This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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 Start‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-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 C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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 C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Are there any objections to removing the {{synthesis}} tag, currently in the Distinction (law) section? If there are objections, then please explain the reasons for keeping the tag and explain which paragraphs/sentences appear to be WP:SYNTHESIS. Boud (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the tag, but pretty much everything is synhesis, in the whole article, except for the general background and the materials related to application to ICC. In addition, some editors do not understand the difference between killing and murder. Ideally, not every incident which some media called "war crimes" should go here, but the article must be based on reliable secondary sources covering the topic. On the other hand, I fully realize that creation of anything reliable with this title is currently impossible, and I am not interested in any way to contribute to this article at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added and re-added the tag and it was twice removed. There is still a lot of synthesis, i.e. detailing of events for which no connections to "war crimes" are made in the sources. The shelling of the civilian merchant ships is one example. I don't have the patience to keep re-adding the tag every few days, but it should still be there. Letcord (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that we necessarily need the words "war crimes" in the sources, but we do at least need the information that is the plain English information that reasonably and uncontroversially matches the definitions, without OR or SYNTHESIS. I removed the merchant ship section just now, with a brief explanation in the edit summary. Try discussing particular paragraphs/subsections with the editors (mainly one?) who don't seem willing to come to a compromise between the limits of including anything that seems like it might be a war crime or is vaguely related to the topic, to the other extreme of requiring the specific words "war crimes" in the source. (Just for the record: it's not me who removed the tag.) Boud (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that in an article on such a serious type of crime like this one, every incident detailed should have to have been alleged to be a war crime by at least one source, even if just in a casual way by non-subject-matter experts for now, and with the allegation reported by a WP:RS (i.e. no referencing tweets). This is quite a low bar to set, but it at least prevents Wikipedians from playing lawyer to decide what "reasonably and uncontroversially matches the definitions" of crimes (this is not a slight on you, you've done good work on this article).

A perfect illustration of what can go wrong if WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:RS aren't followed in articles like this is the tank incident. Info on a "Russian tank deliberately swerv[ing] into [a civilian car]" was added early on with "no solid proof" [1] of its veracity, and it stood as a key example of a Russian war crime for over two weeks [2], i.e. over 50% of this article's lifespan, without there being a single allegation that the incident constituted a war crime made in the (very weak) sources, and even more damning, there being "no evidence to support" the story's fundamental assumption of the tank being Russian, with, on the contrary, "several indications that it [was actually] a Ukrainian tank"! [3][4]. A textbook example of online misinformation if there ever was one, and as a trusted source of information for many people, Wikipedia has a responsibility to be more careful about what it publishes, otherwise it will fall into disrepute. Letcord (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'tank swerving to hit a car' incident is a good example of your point - I agree. And you're probably right overall. My difficulty with this article is that if I intervene too much (such as removing content not added by me), then it risks looking very much like I think I WP:OWN it, and I risk violating formal constraints such as 3RR. A bunch of experienced editors are needed to keep an eye on the article and be willing to delete or fix weak material.

If nobody else does it, then sooner or later I might start the broader article with a name such as International humanitarian law in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the understanding that the scope is not especially the law itself (which is not modified for this case), but mainly suspected violations of the law. In that case anything that is not well enough justified as war crime by the sources, but is reasonably claimed by the sources (not WP:THESUN or WP:NYPOST...) to violate international humanitarian law, can be shifted to the broader article. Boud (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing this articles name to "Alleged" war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would solve a lot of these problems.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "Allegations of"

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RteeeeKed, Buidhe, Cameron Dewe, and Chesapeake77: (people who have edited this talk page). The ICC and ICJ infoboxes do not have links to the articles on the ICC and ICJ cases, and they do not sumarise key features of war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This gives the false impression that this article is the main one covering those two cases. But it's not the main article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes explains why there is no obvious place to link to the relevant articles. It's because an infobox about an article, which "summarizes key features of the page's subject", is normally placed at the top right of the article itself, and only rarely (if ever?) placed in other related articles. Since there has been difficult reaching consensus about keeping this article on-topic (war crimes), I'll let others remove the infoboxes and/or comment here. Boud (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, not relevant. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the ICC related Wikipedia article about investigation into war crimes in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

All I can find is an overly-general article about alleged war crimes in the "Russo-Ukrainian War".

1) On 3 March 2022, the ICC announced a specific investigation into the 2022 invasion-related alleged war crimes.

2) The 2022 invasion war crime allegations are highly notable and should not be buried in a blind rush to obscure, bookish efficiency.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The ICC is not going to make a separate investigation into the 2022 invasion. Please read the ICC official information: On 2 March 2022, the Prosecutor announced he had proceeded to open an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine on the basis of the referrals received. In accordance with the overall jurisdictional parameters conferred through these referrals, and without prejudice to the focus of the investigation, the scope of the situation encompasses any past and present allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide committed on any part of the territory of Ukraine by any person from 21 November 2013 onwards. (bold added) Boud (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why (two days after the invasion) did the chief ICC prosecuter say that he needed a country to file a referral request re: the Russian invasion of Ukraine so he could accelerate the initiation of the investiagation of events occuring during the invasion?

And then why did 39 countries then enjoin petitions to request the ICC investigate the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?

And also why did the ICC chief prosecuter then respond to these petitions to announce the commencement of the investigation of the invasion on 3 March 2022?

Because the 2022 invasion of Ukraine has unique investigative importance, that's why.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the direct quote I gave above is sufficiently clear. You're probably trying to say that the Feb 2022 further Russian invasion of Ukraine gave extra political motivation to the ICC to advance from the preliminary examination stage to the investigation stage; in which case, yes, that's a reasonable interpretation. It doesn't override the RS'd information that we have, and it doesn't override the WP:MOS for infoboxes. There is a single ICC investigation into the Situation in Ukraine dating from 21 November 2013 onwards, concerning suspects of arbitrary nationality. Boud (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the infobox. I didn't check who added it. Please see the above discussion. The infobox is about an ICC investigation that covers war crimes by all parties in Ukraine from 21 November 2013 to an open-ended future; summary information about the ICC investigation is not summary information about the war crimes of the 2022 invasion. Boud (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have a page where infoboxes are made? I think I saw something like that in the last several days.

Maybe there could be a discussion about what an infobox for this page should look like / include.

This article really needs something like an infobox.

I forgot to sign this. Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder for when more sources come in on the ethnic cleansing of Mariupolans by Russian forces 'cleansing' them from Mariupol. See the lead of ethnic cleansing: the formal legal term is crime against humanity. For the moment, a Telegram headline in the left-column/News Feed of Kyiv Independent is not enough of a reliable source, but this will presumably get to WP:RS soon. Depending on the sources, we'll probably have to start with terms such as forced displacement or deportation or population transfer. Over the past week, thousands of residents have been moved to Russia, Mariupol city council reported. The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russian occupiers checked their phones and documents and forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia. Boud (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, in the interests of good honest editing.

It is as you say, not indicative of ethnic cleansing, but is forced displacement (and mass-abduction in the case of the forced relocation camps for Mariupol survivors).

Despicable of course, but we must nevertheless keep our editing neutral or the article won't be believable. No indication of ethnic cleansing to date.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. Here's why.

The Russian argument for this invasion has very significantly included that "there is no Ukraine", "Ukraine is just a part of Russia" and "Ukrainians are really Russians" (even though most Russians cannot understand the Ukrainian language).

Therefore the very basis of this war has been war on the Ukrainian people, their identity and their freedom to choose their own identity.

Therefore yes, this war INCLUDES genocide.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with you, but you need RS saying that was a "genocide" or at least RS discussing if it was a "genocide". Same with ethnic cleansing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Prosecutor General of Ukraine claims in a tweet that Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden have started universal jurisdiction war crimes cases in relation to Russian war crimes. The info is credible, but a tweet is a weak source. There should be media announcements or announcements on court websites in these various countries sooner or later, once these get to the stage of formal investigations or charges. Feel free to add good sources here, or start a Universal jurisdiction subsection in the article directly. Boud (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because any article / website can now be translated in seconds.

Even better than "Google Translate"-- many browsers will now instantly translate foreign language websites, with only a few clicks. Use Google to find out how.

I would go to the top newspaper in each country. Did you know that you can cite a foreign language source on a Wikipedia article as long as you note the particular language in the "Language=" parameters for your citation?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Browsers do not work by magic, they work by software run on your local machine and on servers; see GAFAM for privacy violations and security risks of using the oligarchs' servers. Not all oligarchs are having their wealth confiscated. One of the best guides for switching from walled gardens to the free world, https://switching.software, does not currently have any recommended auto-translator. We can't just "click and believe". Boud (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think translation programs can be exploited as you suggest. The translator would have to instantly "rewrite" things to become an instrument of misinformation. There are no computers that can "write" propaganda.

Not in 2022.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's invasion of Ukraine may well constitute the crime of aggression under international law. However, the crime of aggression is not a war crime; the latter relate to to the conduct of warfare, regardless of the legality of the broader war itself. This is explained in the introduction to the article Crime of aggression. I suggest that all discussion of the crime of aggression be moved to Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Atchom (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That might make sense. "War crimes" are often distinguished from "crimes against peace" (such as the crime of aggression) under Art. 6 Charter of the Nuremberg Charter; moreover, Art. 5 Statute of Rome distinguishes between the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. RS is here. So if we stick to the legal jargon, we should avoid mentioning the crime of aggression in this article. That would also imply that we would stop duplicating the information provided in Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, one could also argue that in common parlance "war crimes" are all crimes related to war and to international criminal law, including genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression/crimes against peace. Between the two options I am undecided and neutral. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made the necessary edits to this article, with a link in the lede to Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Given that this article is about international law, we should stick to what is legally correct as opposed to a mistaken common usage, albeit flagging the issue so that others will know where to find the information. Atchom (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find the current lead and the mention you made appropriate. Thanks! --AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very kind of you. Atchom (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @My very best wishes restored the section "Crime of aggression". As I've said, I'm undecided about having it or not. I think it's at the limit, if not beyond, of this article's subject, and I don't see how waging an unlawful war "is clearly a related question" to committing war crimes. My point however is about methods: there's an ongoing discussion with no clear consensus (actually nobody has yet expressed the view that the section has to be kept) so I think it's better to first contribute to the discussion here and then, if there's consensus, restore the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion so far doesn't show a consensus on having a section about the war of aggression. Indeed the crime of aggression is not a war crime and we already have an article on the subject, Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'm restoring @Atchom's edit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course they are not the same, but related concepts (I agree). But a typical reader would not know the difference. Hence, this should be mentioned on the page, and the difference should be explained. My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The text in the lead is sufficient to explain the point: "The legality of the Russian invasion per se is a distinct subject from whether individual political officials or combatants have engaged in war crimes or crimes against humanity. It is addressed in the article Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." We don't need to repeat this in the body of page. Alternatively, what about dropping every reference to war of aggrassion and create a redirect from "War of aggression in Ukraine" to Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Plus, you added to the text that the crime of aggression is "separate but related to war crimes." But I don't see how they relate. War crimes can be committed in a prefectly legitimate war. So how is it relevant for the article, and do you have RS on the connection between the two? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies of soldiers have been placed in a 'Z' shape and recorded by Ukrainians (sorry, reddit source for the second one, I haven't been able to find it on an article yet), which would constitute a war crime (rule 113) and (rule 90) for “committing outrages upon personal dignity”. I have been unable to find a source yet that addresses this, so I haven't written it up on the article. Please let me know if you can find anything. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this would ammount to a war crime. Rule 113 refers to dead bodies being despoiled or mutilated, and Rule 90 requires that the victim of torture and degrading treatment is alive. In any case we must avoid WP:OR: as you rightly said, we need source, so thank you for not having published. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, cases like this I won't publish without discussing it before. And about the sources, you are absolutely right.

On the other hand, Rule 90 does say it applies to dead bodies: "The Elements of Crimes further specifies that degrading treatment can apply to dead persons and that the victim need not be personally aware of the humiliation".

Unless I am mistaken, that would make it a war crime. Now, there are sources reporting the act, but I haven't found any reliable source reporting it as a war crime, and I don't think it will be easy to find. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe here we are a bit too cautious: "A number of interviews of Russian soldiers taken prisoner have been circulated on social media, often seemingly filmed under a degree of duress and used for Ukrainian propaganda purposes. These videos have raised concerns [one could even add a tag here, "who is concerned? specify"] about potential violations of the Geneva Conventions. On 7 March, Amnesty International released a statement saying that ... and saying that ... Human Rights Watch criticized the Ukrainian treatment of prisoners of war, which it described as intentional humiliation and shaming" (emphasis mine). The circumlocutory. indirect language contrasts with the bold opening statement of the article: "The invasion of Ukraine... constitutes a crime of aggression according to international criminal law" – straight to the chase. Something doesn't sound right to me: I think we should strive for a more coherent approach. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whole beginning of the article should be reworked.

"According to many specialists" -- What specialists?

"the invasion of Ukraine, part of the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014, violated the Charter of the United Nations prohibition on aggression and constitutes a crime of aggression according to international criminal law" -- Source is needed here, if it even belongs. A crime of aggression is a different thing from war crimes. Perhaps should be mentioned somewhere else? But not so sure it belongs at the beginning of the article.

Also, Wikipedia must remain neutral WP:NPOV and all war crimes from both parties should be recorded. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the lead so as to make clear that the article deals also with alleged crimes committed by the Ukrainian army (explicit reference to exploiting Russian PoW for propaganda purposes). Plus, I've strengthened and qualified the statement on the crime of aggression by providing more sources and by adding "According to experts and human rights organizations". The article should now be more balanced and reliable, and the lead section more informative. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gitz agree that reads better, Also note that in the Irpin refugee column shelling Human Right Watch stated that Ukrainian forces have an obligation to avoid or minimize civilian harm, include avoiding operating where civilians are located and preventing civilians from entering areas of active hostilities. In this incident Ukraine forces were firing a mortar 200m from the intersection. Not sure if this is a potential Ukraine war crime? Ilenart626 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might well be but we need a WP:RS to that effect. HR Watch suggests that "Russian forces violated their obligations under international humanitarian law" and doesn't blame the Uk. army. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What could help could be a broader article such as International humanitarian law in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, to mainly focus on suspected violations of IHL that are not clearly sourced as likely war crimes, leaving only a very brief link to this page for war crimes. Particular items could be shifted in one direction or the other depending on how the sources evolve. Boud (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is looking much better. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Right Watch (HRW) report dated 21 March available here highlights the current situation in Mariupol based on interviews of evacuated citizens and analysis of photos and other records. HRW come accross as impartial and independent, particularly their reporting of Russian and Ukraine activity. From the report it is obvious that most of Maripol is a warzone with Russian and Ukraine forces fighting everywhere. The report is placing emphasis on both Ukraine and Russian forces to ensure safety of civilians, for example: "Both Russia and Ukraine have obligations to ensure access for humanitarian assistance to civilians and to take all feasible steps to allow the civilian population to evacuate safely, if they choose, whether or not an agreement to establish humanitarian corridors is put into effect." At the moment the article is placing all the emphasis on Russia with very little emphasis on Ukraine's responsibilities, for example the "Targeting of humanitarian corridors" subsection. Would suggest that we include Ukraine's obligations in the article based on the attached reference, particularly the "Targeting of humanitarian corridors" subsection. I'm happy to make the changes but would like consensus first. Comments / opinions? Ilenart626 (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one of the reasons I suggested the HRW inclusion is that the actions of the Ukraine Military could mean that a Russian response would not be a war crime. For example, a shopping mall in Kyiv was recently destroyed by a Russian missile attack as the Russian claim it was storing rockets. This was denied by The Ukraine ministry, however the Russians have released drone footage showing a Ukrainian multiple rocket launcher entering the shopping centre for shelter after firing and reloading of missiles. The Russian report also stated the shopping centre was non-functional. This all suggests that the destruction of the shopping mall would not be a war crime, the Laws of War would deem this a military object due to Ukraine using it to launch rockets. There are lots of articles about the shopping mall, for example [1] [2]3 Ilenart626 (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • You should use better sources such as that one. However, none of these sources explicitly say that the deliberate missile attack on a shopping center "was not a war crime" for the reasons above (sure, the Ukrainian military is protecting the city). This is your assertion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of (and understandable) bias on western media against Russia, so it is hard to find reliable English sources. I think that is affecting some articles on Wikipedia about the invasion, and WP:NPOV is not being followed 100%. Which I find especially important when talking about affected civilians lives.

Same subject actually came out on the thread before this one.

You do have my vote to do so. Let me know with anything I can help with. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how we could do what you are suggesting. We need a WP:RS stating either that the Ukrainian armed forces have deliberately committed a war crime, or that their reckless negligence raises the suspicion that they might have committed a war crime. If we have reliable sources explicitly linking Ukraine with war crimes, then we publish; but it's not for us to "include Ukraine's obligations in the article", unless we can also include that those obligations have been breached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the many things I've read, there is no factual basis for the Russian claim that Ukrainian forces are firing on civilian corriders. However their allegations can be reported as "claims", along with the large number of credible and notable claims to the contrary.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Would suggest that we include Ukraine's obligations'? No, because the cited source does not accuse the Ukraine side of committing war crimes (the subject of this page). It said clearly that it were Russian forces who killed civilians. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant other sources that I have seen. Such as Tass (Russian government controlled online "newspaper") and also claims by Lavrov and his ilk. I personally don't believe a word of it. But this article has posted and can post such claims. When there are lots of other sources in the article, this is not so concerning, because propaganda then has a way of revealing itself.

  Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Assume you mean an article such as this one, which states “… placing military objects and equipment in densely populated areas and near civilian objects and using such objects for military purposes, endangering lives of civilian population in violation of international humanitarian law.” Ilenart626 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is typical Tass. Disinformation, propaganda for sure. But when a Wikipedia article has tons of sources it becomes immune to any Tass-like sources that are also included.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to close out this discussion I will add the above TASS reference to the Attacks on civilian areas subsection Ilenart626 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard ukranian ministry of defense said they will castrate Russian PoWs, which constitutes a war crime. 2800:AC:4001:836E:808E:99EE:3117:CE91 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the ministry of defense but the owner of a war-zone hospital who claims he told his doctors to castrate captured Russian soldiers: [5], [6]. There are multiple sources but, unless the order was executed, this doesn't qualify as a war crime but rather as war talk and war propaganda. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear that Russian abuses are in the vast majority in this invasion. But if solid sources of any occurances of Ukrainian abuses do occur at some point, they should certainly be included in the article.

I'd say this guys claim that he gave such orders could be included because he has notability as a hospital owner. But only if it is also stated and cited that no sources are known to be found to date, that his orders were carried out. Unless contrary notable sources ever arise.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that was a bad joke. There was no Russian prisoners in the hospital, no one to castrate. The guy even apologized for his joke: "He said his hospital "does not castrate anyone and is not going to. Those were the emotions. I'm sorry. We are saving lives. Period" [7]. Also, none of these sources is particularly reliable. There are numerous discussions like that in social media. They do not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like he was joking, it looks like he responded to pressure to back off. Both his original statements and his later retraction could be included in the article.

The huge and well-cited abuses by the Russian forces dwarf his comments, of course, but this still could be mentioned.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to all these sources, that doctor or his colleagues did not castrate anyone. What crimes? My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to add in the article statements about violence threats to the other side, then you should first add tonns of ukrainophobic statements from Russian TV which promote ethnic purges of Ukrainian as nationalists - and it would be a whole article not on war crimes, but on threats. The episode is not notable per se. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A threat of a war crime (castration) and personally encouraging doctors to do it (encouraged by the owner of the hospital) I believe is notable. That goes well beyond strident comments.

Russian TV engaging in encouragement of genocide (which is what ethnic purges are) would definitely be appropriate in this article. Issues of weight would suggest you don't fill the article with it, but some mention / citation of it would not be out of line.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this should be a page about actual war crimes (there are enough of them), not about some imaginary crimes that had never happen. That statement may belong to other pages like misinformation related to the war, etc. Same about the coverage on Russian TV.My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it imaginary, I would call it conspiracy to commit a war crime. Which is a war crime.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:DAILYMIRROR, those are tabloids and not journalistic sources of content. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, conspiracy to commit a war crime is a war crime--

(And it says the same thing about incitement.)

United States of America

Practice Relating to Rule 156. Definition of War Crimes

III. Military Manuals

The US Field Manual (1956) provides: “The term ‘war crime’ is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.”

The manual then states: “Conspiracy, direct incitement, and attempts to commit, as well as complicity in the commission of, … war crimes are punishable.”

Here is the Source that shows that "conspiracy" to commit a war crime is itself a war crime. As is incitement of others to commit war crimes.

Not that just above this (in the same source) it says: "Every violation of the law of war is a war crime."

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need a secondary source which says that this statement was a "war crime". Volunteer Marek 07:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the lead will be significantly expanded, I do not think this info [8] belongs to the lead because this has described only in a very short subsection of the page. Remember that the lead must summarize content proportional to its appearance in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole section dedicated to this, and the lead section doesn't dwell upon the matter but limits itself to mentioning the mistreatment of PoW by the Ukrainians authorities. The subject of the article is "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", not Russian war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section is only around 2% of the page. Including such info to the lead is a violation of WP:DUE. So, no, absolutely not. You can start an RfC about it if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for other views, then. I feel it is important that any war crime, no matter the nationality of the perpetrator, can be repored in this article, provided that there are reliable sources. The images of Russian prisoners of war have circulated around the world for quite a long time, making their way through the news on a variety of media - press, TV, blogs. Mistreatment of PoW is a serious breach of international humanitarian law and should not be passed over in silence. Note that currently the section is close to 5% of the text of the article, and that the article includes much content that doesn't fit sqarely the notion of war crimes (the killing of civilians is a war crime only if it is deliberate) and that is not supported by reliable sources (e.g. this). Finally, if I'm not wrong WP:CYCLE would require the article to be brought back to the wrong version that was online before @My very best wishes's edit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the default would be the version before you included this info recently to the lead [9]. Such inclusion should be done per WP:CONSENSUS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus: see this discussion and the comments by @AdrianHObradors and @Ilenart626, who expressed their views on the matter. But you don't agree and consensus can change, so let's wait for the others. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was mostly about section in the body of the page (which is fine), not specifically about this phrase in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right, we'll see what they think. I just want to add to my "Mistreatment of PoW is a serious breach of international humanitarian law and should not be passed over in silence", that that applies especially when it's the deliberate product of an official state policy. Images and videos of PoW were posted by the Ukrainian Minister of Interal Affairs for a protracted period of time (more than two weaks) notwithstanding the warnings they had received by Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross: [10], [11]. I understand the scale of the serrounding catastrophe, but each rule of IHL is a trench that should never be abbandoned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 8 sections in the page (some of them are much bigger than this section). If each of these sections will be summarized in the lead, then including summary of your section to the lead would not be a WP:DUE problem. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's already the case, isn't it? Please read again the lead section. What's missing? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "deportations" is missing. If I'm not wrong, that's because it was added today. Anyway, everything else is accounted for:

Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, part of the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014, Russian authorities have been accused of starting a war of aggression [SECTION 1], as well as using cluster munition and thermobaric weapons in residential areas, attacking humanitarian corridors [SECTION 2], medical care facilities [SECTION 6.1] and other civilian targets [SECTION 3 and SECTION 6.2-6.9], shooting at unarmed civilians [again, SECTION 6], and of looting houses, stores and banks [SECTION 4]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there is only a brief summary of the whole page in a couple of phrases; none of the sections was summarized. Basically, one would have to write one-two phrases about each section. Why only the section you want to include was summarized in this way? My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of exploiting Russian prisoners of war for propaganda purposes." is overly descriptive. But I'm happy with making it even shorter dropping the "for propaganda purposes" part. In that case, however, "exploiting" needs to be replaced with "abusing" otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are and will be facing a big problem with the lack of reliable sources. Not only do we have a huge propaganda war between Russia and Ukraine, but I don't think media will want to portrait Ukraine in a bad light. I remember reading an article about some reporters that were shot at, after arriving to an Ukrainian checkpoint, by people in civilian clothes. And while signs point to it being done by an untrained Ukrainian militia, it was still reported as undercover Russians.

I will keep looking for RS and share them here. And I find the way the current lead right now appropriate. I do think it is important to mention Ukraine, they should under no pretext be given carte blanche to commit war crimes, so the ones (hopefully few) they commit, of course should be registered. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I basically agree with the OP. It is disproportionate in the context of the size of the lead and the coverage given in the article. Improve the lead and it would then be more appropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While the lead should probably be expanded, I don't see the article including enough information about war crimes committed by Ukraine to merit any mention in the lead, even if expanded. It would place undue weight on such a thing. Fieari (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oppose removing it. I think it is very important to mention all war crimes including the Ukrainians'. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The lead must first summarize and second make the summary proportional. Removing a viewpoint altogether jeopardizes the summary for the sake of proportionality. WP:DUE is just a method by which WP helps maintain WP:NPOV but NPOV first requires that all significant viewpoints are presented. Removing this significant viewpoint from the lead risks violating NPOV in a more serious manner by completely omitting a significant viewpoint. (Significant here meaning notable or carrying meaning rather than large in extent). Furthermore, quantity of text is just one of several methods of assessing due weight. The relative placement after Russian accusations, and juxtaposition between a list of accusations and the single concern on the Ukrainian side makes clear to readers that the two viewpoints are not treated as balanced issues. In any case, if the quantity of text is nonetheless a concern here, the proper fix is to elaborate further the accusations on the Russian side in the lead, not to entirely omit the Ukrainian accusation. --N8_wilson 12:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As noted above, the LEDE should summarize all sections of the article. Since all allegations regarding Russia are covered, so should be the ones regarding Ukraine. Note that the ICC investigation also covers less than 10% of the article, yet nobody opposes its inclusion. If you consider that characters dedicated in the lead to each section should be proportional to main text, you should extend the other parts of the lede (or, better, remove all text which does not refer to allegations of war crimes by reliable sources).Anonimu (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed, as said above primarily third party sources should be used and not propagandist claims that are not backed with reliable sources. Yet the most important thing is that the lead should summarize the entire artickle and not be a place for bombastic claims of UNDUE weight.Tritomex (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this comment belong to this thread or rather to the discussion above "Castration of Russian soldiers"? With regard to the issue of the Russian PoW, there's no bombastic claim, it's a relatively clear case of violation of international humanitarian law, and there's plenty of third party sources: AI, [12] and HRW, [13], and their concerns have been shared, reported or discussed by the Washington Post, [14] the French L'Obs, [15], La Croix [16], Le Figaro, [17], the German Tagesschau, [18] (dubitatively) and Der Spiegel, [19] (explicit condemnation by legal expert Daniel-Erasmus Khan). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I support My very best wishes removal of the content. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned but it's WP:WEASEL: "has been accused" by whom? It's also unsourced from what I can see, making it WP:OR; I went through the source cited at the end of the lede and I found no mentions of this. ctrl+F finds no mention of "propaganda" or "exploit" in the rest of the wiki article so why is it in the lede if the article has nothing to do about it? Seems like from a rhetorical stand point it's trying to create an equivalency, ie "both Ukraine and Russia are committing war crimes" but that's it. It should go. Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd replace "exploiting ... for propaganda purposes" with "abusing". Alternatively we could follow the sources more closely and write "accused of intimidating and humiliating the Russian prisoners of war, and exposing them to public curiosity". But I think that "abusing" would be enough. With regard to the "weasel", the attribution is made explicit in section 7: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, plus various newspapers (more are detailed here). No RO here, and I'd remove the tag "by whom?" asap, as a couple of lines above we have "Russian authorities have been accused" with no explicit attribution (and no tag). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any sources for these claims in the article. I saw an Amnesty International article posted in the dif you linked to but it's oblique and never accuses Ukraine of anything it infers but that's it. If there's WP:WEASEL in regard to Russia as well than that should also be fixed, no doubt. But we shouldn't be cutting corners in regard to the lede. I also think the two ideas are separate: if the claims about Ukraine are included they should be properly sourced and not use weasel wording. If Ukraine's been accused by someone than that person/organization should be included in the article. I don't think that's unreasonable. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this, [20], quoted in the article at end of the line starting with "On 16 March, Human Rights Watch described the videos..." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is backed by the HRW source you posted: "On 16 March, Human Rights Watch described the videos as intentional humiliation and shaming, and urged the Ukrainian authorities to stop posting them on social media and messaging apps." This sentence "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of exploiting Russian prisoners of war for propaganda purposes" is not backed by the HRW source and is thus WP:OR I also guess HRW would be the indirect object, but they never accused Ukrainian Authorities of exploiting POWs for propaganda, atleast not in the article cited. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I've modified the lead, please consider removing the tag. Here the discussion on WP:DUE is obviously unprejudiced and ongoing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the WP:WEASEL tag, added Human Rights Watch for clarity, switched the sentence from passive to active, ie "HRW accused Ukrainian Authorities..." But I also listed straight out what HRW said, ie, they accused Ukraine of taking photos and videos of POWs then said that such actions break the protections under the Geneva conventions. To me the leap is too far to take that first paragraph and get that they accused Ukrainian Authorities of abusing POWs. Now then maybe they are inferring it, but I think they chose their words very carefully, and I think when attributing words to them we should do the same. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. First of all, USer:My very best wishes expressed the concern that the description in the lead was already too long, and now it's even longer. Secondly, the description is not accurate. Allegation of mistreatment were raised not only by HRW, but also by AI and by various newspapers and legal scholars (here above detailed): just like we have "Russian authorities have been accused", we can have "Ukrainian authorities have been accused" (indeed, by more than one entity). Most importantly, the Ukrainians were not accused only of "taking photos and videos": they interviewed the PoW, they asked them about their involvment in the invasion and broadcasted their regret, they set up press conferences, made them call their mothers and families at home and televised the conversations; sometimes the PoWs were crying desperately, sometimes they were tired. All this results from the RS quoted in the article and here above mentioned; if you are interested, you can watch yourself some of the videos searching on YouTube "Russian PoW (captured soldiers). Hungry and Cold.", "Russian POWs Say They Were Tricked, Threatened During Invasion", "Ukraine Invites Mothers of Prisoners of War to Pick Them Up", "Captured Russian troops turn on Putin". Anyway, HRW says: "videos of captured Russian soldiers that expose them to public curiosity [and] show them being humiliated or intimidated"; "videos of captured Russian soldiers who appear under duress or are revealing their names, identification numbers, and other personal information". Thus, "abusing the Russian PoWs" is quite an accurate description of what RS say. Note that art. 6 Third Geneva Convention is titled "Humane treatment of prisoners" and states that PoWs must be "protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm not interested in the videos, no offense, just not my thing. What you're suggesting is WP:SYNTH specifically: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source... If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." We are able to say what HRW explicitly says, nothing more. What you're suggesting is "therefore C". I feel like we're kind of going in circles to an extent but, if it is to be written it needs reliable sources, and it needs to follow what the sources say, and not draw conclusions. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your concerns about WP:SYNTH and therefore I've added more RS to section 7 - basically a new paragraph now dealing with the reactions to the videos by Western newspapers and legal experts. So now we have plenty of RS on the issue of the Russian PoWs, which can no longer be summarised in the lead as "HRW accused...". I've changed the text accordingly: "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of abusing Russian prisoners of war". On this we have now multiple sources. Bearing in mind WP:UNDUE, I'd avoid adding more text/description to this: "abuse" is fair enough. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @My very best wishes, I think that EJIL:Talk! can be accepted as RS on issues of international law. I haven't found any previous discussions on this at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Do you think we should bring the question there or would you rather first have a closer look at their policies and structure? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is blog and therefore covered by WP:SELFPUB. This is a really important info ([21]). What we need here is an official statement by Ukrainian government published somewhere and a coverage in mainstream secondary RS, such as NYT, CNN, etc. After reading this blog and first source, I understand that Ukrainian government did NOT make this an official change of their policy. Right? My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very much hope not! It's not an official change of policy by the Ukrainian government, that would be mental – it's just what we say it is, "Ukraine's Special Operations Forces announced that Russian artillerymen will no longer be taken prisoner". The original source, "Ukrayinska Pravda", is quite reliable for a statement like this (cf. this discussion, "In general, Ukrainska Pravda is a Ukrainian RS", especially reliable for statements by the Ukrainian authorities). EJIL:Talk! is most definitively reliable as far as international law is concerned; with regard to factual statements, I share your concerns (they are academics, not journalists), but with regard to the law, WP:SELFPUB applies, and therefore "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". We quote this article from EJIL:Talk! in the area of expertise of the author (Lecturer in International Law at the University of Reading, School of Law) for the following legal assessment: "Such a statement could be interpreted as a no quarter order, which is prohibited by customay international law (...) The killing of surrendered enemies would also be in violation of international humanitarian law." Everything looks well sourced and relevant to me and I think that the text you removed should be restored. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have the following: (a) the Ukrainian government did not make such policy, (b) no such cases were documented, and (c) this is not covered in mainstream English language sources. This is just a threat on Facebook noted in a Ukrainian newspaper (one of participants of the conflict). Therefore, this does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The legal expert says that merely threatening an adversary with a no quarter order is a violation of Rule 46 and Art. 8(2)(b)(xii) ICC Statute. The mere declaration suffices. Nowhere in RS one reads that it must be official state policy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to a brief post/comment in Ukrayinska Pravda (not really a great source), someone made a threatening post on Facebook. That Facebook post was also debated in a blog. How that deserves inclusion on the page? My very best wishes (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia "project" or "page" where Infoboxes are custom-made (or can be self-made). This article needs one.

Discussion is encouraged. If not an Infobox, then some kind of template should be in the top-right space of the article.

Suggestions? Thoughts?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to make something like template on page Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The box in the page linked above is actually not an infobox but one of those topic-navigation boxes; it appears on all the articles linked within it, so it's more like Template:Campaignbox_Russo-Ukrainian_War. Phiarc (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article need an infobox? What information would you see summarized in the infobox? I think this is the kind of topic were a well-written lead section is rather better than an infobox. Phiarc (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we need one for the same reason that 95% of other Wikipedia articles have them. If not an infobox, then a relevent template.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been going through the sources. Lots of sections on this article make no mention of war crimes. Instead they mention how something happened and then mention an article from the Geneva Convention or IHL. Should we be determining what is and isn't a war crime? I think that gets very close to WP:OR.

So I say we either find better sources that do make the connection between the facts and a war crime, or we remove them and clean this article a lot. War crimes are a serious accusation, and not one that we should be doing.

Also, there is the targeting of nuclear power plants, which is in this article only to afterwards shortly mention that it isn't a war crime. I would clean that a lot as well. We could keep it, as it was talked about a lot in the news, but clarify how it isn't a war crime. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the attack against the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, I think it should stay. The best RS available agrees that that attack constitutes a breach of Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention; they are less sure ("It is less likely") that the attack qualifies as a war crime under Article 85(3)(c) of the Protocol. Had the attack had serious consequences, it would likely be a war crime under Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment". I think we should leave the section and qualify the war crime allegation by adding "according to the US embassy in Ukraine" (which is a non-indipendent third party) based on this RS.
I agree, however, that there might be a problem with RS in this article. I've started and not yet finished a review of the sources, and I'd like to share a preview here. Please have a look. Anybody is welcome to complete this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should leave the section, but I am going to try to clean it up a bit.

I am not sure how much should we be trusting US Embassy in Ukraine as a RS. They reported the other day how Russia shot and killed 10 people standing in line for bread, which were actually victims of a shell attack. [22] [23] [24] Could be a case of wording, but seems dishonest at best.

And I appreciate your work, will try to help with RS review as best as I can. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [25] - Here is an HRW reference that explains it. According to it, any attacks by military on civilians fall under the definition of war crimes.My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence reads

The International Criminal Court is currently investigating war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the country.

and cites a 156-page PDF published in 2016. The placement and text of that sentence however seems to suggest that the crimes currently under investigation by the ICC are those alleged to have occurred in 2022 which – obviously – aren't addressed by a source published 6 years earlier. Having not read the 156-page document I was hoping somebody who has could clarify this sentence. Which war crimes and crimes against humanity are under investigation? ...or maybe there was supposed to be a different source cited there? --N8_wilson 12:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that must have been an accidental edit by someone doing some restructuring. See if the new source and wording are better. Have a look at the sources in International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine for more depth. Boud (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. Thanks! --N8_wilson 01:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP 187.39 made this edit, which I reverted, and they undid my revision. The sections on "Sumy Oblast" and "Zhytomyr Attacks" are now online, but they don't belong to this article: there are no reliable sources stating that the Russian army deliberately killed the civilians. We have a twit by Ukrinform stating that "In Trostyanets, Russian invaders threw a grenade at civilians, killing two", then we have Ukrayinska Pravda and ФОКУС reporting airstrikes with civilian casualties, and Uacrisis.org reporting that the Ukrainian Prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings for violations of the laws and customs of war. We have The Times of Israel reporting an airstrike against the Zhytomyr International Airport and РБК-Украина and other Ukrainian agencies reporting bombings with civilian casualties: a perinatal centre, a school, a dormitory, private houses were destroyed, but it's not clear if these buildings were deliberately targeted by the Russian army. We can't exclude that these actions were war crimes, but at the moment we have no RS stating that that is the case. So, what do we do? I think that this question basically applies to the whole section "Attacks on civilians", so I think a discussion is needed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that same thing. Perhaps we need to make a whole different page, something like Civilian casualties during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or something, link it from here, and explain in both places war crimes and how it doesn't apply. Then in this place I would keep any confirmed deliberate attacks on civilians. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how it isn't deliberate? you don't simply shell a entire neighborhood on accident, the attacks in Zhytomyr and Sumy are, in fact, deliberate, as stated in the Zhytomyr attacks page itself, the Russians purposely shelled the airport and the city, as stated before, you don't just shell a neighborhood and say "oops, that was a accident, anyways". 187.39.133.201 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say about numerous examples of Russian military shooting unarmed civilians to death. Do you mean that all of that was an accidental discharge of weapons? My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't know. 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 (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better would be Attacks on civilians during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, so that the focus is not just the victims, but the whole events. Quite a bit of this article would then be WP:SPLIT into that new article. The lead could include a sentence about the status of attacks on civilians under international humanitarian law and a cross-link here. The advantage of the split would be that whether or not an individual incident is called a war crime or not by human rights organisations, legal people, politicians, or courts will be updatable without questioning whether or not the event itself is sufficiently notable and sourced to be included in the article.

For comparison, Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism was created 7 years after the events started, and the events started in the pre-Wikipedia epoch. An "Attacks" page in that case is Grozny ballistic missile attack for one particular attack; it's mainly divided into the attack itself and the legal situation. Boud (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Boud's proposal. It has the important result of not deleting the contents on the attacks on civilians, which is valuable information that shouldn't get lost, without overburdening this article with contents that logically don't belong it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, I think this would be the way to go. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes - I do not mean that, but could you indicate which sources? I would like to review them. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a murder/massacre of civilians was described or discussed in RS as a potential "war crime", then it belongs to this page. Something like "Attacks on civilians" would be a list rather than a regular page. Nothing prevents from creating such lists (or sub-pages about individual events), but they suppose to supplement a regular page, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That we all agree, but many aren't mentioned as war crimes by RS. Wouldn't fit here, but would be good to have them registered somewhere else. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on civilians are very often considered war crimes. If it's accidental it's often considered manslaughter (criminal neglect) if it's intentional it's murder. But either way it's very often considered a war crime under unternational law.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not entirely correct. The killing of civilians is a war crime when the object of the attack has no military value (or perhaps not enough military value) to justify the attack, so that it doesn't qualify as "military objective" as defined here. Any use for military ends, no matter how slight, transforms a civilian object into a military objective, and factories, trains, appartment buildings can easily become military objectives (2020 Oxford guide to international humanitarian law, p. 162). It is usually very difficult to prove that an attack on civilians constitutes a war crime: you need to prove that they've done it deliberatly, knowing that they were civilians, and without any sufficient military justification. So for example there's still an open debate on whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Dresden bombing constitute war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are quoting costs $124 (where I found it) so it may be out of reach for most editors. Are there alternative sources that you suggest? Thanks in advance.

One thought I have-- if the military objective is to take the city of Mariupol, then destroying it erases the military objective and therefore makes the massive involved attacks a war crime.

Even more importantly, I would also say as a Wikipedia editor I have never felt an obligation to let profoundly inhumane or deeply flawed laws affect my editing.

I would say that NPOV does not involve abandoning writing about atrocities, just because existing humanitarian laws are insufficient and flawed.

For example, what notable sources find these siege-excusing laws to be "a problem" and not "a guide" that we must follow? Certainly such sources should also be thoroughly included in any article about war crimes.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that we shouldn't abandon writing about atrocities only because the existing law say "so and so". However, we should write about them in the soon to be created article Attacks on civilians during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. We shouldn't overload this article with contents that don't qualify as war crimes; if everything is a war crime then nothing is a war crime, and that wouldn't serve neither our readers nor the improvement of IHL.
With regard to sources, here there's a googlebook preview of the book I was quoting from, but most importantly we as editors have access to the Wikipedia Library, where one can access "Oxford University Press Law" and then "Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law". On MPEPIL there are entries on "Civilian population in armed conflict", "Civilian objects" and "Siege". I'm linking here and here two of these articles but I don't know if the links work unless you are logged in the WP library. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [26] - Here is an HRW reference that explains it. According to it, any attacks by military on civilians fall under the definition of war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice with this edit that Chesapeake77 changed the WikiProject Crime importance assessment from Low to High. The High assessment suggests the article subject "contributes a depth of knowledge" or is "Extremely notable" to the WikiProject Crime subject area. In a previous discussion, now archived, I explained why I gave the article a Low assessment rating and I don't recall reaching any consensus about changing that assessment or what any new assessment rating should be. Given that a couple of weeks have passed and the conflict in question is still ongoing, I do agree that this article has increased in significance and should be reassessed. However, I don't think it should be ranked as important as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which, while ranked Top for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine, is only ranked High or Mid in other WikiProjects. Using that article as an importance guide, I think this article should be ranked at least an importance step lower in the corresponding WikiProjects, or no more than Mid if there is no corresponding project. This is because the article "contributes a depth of knowledge" to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but only "fills in more minor details" concerning Crime. Any changes in the importance assessment should be discussed first with users setting forth their reasons for change. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) The section "Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol" desereves a closer look. It has quite a lot of documentation, including citations about satellite photos of mass destruction in Mariupol (taken and evaluated by a space satellite company that works for military intelligence).

2) The section on the Russian airstrike on the maternity hospital (also in Mariupo, but has it's own sectionl).

3) The pervasive details (throughout the article) on how Russian forces have blocked evacuations from Mariupol from residents who are starving or dying of dehydration. Extensive cited sentences about hundreds of thousands being trapped there (due to Russian refusal to allow evacuation), under weeks long 24 hour shelling and bombing, without food or running water.

4) References (spread through the article) on how Russian forces have blocked ALL humanitarian aid supplies from being brought into Mariupol.

5) There is much more...

Chesapeake77 (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The pervasive details (throughout the article) on how Russian forces have blocked evacuations from Mariupol from residents who are starving or dying of dehydration."

Even more of this can be found at the Wikipedia article Siege of Mariupol.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we had a discussion on this image, which is also in this article. In that discussion I questioned the source of the image (uploaded on Facebook by the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs) and I also had concern about privacy. If I'm not wrong, a consensus on keeping the image in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has emerged. Here, however, we have a further issue: is this a war crime? Provided that the victim was a civilian and that he was not engaged in combat, we still wouldn't know if that's a war crime or a civilian casualty (cf the images in civilian casualty). I wouldn't object to having the image in Attacks on civilians during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I'm wondering if it belongs here. As per WP:IMGCONTENT, the image might "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter" in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, but does it also increse readers' understanding of war crimes? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove It does not reasonably and with any clarity depict a war crime as opposed to an unfortunate civilian death during war and does not satisfy WP:IMGCONTENT. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relocate to elsewere in the article. She is lying in an apartment building which at the time (see date in media details) there were no Russian soldiers except for miles away. Therefore there was no military purpose in shelling or bombing her apartment building. And so the photo should remain in the article. Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information you would add is not clear from the image itself. I am not opposed to an image where there is a clear association to a war crime regardless of how graphic might be. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could be made clear with a better caption. But I prefer a photo or photos of war crime investigators on the scene in Ukraine.

• Replace with a photo of war crimes investigators from any one of nearly a dozen different judicial / prosecutorial bodies now investigating war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Or show a multi-photo collage of several different investigative teams at work in Ukraine. Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean a photo like this one (with an appropriate description, such as ICC Prosecutor investigating war crimes in Ukraine)? I'm ok with multi-photo collage but I could't make it myself. Besides, I'm windering if in the Mariupol Hospital airstrike section we could have this image or if there are copyright issues involved. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes that photo is a good start. I'd put it in a montage that might include other prosecutors, investigators in the field and perhaps some alleged victims which must be called "alleged" in any caption.

  There are Wikipedia editors who can use photoshop to make a montage.

  Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing prevents from adding image about investigations, but it belongs to section about investigations. The image must illustrate whole page, which is about the actual war crimes, not about their investigations. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with a photo of investigators until external investigators not linked with Ukrainian or Russian authorities publish anything usable.Anonimu (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Without prejudice to the ongoing discussion on keep/remove the image, I'm now relocating the image to the section "Attacks on civilians", to which it logically belongs. While it might well be that the image shows a killed civilian, we have no reason for holding that it also depicts a war crime. I'm adding a brief caption identical to the one which is now attached to this image, and I'm alligning the seize of all the images on the article, removing the deprecated "px" parameter, as per WP:THUMBSIZE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opening a new thread on the lead since new contributions to the discussion are needed and the first one has become too long. So far User:My very best wishes User:AdrianHObradorsUser:Ilenart626User:Cinderella157User:FieariUser:Super ninja2User:N8wilsonUser:AnonimuUser:TritomexUser:Alcibiades979 have shared their views on having the Russian PoWs in the lead section but no clear consensus has emerged. The text has changed since the beginning of the discussion: now the section on the PoWs is quite longer than it was, with more sources, and the proposed line for lead has become shorter: "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of abusing Russian prisoners of war." What shall we do? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we've flogged this horse around for a bit with general discussion and it isn't going anywhere, it dug it's heels/hooves in. Let's try doing this a little differently. We all know the issues and the arguments being made. How about we approach this more like an RfC rather than a free-form debate. As far as I can see there are three option:

• Option 1 Keep, we can't present a summary in a way that suggests there are no allegations of any sort against Ukraine.
• Option 2 Remove because it might be see to imply similar degrees of allegations in respect to both sides where this is not a reflection of the article.
• Option 3 Expand the lead so that allegations against both parties are summarised/reported (satisfying concerns at option 1) but also a summary/indication of the extent and types of allegations against Russia in a way that is indicative of the balance and the content of the article (thereby mitigating the concern for favouring option 2).

All of the arguments are essentially based on interpretations of WP:NPOV and related guidance. It ultimately comes down to which course best satisfies the spirit and intent of the policy. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 Keep

1 N8Wilson above in Lead1 summed up the issues why eloquently.

2 The section on Ukraines treatment of prisoners is now detailed enough with sufficient reliable souces.

3 I believe more incidents are likely to arise in the future, given the Ukraine forces history of war crimes. If you are unfamiliar with Ukraine forces past history of war crimes suggest you read this report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Ilenart626 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4. Follow WP:DUE. It does not matter what allegations and what "parties". The only thing that matters is WP:DUE. Meaning that the summary must reflect the content of the page proportional to coverage on the page. This should be either a very brief summary (as right now) that describes whole page or a more detailed summary that say something (one-two phrases) about each of the eight sections of this page. Either way is fine. Making very short summary of the page and including a phrase to emphasize specifically section 7 (or any other section) is a violation of WP:DUE in the summary. That is all I am saying. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm not voting yet but I would like to point out that anyone who has taken writing classes would tell you that the opening sentence doesn't work as an article opening ("lead"). That is not meant to be insulting-- it's just an observation. Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Right now the opening sentence doesn't mention the article topic immediately. Instead you have a long, complicated sentence that only gets to the main topic in the middle. Because this is not a fiction novel, but an encyclopedic article, the first sentence should get right to the point of the topic. Brevity for the first sentence is prefereable. Only then should following sentences elaborate more, and then be longer. Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I simplified first phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 Keep

I too agree with N8Wilson's arguments and feel that the lead would be unbalanced if we were to remove the only reference to allegations against the Ukrainian authorities. The proposed text, "abusing the Russian PoWs", is purely descriptive and it's short: it doesn't emphasise specifically section 5 any more than "using cluster munition and thermobaric weapons in residential areas, attacking humanitarian corridors" emphasises section 1, "[attacking] medical care facilities and other civilian targets" emphasises section 4, and "shooting at unarmed civilians and forcefully deporting them from occupied Ukrainian territory to Russia" emphasises sections 2 and 3. I wouldn't object adding new references to allegations against the Russians, but I think that removing the only reference to crimes (allegedly) committed by the Ukrainians or extending the lead section so as to overshadow the Russian PoW issue would make the whole article less objective and less authoritative. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 would be best, but that would required trimming the article for content unrelated to allegations of war crimes. Option 1 until then. The claim that it violates WP:DUE is spurious, as nobody disputes the inclusion of the similarly-sized section regarding the ICC investigation.Anonimu (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 Keep or 3 Expand are both fine. The only support I've seen for option 2 (and 4) relies wholly on WP:DUE. I think this argument, undoubtedly made in good faith, is an unintentional misuse of WP:DUE to eliminate a viewpoint from the lead putting it concerningly close to information suppression. DUE only allows for complete omission of the most widely discredited viewpoints held by a minuscule minority. To my knowledge, we don't have large numbers of independent WP:RSs refuting the claims of possible Ukrainian criminal activity. DUE therefore actually supports options 1 and 3 by requiring that this significant viewpoint be given some non-zero weight. Balance and proportionality can still be respected in both options. --N8_wilson 16:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not want to talk in terms of "two parties", but OK. If misdeeds by one party are described on 90% of the page, and misdeeds by another party are described on 10% of the page, then same proportion must be kept in the lead per WP:DUE. My very best wishes (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure? Unfortunately this discussion has become outdated due to recent reports of torture on Russian PoWs, which are now summarised in a new subsection under the title "Soldiers shooting Russian prisoners". While I'm writing, I see that the title has been changed into "Video with alleged shooting of Russian prisoners of war", as if the war crime were the video, not the shooting. Surely we can do better. What about the simple "Torture"? I'd avoid having to add an "alleged" to all the remaining sections - alleged attacks on civilians, alleged deportations, etc. Anyway, this discussion has become anachronistic and I'm now restoring the cautious "...accused of abusing the Russian PoWs" in the lead section. I think that "...accused of exploiting for propaganda purposes and torturing the Russian PoWs" would be more appopriate, informative and consistent with the guidelines, but I guess that we'll need further discussion to get to a consensus on a different and better phrasing. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.. (See "Account Security" section below and also See "Why create an account?" (Because it hides your IP address from the world while you edit here).

I encourage everyone to read both.

I have doubts about this info added by @Alaexis, already reverted by @My very best wishes, originally inserted by @Misser420. The source now (CNN) looks good, but for some reason I cannot access the article: [27] - can you? is it the CNN? I see that the news is reported also by Goodworldnews [28], which is not reliable. So do we have RS or not? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666, it's still there at [29]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was probably my problem: using a different browser I can access the article. I've created a separate subheding for this and added an info on the reaction by the Ukrainian general. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on info in the CNN link, this is quite possibly a "fake". It says: "That video was posted by Konstantin Nemichev, a Kharkiv regional official...". However, Nemichev "told CNN he was not associated with the footage that emerged showing Ukrainian troops kneecapping Russian prisoners. “This is not our location … I have not seen such a location,” he told. So no, that does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most allegations regarding Russian actions were also denied by the Russians, so based on this reasoning this page should not exist. To conclude, the source is valid and should be included.Anonimu (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about denying anything by sides. This is about a simple question: was this YouTube video authentic? It has been now removed from YouTube. The alleged author of YouTube posting said he does not know about the origin of the video, who created it and where (but it was not him who created the video). It does not matter if he was an Ukrainian, Russian or whoever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We must trust our reliable sources, and there is a consensus that CNN is generally reliable. The article is signed by no less than four journalists, and apparently they've made enquiries - they've seen the video, hopefully some of them understand Russian and Ukrainian, they've reached out to involved persons for comment. So we don't need to become investigative journalists ourselves - we published. If it gets debunked, we remove, but not until then. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that CNN is not a reliable source. But why should we include info about the potentially fake or at least disputed YouTube video? This is a potentially fake or at least disputed video of unknown origin according to CNN. There were a lot of outright fake or disputed videos during this conflict. Info about them belongs to pages about misinformation during the war, not to this page, if it belongs anywhere at all. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage in WP:Original Research, as you are doing right now. This has been reported by a reputable source (CNN) and removing it, while keeping all other allegations published by similar sources violates WP:NPOV. Your constant edit warring also disregards the well established WP:BRD cycle, and reverting during discussion against consensus can be construed as vandalism.Anonimu (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, after more recent developments that involve UN [30], I do agree this info belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]