]"

and merge this part with the remaining parts of the section:

"The mayor of Borodianka estimated at least 200 dead.^[3] Some residents hid in caves for 38 days.^[4] Only a few hundred residents remained in Borodianka by the time the Russians withdrew, with roughly 90% of residents having fled,^[2] and an unknown number dead in the rubble.^[4]"

-add more about bombings in Chernihiv and others

-create a subsection in the Chernihiv Bombing section for the Chernihiv Breadline Attack

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 and wounding 18.^[5] Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did not identify any military targets near the site of the attack.^[6][7] This action is regarded as a war crime by Amnesty International and HRW.^[8] 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.^[5]

Chernihiv Breadline Attack:

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.^[9] 14 people were reported dead by Ukrinform.^[10] The incident happened at around 10:00 UTC+2.^[11] These civilians were unarmed and some of them survived the shelling; they were taken to medical facilities by Chernihiv police.^[12] James Whitney Hill, a 67-year-old US citizen from Minnesota was killed in the attack.^[13]

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.^[11]

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]

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 [47] 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 ([48]); 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 [49] [50] [51] [52], 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 [53] 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 [54], 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 [55].
2. The war in Ukraine is not only an international armed conflict but also an internal one [56]. In a civil war both parties share the same nationality, yet war crimes can be committed, and this reflects both customary international law [57] 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: [58]. Does this pertain to this article's subject? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 17 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? [59]. The info added by User:Shadybabs [60] 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 ([61]). 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]

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]

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]