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

On 16 June I made an edit (diff. not available) adding the following text: On 31 May, the Ukrainian Parliament removed Denisova from office after a vote of no-confidence accusing her, among other things, of making insensitive and unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes, particularly those involving children and minors (Wall Street Journal and Deutsche Welle). Today @My very best wishes removed it explaining this page is about war crimes, not about dismission of officials.
I agree with MVBW that this article is about war crimes, obviously, but it's not only about "deeds", it's also about "Legal proceeding" and "International reactions" (we have two dedicated sections on this) and it's about political reactions as well - we report what Boris Johnson, Joe Biden and other political leaders said about war crimes. Therefore I believe that Denisova's removal belongs to this article as an important event in the political discourse on war crimes in Ukraine.
Moreover, the way Denisova reported on war crimes was mentioned among the reasons for her dismissal. Her allegations have been a major source of information for us: we quote Denisova by name at least 5 times in the article, and we quote her by office ("ombuds-") at least 5 more times. So her dismissal is obviously relevant here.
If for some reason my fellow editors don't want to maintain my edit on Denisova, I feel that we should remove the text the precedes that edit: In April 2022, Ukrainian ombudswoman Lyudmyla Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant. On 19 May, after Russian forces were pushed out of north of Kharkiv, she reported multiple rapes of children, some very young. The existence of credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops was also reported by the British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward on 13 May. Given that Denisova was removed from office because the information on sexual crimes she provided were deemed not verifiable enough, it's quite likely that these information are pieces of (bad) war propaganda we'd better get rid of. AFIK they haven't been verified or documented by reliable sources, which always say "Denisova declared". But she cannot be taken as a reliable source anymore (if she ever could). Also reference to undisclosed evidence by a British ambassador is not verifiable enough and should be removed.
Finally, a slightly off topic comment: her dismissal shows that it is not at all clear that overemphasising war crimes committed against the Ukrainian people is always in the best interest of Ukraine and her military effort - think about this; accuracy is much more important. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple: we follow WP:RS. Consider Veracity of statements by Donald Trump as an example. If any specific claim or a number by Denisova was described in RS as incorrect, we must reflect this on the page, either by labeling the specific claim by Denisova as disputed, or by replacing it with new data. But I do not see anything specific of this nature. For example, she said there were at least 25 victims of rapes in Bucha. Did any RS disputed this number? If not (and other sources say the same in this case), we should keep it. What exactly was "not verifiable enough"? We do not know. And again, it is common that the information has not been independently verified, for example by journalists. But we can use it if it was reliably published. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When Denisova got the sack, Ukrainian politicians explicitly mentioned the fact that she had released unverified claims about infants being subjected to rape. So if they think that this is unverified, it's quite likely that the info doesn't pass our WP:V threshold. If we want to do reliable editorial work here we should simply drop any claim about infants being raped by Russian troops, unless a reliable source publishes an article on this.
We can avoid publishing contents about Denisova dismissal, but then I suggest we immediately drop On 19 May, after Russian forces were pushed out of north of Kharkiv, she reported multiple rapes of children, some very young.
Moreover, I think we should also drop In April 2022, Ukrainian ombudswoman Lyudmyla Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant because no other source, apart from Denisova, made that allegation, as far as I know, and I don't think Denisova is reliable enough.
Finally, I think we should drop The existence of credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops was also reported by the British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward on 13 May. The British ambassador is not a reliable source, and evidence of sexual violence on children has not yet been released. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some sources say "unverified claims". Meaning claims that have not been independently verified by journalists, members of Rada (who say it), etc. I assume they indeed can not be independently verified because these cases are under investigation and because there is an existential war in the country. There are also privacy concerns, especially with regard to such crimes. But it does not mean that the claims were false or even unreliable. Every claim of such nature just needs an explicit attribution to the source. Yes, some of these claims are not covered in other sources. That is because she had a unique position in the government and had a unique information. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are using the word "assumption" ("I assume they indeed can not be independently verified because these cases are under investigation") in the sense of "a thing that is accepted as true or certain without proof". What you're basically saying is "I trust Denisova". While I don't have a personal opinion on that, I also think it's irrelevant. We don't publish what we believe it's true without proof and investigation. We have a policy: WP:V. Are you suggesting we should set it aside and, if so, could you explain why? I think we shouldn't publish unverified claims even if investigations were under way. But if and when the outcomes of the investigation will be released, I think we will publish them. Would you and our fellow editors agree on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not trust Denisova. I do not trust anyone, myself including. I simply refer to our policy like WP:NPOV, according to which a reliably published official statements/info by a Ukrainian Ombundsman must be included to relevant pages, with appropriate attribution. It does not matter if she/he is currently in charge if her previous statements were made in her official capacity. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean is "made when she was in office": those statement were not made "in her official capacity", they were interviews and posts on Facebook and Telegram. But even if they were made "in her official capacity", as you say, they still wouldn't belong to this article. The subject of this article is not Denisova, it is "war crimes"; which means that information about war crimes needs to come from a reliable source. And Denisova is not a reliable source. Analogously, we have dozen of statements about war crimes made by the Russian political and military authorities "in their official capacity", duly reported by TASS, which we don't publish because they don't qualify as reliable source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, these interviews and posts are her official statements as a state government official. The only problem they are WP:PRIMARY. However, when discussed by independent secondary RS, they deserve inclusion with a reference to the secondary RS. Speaking about statements by Russian military and politicians, we do provide them on many pages, with attribution! As about TASS, this is a different matter, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. My very best wishes (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I wouldn't call them "official statements" but rather "statements by an official" - an official who was dismissed for having made unverified statements. They were not reports published by a government agency AFIK but interviews and posts on Facebook and Telegram. Secondly, they were not "discussed by RS" but simply reported by them: "according to Denisova, A B C happened". Thirdly, Denisova is not a reliable source [2] [3] [4]. So we need to get rid of that stuff. Honestly I don't understand why you are resisting to this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the secondary RS did not just "report" her claims. They provided some degree of verification. For example an article in Politico [5]:

Documents provided by Denisova to POLITICO that she said were obtained by Ukraine’s intelligence services purport to show that Russia had plans in place for filtration camps and resettlement areas weeks before the invasion. One document shows the deadline for bringing temporary holding centers across Russia to 100% readiness was Feb. 21. Another document dated Feb. 26, two days after Russian forces entered Ukraine, shows that 36 locations across Russian territory were prepared to hold at least 33,146 Ukrainians in 377 temporary shelters. ... POLITICO could not independently verify the authenticity of Denisova’s documents, but their contents align with intelligence from the U.S. and other Western governments about Moscow’s intentions, as well as reports from internationally recognized human rights groups — even Russia’s own government figures.

. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't remove that source, there's nothing wrong with that, and I also would leave Denisova's allegations about 402,000 Ukrainians forcefully taken to Russia. "Cases of Russian soldiers using Ukrainian children as human shields" can also stay, I believe, as an unverified allegation, because it comes also from witnesses and from the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine's Ministry of Defense. But we should drop the contents I highlighted above, all about rape against young women and children. Also the undisclosed evidence by a British Ambassador is not worth mentioning because of WP:V concerns. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting on 3 sources you gave above. First one is a letter in Ukrainian, and it does not say she lied. Second source is an incorrect and grossly incomplete translation of 3rd source from Ukrainian. Third source is an article by Sonya Lukashova (no one knows about) posted in Ukrainian Pravda. I am not sure how reliable it might be and would prefer better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are very picky with sources MVBW! good, it's good to be picky, otherwise one could get lots of filth in our articles. But note the following: the first source is an appeal signed by over one hundred journalists and human rights activists asking her to "disclose only information for which there is sufficient evidence; check the facts before publication". So I guess she doesn't pass the threshold of verifiability. Do you really want to go to RSN and argue in front of everybody that she is a reliable source? Couldn't we just end it here and get rid of all her statements concerning sex crimes involving minors? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the request to publicly disclose information about rape victims in cases under investigation is plainly ridiculous. Further, after reading these sources, I have an impression that no any criminal cases were even open for many victims. This could be private information received by Denisova through her "hot line" and during on-site visits (a common situation for rape cases). I also think you misunderstand the policy, namely what is the source. The source is an article in Politico, for example, (i.e. place of publication (Politico), the author and the article itself in Politico. And we simply summarize what this source say about Denisova and everything else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't simply summarize what the source says because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE: if we report what the source says Denisova said, it's because we believe that what Denisova said has some bearing on the subject of this article, which is war crimes, and not Denisova herself. So you can put it in terms of WP:V - what Denisova says about sexual crimes involving minors in not verifiable, she is not a reliable source on that - or you can put it in terms of WP:E and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - what Denisova says about sexual crimes involving minors in not worthy of notice. The result is the same: we are an encyclopedia and we need to inform, not disinform, the public about verifiable and notable contents. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"not verifiable"? Please check WP:Verifiability: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Such as Politico, BBC, NYT, and so on. That is what we do here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for other editors to comment on whether to include this fully verifiable and highly notable contents. Unless there's a clear consensus for inclusion, as per WP:ONUS I'll remove all the info I've mentioned, which honestly I think are just garbage. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This information was already in the page for months. You need WP:CONSENSUS to exclude. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notified this discussion at RS/N: [6] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're now reporting this info twice: Lyudmyla Denisova, outlined the case of a group of women and girls who were locked in a basement for almost a month, and reported that nine of them had become pregnant (source NYT) and Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant (source BBC). Digging a bit deeper one also finds that Denisova said that "a telephone helpline offering support had received at least 25 reports of rape of women and girls" (BBC).
AFIK the info has not been independently verified so far, and Denisova was recently dismissed because, among other things, she was criticised for have made unverified claims about sexual violence against minors. So I think that these contents do not pass the threshold of WP:V and I suggest we remove them entirely until an independent reliable source verifies them. Reporting unverified and possibly false claims might risk to undermine the credibility of well-documented and highly notable information, and possibly that's the reason why some Ukrainian politicians thought that Denisova's communication approach was a liability to their cause. Anyway we shouldn't publish unverified claims. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That was discussed already (see above [7]). What you refer to (i.e. woment in the basement and 25 reports) are different things/claims that both should be included to the page. NYT and BBC are excellent RS, and of course we can used them, with an attribution to the source. A lot of statements by public officials were not independently verified by journalists or others. That does not mean much. Of course if a specific claim (e.g. the incident with a group of women being raped during many days in the basement) was explicitly disproved in some RS (saying there was no in fact such incident), that would be a different matter.My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainska Pravda published major new details-

in russian;

https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/articles/2022/06/27/7354838/

meduza's english lang summary-

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/06/28/we-work-on-the-information-front

i would be skeptical of anything she said in april, i think Cononsense (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this article but have concerns. First, the translation to English is grossly incorrect even for the title. Speaking about the Ukrainian language source, who is the author? I did not find anything about her. However, if it qualifies as RS, it does cast doubt on certain claims, especially about the infant rapes (it does not specifically mention the case in the title of this thread). But it is just that: casting a serious doubt, without providing a single example of any statement that was proven to be wrong. Things like that are typical for "yellow journalism". I wound not use this source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, Ukrayinska Pravda ended up changing the title and adding other text after a media firestorm

some criticisms here:

https://detector.media/community/article/200585/2022-06-30-ukrainska-pravda-vs-lyudmyla-denisova-shcho-krashche-rozyatryty-ranu-chy-zamesty-smittya-pid-kylymok/

i think the prosecutor general's office is likely to comment, so I would wait for that Cononsense (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Apparently, some claims came from the anonymous calling hotline established by Denisova; no criminal cases was opened. If so, then even the prosecutor general's office can verify little. But the claims were so widely published in many highest quality RS, so in my view, they should be included unless explicitly disproved or retracted (this is not the case). Looking at other most reliable and more recent sources about rapes [8], they say "The Ukrainian prosecutor’s office has not released its own case counts. Officials say they have only a partial picture of sexual assault in the conflict and don’t want to underplay the issue... The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has been working to corroborate accounts. Of the 124 allegations of conflict-related sexual violence it has received, it was able to confirm 24 — 12 involving Russian armed forces or affiliated groups, five involving Ukrainian armed forces and seven involving unidentified individuals in territory controlled by Ukraine. The United Nations determined that another 44 were impossible to verify and that eight were false or highly unlikely. It continues to investigate another 48 allegations. Pramila Patten, the U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, called that only the “tip of the iceberg” of “the most constantly and massively underreported allegation.”. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But these numbers are misleading. Basically, there are no meaningful statistical data. The best one can say is like Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said: “There have been multiple reports from survivors of Russia’s soldiers breaking down doors to basements where women were sheltering and raping them … done in front of their children” and “filmed by Russian soldiers,” (from article above). My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also this source can be used for updating the section on sexual violence. [9]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in March and April quality press outlets were relying extensively on her statements and often reported them (usually with attribution to the source) without verifying them. Denisova should not be taken as reliable source; what she says doesn't pass the threshold of WP:V unless it has been independently verified. We should identify contents exclusively supported by Denisova's statements and remove them from this article and elsewhere. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this revert [10] @My very best wishes I don't know if you can claim consensus. All the editors who took part to the discussions on this have expressed the view that Denisova cannot be considered as a reliable source on sexual crimes in Ukraine during the invasion. Although in April her statements were still reported by reliable sources, it then emerged that they were not verified enough: it's quite likely that she was just repeating what had been said to a telephone helpline without applying any check whatsoever. There's no reason why we should retain in this article this kind of allegations as we are committed to "strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources" WP:5P2. Are you sure you want to go down this road? No other editor (as far as I know) agrees with your assessment on the reliability of this kind of statements by Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputed that BBC and NYT are reliable sources, and we simply include what these sources say. The specific claims reported in these and other RS (as appears on the page) were not retracted or disproved in other RS. Hence they should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Publishing a statement without verifying its accuracy is just like publishing an interview, and interviews are a secondary source on the facts that are stated in the interview (and a primary source on those facts related to the views, feelings and experiences the interviewee). As any secondary source they need to be reliable to be published here. If NYT were to publish a declaration by Trump about the Confederacy having won the American civil war, that information would be verifiable enough for the article on Trump, but not verifiable enough for the article on the American civil war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes, I notified this discussion at RS/N: [11]. I ping also @Volunteer Marek, who recently reverted my last attempt to remove this (mis)information: [12]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't site news agencies as sources. If we want to stay neutral, we must use "reportedly" before any claim. Nothing is confirmed until the fog of war clears up. Can we practice neutrality like the Good old days? 103.58.74.214 (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the invider commits crimes reportedly. Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Reportedly" is weaselly. It gives no useful falsifiable information. Better attribute and NPOV and the reader will judge based on the various attributed claims. Boud (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes you removed not only the section on the missile in Donetsk [13] but also the new section on the Maisky Market attack [14]. With regard to the former, the section has been here since end-March so (unless I'm mistaken) it is you who should get a consensus for removing it from the article as per WP:NOCON. Many editors asked you not to remove the section. With regard to the second section, the one on Maisky Market, there WP:ONUS applies and I'm the one who needs to find consensus for inclusion. Could you tell me why you think that that is not a notable attack? I'm afraid that the removal of all the indiscriminate attacks on DPR is politically motivated and incompatible with WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First one was debated already on this page [15]. I do not see consensus. You included the section about Maisky Market attack a day ago: [16]. It is not even clear if this attack had happen at all; this is just a single claim by DNR rebels. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As about the missile attack in Donetsk, I could agree with you if (a) you provide a couple of RS saying that was a war crime, and (b) these RS say assertively who was the perpetrator. To my knowledge, the most recent strong RS [17] describe this as a propaganda stunt and a probable false flag attack. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least another editor has already pointed to you that it's not at all clear why the information on the identity of the perpetrators is necessary in order to publish. By the way, the information you're actually asking for is not about who the perpetrators are (we never know), it's about their nationality and/or the party they are fighting for. Which proves that your approach to war crimes is entirely political: it's a matter of distributing scores between fighting parties. But that can't be the approach of a Wikipedia article: we're interested in what happened (a war crime?) to whom (are there any victims?) and the information on who did it, while valuable, is not indispensable. Finally, the notion that we need "a couple" of RS is another fabrication of yours with no grounding in WP policy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just saying that too little was published about this incident and too little is known about it to be included on this already very long page. Or, in other words, according to the article in WaPo (linked above), this is just a minor episode in Russian war of propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on using WoPo, but we shouldn't rephrase or interpret what they say. They say: "Ruslan Leviev, founder of a Russian analytical group that uses open-source data to track military activities, said photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted." That's it. They don't say he was right, they don't say he was wrong. With regard to the responsibility for the attack, all they say is what we were saying in the section you removed: "Russia and its separatist proxies blamed the attack on a Ukrainian Tochka-U missile they said was intercepted, but Ukraine said it was a Russian missile." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what is your approach to the war? If you speculate on Mvbw one, please declare yours. Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"As consequence of the conflict, large swathes of the Donbas region, on both sides of the "contact line", have become contaminated with landmines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW)^[1]. According to the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine, in 2020 Ukraine was of one of the most mine-affected countries in the world, with nearly 1,200 mine/ERW casualties since the beginning of the conflict in 2014.^[2] A report by UNICEF released in December 2019 said that 172 children had been injured or killed due to landmines and other explosives, over 750 educational facilities had been damaged or destroyed, and 430,000 children lived with psychological traumas associated with war.^[3][4]"

A very good text describing Russian responsibility. The numbers are obviously obsolete. Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Xx236. Did you know that it was actually me who wrote that piece on landmines or did you pick it up randomly? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Et voilà [18]. It's a bit off topic, but thank you anyway for the appreciation Xx236. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I copy your accusations to better understand your pro-Russian motivation. It was Russia who totally destroied Donbas, expelled , murdered or imprisoned local people. The pre-2014 tensions look like eden to the contemporary vicitms. Russia attacked Ukraine using many false-flag operations, Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War), FSB and other formations officers. Russia refused to cooperate during Minsk format talks. Russia invided in 2022 without any rational reason, making the NATO stronger, suspending NS2. Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i've no pro-Russian motivation and I've always edited here and elsewhere without paying the slightest attention to the Russian/Ukrainian divide. Honestly this is not my war, otherwise I wouldn't be editing here. But if you think differently and want to discuss my motivations and allegiances, the right place is the thread now open at WP:AN/I. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do not comment your old text. Is my interpretation (that you criticized Russia) correct? Or maybe you criticized Ukraine and now the context has changed? Xx236 (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not aware of pro-Russian tone of your opinions and you provoke people inadevertendly? Will this Wikipedia be better without VM? It will be more biased, yes. Xx236 (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Maisky Market, it seems to me we are far from having sufficient sourcing. What we have is some sourcing saying that pro-Russian officials said that an attack took place. That's not the same thing. For example, the headline "Maisky market attack" is misleading. What we have is a claim by pro-Russian officials that there was an attack. Not only that, the sourcing of the pro-Russian claim is itself only moderately good. Hence this material is far from sufficient for inclusion. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Newsweek, Euronews and Reuters (plus video) are good enough sources. Admittedly there are many "unknowns", but DPR authorities called the incident a war crime ("terrorist attack"), which is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim given that a market is a civilian object, there are civilian casualties and no discernible military target - so this looks either as a deliberate attack on civilians or as an indiscriminate attack. A few lines on the incident should be included in a newly created section "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks">"Donetsk People's Republic" (now removed). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"DPR authorities" are Russian puppets. Let's not create false reality. Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple problems here. First of all, those are mid-level sources. Conspicuously absent from your list are NYT, BBC, Al Jazeera, or similar. But secondly, you cannot change "DNR officials said X" into "X". They are different statements. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I suspect there are a handful of Western journalists, if any, in DPR now, which means that what happens there necessarily gets a scarce coverage from our WP:RS here. But that's not a reason for sweeping under the carpet the small coverage that we get. Based on the sources we have, we can write with verifiable accuracy that On 13 June 2022, an artillery attack reportedly hit a marketplace in Donetsk, capital of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic. The attack happened at the Maisky Market in the central part of the city, starting a large fire. The pro-Russian Donetsk News Agency claimed the munitions used were "155-mm-calibre NATO-standard artillery munitions." Five civilians were killed, including a child, and at least 22 were left injured.
2. As far as I know allegations of war crimes, as opposed to independently verified and documented war crimes, have always sufficed for the purposes of inclusion in this article. Remember that (for some reason that I cannot understand) we are still reporting the unverifiable and highly dubious allegations of sex crimes involving children by former ombudsperson Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   "I suspect there are a handful of Western journalists, if any, in DPR now" This is Russian information war. Shall we help Russian propaganda in the name of neutrality? Let they allow professional journalists into DPR. Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sourcing of that one is a lot better. NYT and BBC and lots of others versus Newsweek and EuroNews. This is not a close question. Also note the appropriate way in which we follow the sources. We say "the prosecutor said X." That's exactly what the sources say. We do not, as your previous section did, change hearsay of X into a claim of X itself. Lastly, even if you disagree with the inclusion of the prosecutor's statement, the answer is not to go pushing some considerably-worse-sourced allegation from the other side. Doing it with a misleading title makes it that much worse. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source of Denisova's allegations is not NYT and BBC: the source is Denisova herslef (and the telephone helpline service she organised); NYT and BBC were merely reporting what she said, like Reuters and others are now reporting what the DPR authorities said. And Denisova is not a WP:RS, so when she says "a baby was raped with a tea spoon" (as she did) we shouldn't write that in our article unless that extraordinary claim is confirmed by independent sources. Here the situation is different. We are not saying "a war crime was committed!" (with wikivoice); we have never done that for any indiscriminate attack. We are just saying: "a bombing happened, civilians died, and X claims that this is a crime" (which, given the circumstances, is not an extraordinary claim). It's identical to what we've done several times before in many sections on indiscriminate attacks, and it's something that we can do with verifiable accuracy because we have enough reliable sources on that (Reuters, etc.). With regard to even if you disagree with the inclusion of the prosecutor's statement, the answer is not to go pushing some considerably-worse-sourced allegation, I'm afraid you are misrepresenting what I'm doing, and Denisova is not a prosecutor but was an ombudsperson. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of reorganising the 'legal proceedings' section, especially as I'm the person mainly responsible for having created a lot of the content there. It could probably still be improved further. The main thing I see in organising the material is that

• there are three components to actual war crimes investigations+trials:
  • ICC
  • Ukraine + supporting international teams (including US lawyers even though the US has not ratified the Rome Statute - the US reserves its citizens' "right" to carry out war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide)
  • universal jurisdiction;
• then there is the ICJ whose authority is often more moral than practical (the US refused to cooperate with the ICJ in the 1980s);
• there could hypothetically be created a court for the crime of aggression for cases excluded from the ICC, or even for the Russian invasion alone, but then that would like highly un-neutral (why exclude US crimes of aggression during the XXIst century?)
• investigations/enquiries by well-respected bodies that cannot conduct prosecutions
  • UNHRC International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine
  • HRMMU
  • OSCE ODIHR report

Maybe someone has a better idea than the current structure. A meaningful structure is better than a long list. Boud (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current structure makes sense. In abstract terms (but I don't know if it would be an improvement) one could re-arrange the existing sections in the following way:

1. National proceedings

1.1. Ukraine + subsections on international support

1.2. Russia (so far we have no contents)

1.3. Other countries (universal jurisdiction)

2. International proceedings

2.1. Judicial bodies.

2.1.1. ICC

2.1.2. ICJ

2.2. Monitoring bodies

2.2.1 OHCHR

2.2.2 Int. com. of enquiry

2.2.3. OCSE

3. Political reactions (to be updated: see e.g. the Joint statement at the G7) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reasonable to me and better than what I put, with the understanding that 2.1 and 2.2 would start with a brief sentence such as Judicial bodies that have started investigations include ..., i.e. "Judicial bodies" means "(investigations/prosections by) judicial bodies". Boud (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but we cannot say that the ICJ started an "investigation" because the Court has no investigative power, no prosecutor's office, and adjudicates on disputes submitted to it by states, and yet it's a judicial body because it is an independent court that settles disputes by applying legal standards. So maybe something like "International courts that have jurisdiction on cases originating from the Russian invasion of Ukraine include the ICC and the ICJ" would be more accurate - avoiding any reference to investigations and prosecutions that don't apply to the ICJ.

By the way, it would be very interesting to have some contents on the legal proceedings in Russia and more generally on the war crimes discourse going on there, "the other side". One could easily dismiss it as "propaganda" but even if it were propaganda and nothing but propaganda, still it would be interesting to know what people there are told about war crimes in Ukraine. I think it would fit the scope of this article, and maybe it would also be one of those cases in which the use of deprecated sources is acceptable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which 'war', you would be imprisoned. This is a special operation. Russian army liberates Russian people terrorized by Ukrainian Nazis. Russia constructs houses for local people. Which 'crimes', another reason to be imprisoned.

If you do not read Russian Julia Davis summarizes Russian tv poison in English.Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we cannot say that the ICJ started an "investigation" because the Court has no investigative power - true. "International courts that have jurisdiction on cases originating from the Russian invasion of Ukraine include the ICC and the ICJ" - yes, that's more carefully worded.

Legal proceedings in Russia and Russian-occupied territories - I partially agree: Russia is not Eritrea or North Korea. If cases claiming charges of war crimes are carried out, there'll quite likely be some reports in The Moscow Times or Meduza, and maybe in Kyiv Independent or western mainstream media, or analyses by legal experts. Someone would have to start an overview article on such trials (or article on individual trials) if they took place. However, I would see war crimes propaganda as a side topic to this article and best kept separate. Russia objectively still has a legal system, so trials for war crimes within that system, documented by WP:RS, could quite likely be on-topic here. Boud (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: shall we include a subsection on the March 2022 Donetsk attack in the section "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" of this article? Please say Yes/No and why. Q2: shall we include a subsection on the Maisky Market attack? Please say Yes/No and why.
A rough draft of the two subsections can be read in this sandbox. For background discussions see thread #one missile falls on Donetsk and thread #Indiscriminate attacks on Donetsk People's Republic above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (updated 00:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Survey

• Both questions No, sourcing is insufficient. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to both questions but combine into one subsection "Missile attacks on Donetsk People's Republic," I don't think these two events deserve separate subsections and also it's quite possible that there will be more attacks. Multiple reliable sources have reported on these events: Guardian, Reuters, Le Figaro and Euronews. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are following the developments. HRW include it in the list of attacks using cluster munitions - alongside the strikes on Chernihiv, Mykolaiv and Kharkiv which are (justly) mentioned in this article. Needless to say, WP:NPOV requires us to mention that there are different opinions regarding the responsible party (regarding the March strike) and that the June strike has not been independently verified. Alaexis_¿question? 07:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to both but combine into a single subsection (given the sources known on 18:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)), as per Alaexis, with appropriate NPOVing. Whichever side is responsible, it's difficult to see how either event would not be a war crime. Boud (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Commenting as the RfC creator. Yes to both, and I also agree on combining the two incidents into one subsection. We are already reporting nearly 20 indiscriminate attacks in Ukraine, some of which with far smaller casualties, and cherry picking the only attacks which might have been carried out by the Ukrainian forces in order to remove them is incompatible with WP:NPOV. Coverage in WP:RS is sufficient, and while there are many "unknowns", the sources we have already allow us to say something with verifiable accuracy: responsibility for the attacks is contested, but it is not disputed that the events occurred and killed civilians without any apparent military justification. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No to question 1. In the case of question 1, the proposed section is leaving out something critical. For the Donetsk missile attack, we have the following in the WaPo[19]:

  Ruslan Leviev, founder of a Russian analytical group that uses open-source data to track military activities, said photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted.

  This strongly suggests that the Ukrainian claim is correct, and Russia fired the missile. Of course the WaPo source is dated March 17, while the proposed section says "as of March 14 . . ." thereby excluding the March 17 source. I'll comment on question 2 separately. The upshot is that this was likely just another Russian attack, this time a false flag on its "own" people, which they've also done in the past; see for example Russian apartment bombings. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was a Russian missile that hit Donetsk and caused civilian casualties, why don't you think that this should be mentioned in the article? Alaexis_¿question? 19:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was replying regarding the proposed section. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably the RfC question should have been worded more clearly. Do you think these events should be mentioned in the article at all? Gitz6666, you might want to add a clarification to the RfC whether you seek feedback regarding the specific text or about mentioning these events in general. Alaexis_¿question? 19:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I sought feedback about mentioning the events in general. The specific text is there just for illustrating what this is all about, it can be modified and I expect contributors who don't have a simply Yes/No answer to make suggestions as to how modify it. If a consensus for inclusion were to emerge, then I guess we could publish the proposed text and then change it in the usual way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC). To make this clear, I just inserted rough draft in the opening statement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a reasonable way to look at it. For the closer, this would mean that if it passes, this RfC would be treated as support for inclusion of a section about the incident, but the specific text would not be treated as "supported by RfC". For my part, not sure what I think in that case. As I remember, the sourcing seemed so-so for this section anyway. I'll get back to that later. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looked into the sourcing. Still thinking not. Just compare the other subsections related to Donetsk Oblast. The other sections have main articles or main sections: Siege of Mariupol (twice), Mariupol theatre airstrike, Mariupol hospital airstrike, and Kramatorsk railway bombing. All of these have broad, deep, and extensive sourcing. The Donetsk missile also has a main article March 2022 Donetsk attack, but its sourcing is nowhere near the level of the others. The bottom line for me is that a lot of events in this war are going to have sources, as this one does, but one has to look at how broad and deep the sources are. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the sourcing for the events happening on the Ukrainian-controlled territory is much better, as most of media have no reporters on the Russian side. As a consequence, we have a good coverage of strikes causing civilian casualties in the Ukrainian-controlled territory and very poor coverage of such strikes in the Russian- and separatist-controlled territory, which would make the coverage unbalanced. In my view the solution is to mention these noting the issues with the sources and both sides' versions. Alaexis_¿question? 06:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to say that even though I reach a different conclusion, I don't find that view crazy. "The sourcing is bad for an identifiable reason, and we have to compensate" and "The sourcing is bad, so we leave out" are both reasonable ways to look at things. So while my conclusion here is different from yours, I don't think yours is fundamentally wrong. Cheers. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No to question 2 Essentially all of the sourcing is just reporting on the claim by the separatist "news" agency. That's not sufficient. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to question 1, with the caveat that additional information by analysts which state the Russia is likely responsible for the attack.
• No to question 2 unless there are reliable sources that can corroborate the claims made by the Russian seperatists.--Shadybabs (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to both questions, can't ignore the facts of what is happening on both sides. War is ugly, neither side is lillywhite. Mathmo ^Talk 02:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both Neither has lasting significance, sourcing for both is weak, both were staples of Russian propaganda on social media and that was more or less the extent of their coverage. Volunteer Marek 05:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a comment that if this ends up passing, we may want to mention that propaganda in the section, provided your statement above "both were staples of Russian propaganda on social media" can itself be sourced without WP:OR.Adoring nanny (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. If there are reliable sources on this, it would be interesting - and it would also increase the notability of the subject - if we were in the position to document how these incidents were presented in pro-Russian social media and press. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, at least as suggested, to question 1. The strongest and most recent RS on this subject was article in WaPo [20] entitled " Inside "Russia’s propaganda bubble: Where a war isn’t a war". It tells that according to Ruslan Leviev, a leader and founder of Conflict Intelligence Team, and independent fact checking organization, all "photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted [as claimed by DPR representatives]". Meaning, that was a false flag attack by Russian forces. But this is not what the suggested edit said. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how the suggested edit excludes the Conflict Intelligence Team information. A false flag attack by Russian forces deliberately killing civilians in Russian-occupied Donetsk using a missile is a war crime. The attribution can evolve as the sources improve in quality and number, but it seems unlikely for the event to be updated as not a war crime in future edits. Boud (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No to question 2. This incident/attack was so insignificant and poorly covered in RS that we do not even know if it actually happened. All we know is a single claim by DPR rebels, and they promoted numerous lies. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both No lasting significance.Just Alabama (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

New sources These excerpts from a recent report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are relevant for this RfC.

OHCHR has reasonable grounds to believe that both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups, as well as to a lesser extent Ukrainian armed forces, have been using weapons, in most cases MLRS and missiles, equipped with cluster munitions (...) OHCHR is concerned that both the Russian Federation and Ukraine have been using Tochka-U missiles armed with cluster munitions in their conduct of hostilities (...) OHCHR was able to identify and corroborate at least 10 attacks by Russian armed forces and 25 attacks by Ukrainian armed forces with the use of Tochka-U missiles. (...) Ten such incidents have resulted in at least 279 civilian casualties (83 killed and 196 injured): four incidents in Government-controlled territory (65 killed and 148 injured), four in territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups (16 killed and 41 injured) and two in territory controlled by Russian armed forces (2 killed and 7 injured) (...)
Emblematic attacks with the use of cluster munitions
31. On 14 March, Russian affiliated armed groups claimed to have intercepted a Tochka-U missile equipped with a cluster munitions warhead over the centre of Donetsk. As a result of the detonation of four sub-munitions in the vicinity of the missile’s crash site, 15 civilians were killed (3 women, 1 man, and 11 adults whose sex is still unknown) and 36 injured (20 women, 14 men, 1 boy, and 1 adult whose sex is still unknown). Ukrainian armed forces denied any involvement in the incident.
— The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24 February to 15 May 2022 (Report). OHCHR. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 11 July 2022.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do too much to the lede because I don't edit this page often. I've been trying to pare it down a bit and improve readability. I would say that the second paragraph is problematic because it has alot going on from Bucha Massacre, to UN Agency investigation, to abuse of POWs and these three ideas don't really fit together. I'd probably do something like the following, but won't because it's a fairly large change and I don't edit the article often:

After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv there was overwhelming evidence of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces of Ukrainian civilians.[15] There were reports of forced deportations of thousands of civilians, including children, from Russian-occupied Mariupol to Russia,[16][17] systematic sexual violence by Russian soldiers,[18][19] and deliberate killing of Ukrainian civilians by members of the Russian forces.[20] After Ukrainian forces recaptured the town of Bucha, evidence emerged of a massacre perpetrated by Russian troops, including torture and the deliberate killings of civilians.[21][22][23] According to Kyiv police, more than 900 bodies of civilians were found in the Kyiv region after Russian forces withdrew, most of them having been summarily executed.[24]

On 2 March, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened a full investigation into past and present allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide committed in Ukraine by any person from 21 November 2013 onwards and sent a team of investigators to Ukraine to begin collecting evidence.[33][34][35] Two other independent international agencies are also investigating violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law in the area: the International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, established by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 4 March 2022, and the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, deployed by OHCHR. The latter started monitoring human rights violations by all parties in 2014 and employs nearly 60 UN human rights monitors and has documented the unlawful killing of 50 civilians in Bucha, as well as the arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists, public officials and civil servants,[26][9][27] and has expressed concern about videos depicting interrogations of Russian soldiers by Ukrainian forces following their capture.[9] Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war have been repeatedly abused and exposed to public curiosity,[28][29] and on at least two occasions Russian prisoners have been tortured[30][31] and killed.[32]

On 7 April 2022, the United Nations suspended Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.[36] By early June, the Ukrainian Prosecutor's office documented more than 14,000 Russian war crimes, identified more than 600 suspects and initiated proceedings against approximately 80 of them.[37]

I realize the last two sentences are hanging abit, but the previous paragraph is really dealing wit the UN so they don't quite fit. Anyhow if you like it feel free to use, if not archive. Cheers. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the proposal, which is an improvement in my opinion - we'd better streamline the lead a bit so as to make it more readable, and this goes in the right direction. My two-penny worth:
1) We need to update some information, and this applies also to the current version of the lead. For instance, there's no need of saying According to Kyiv police, more than 900 bodies of civilians were found in the Kyiv region: we now have the OHCHR reporting 1,200 civilian bodies recovered in the Kyiv region alone. We should modify the sentence and the source, and in doing so we should also drop the sentence most of them summarily executed because that's definitely an overstatement and cannot be attributed to the OHCHR (which tells us that they are working on overall 300 allegations of deliberate killings). If some editor is worried that dropping that erroneous statement might make the lead less impactful, maybe Alcibiades979 could help us include somewhere that OHCHR also documented 270 cases of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of civilians (eight of which were found dead) and/or add a sentence on the Russian "filtration system". I also have some doubts about systematic and massive sexual violence: there might have been a bit of war propaganda here, and we should be aware of the risks of WP:RECENTISM.
2) I don't think that the reports by HRMMU/OHCHR should be placed in the paragraph on institutions and procedures. Here perhaps there's a misunderstanding because we are basically using the Monitoring Mission as a source for the "substantive part" of the lead (what crimes, committed by whom?) rather than reporting about their investigations, so we shouldn't move their findings (which need to be updated, from March to the recent ones of July) to the "procedural part" of the lead - the one on institutions, investigations, etc. Unlawful killings, arbitrary detentions, torture on POWs need to be reported alongside the other war crimes, like forced deportation and wilful killing. We could even drop all references to the Monitoring Mission, if we want, as now we have plenty of sources on these crimes. So my suggestion is to keep that part on arbitrary detention, torture, etc., in the second paragraph of the lead section, instead of moving it to a separate paragraph.
3) Maybe we could drop On 7 April 2022, the United Nations suspended Russia from the UN Human Rights Council because the connection with war crimes, if any, is flimsy and not evident. We could leave the info on the investigation by the Ukrainian Prosecutor either at the end or (best) at the beginning of the institutional/procedural paragraph. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"systematic and massive sexual violence by Russian soldiers"

This sentence might be inaccurate. On 5 July OHCHR released a statement [21] where they say that the HRMMU has verified 28 cases of conflict-related sexual violence, and that The extent of violations is not yet clear given the active hostilities.... So we'd better be cautious. Also the 6 June report by the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict is noteworthy [22]. While she says that Allegations of sexual violence by Russian troops in Ukraine are mounting and that Sexual violence in this war is the most hidden crime, nothing in her report suggests that sexual violence by Russian soldiers is "systematic and massive" (compared to what? to what would be desirable? to peace times? to other similar wars in the past?). I think that we should replace reports of ... systematic and massive sexual violence by Russian soldiers with repots of ... sexual violence, including cases of rape, gang rape and torture, quoting OHCHR as source.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News reporters are not always experts in international law. Very often they have grave misconceptions. I just did what I often do when I browse WP: I went to a random place in an article and clicked on a random source to check if it was used correctly. It actually was for the most part (which is unfortunately not that common), but it was citing an unattributed assertion by the journalist, which took me all of two seconds to prove wrong. Citation 147 in the article:

While fléchettes are not prohibited under international law, their use in residential areas may qualify as the war crime of indiscriminate attack.[147]^[1]

Which cites The Guardian, where the supporting quote for "may qualify as the war crime" is

Although human rights groups have long sought a ban on fléchette shells, the munitions are not prohibited under international law. However, the use of imprecise lethal weapons in densely populated civilian areas is a violation of humanitarian law.

This was attributed to no expert, no-one, and the first search result on the topic is the Red Cross in 2022:

There is no general prohibition under international humanitarian law against using heavy explosive weapons in populated areas; however, such use must comply with all the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, notably the prohibitions against indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks and the obligation to take all feasible precautions in attack.^[2]

(The Guardian's fact checkers are typically pretty good btw, so this should not have been missed, and while you can weasel a justification for the wording, that's not how fact-checking in a newspaper works.) This WP article is full of what are seem like guesses at what international and domestic law seems like it could/might/ought to be. Journalists are not RS on subjects for which they have no expertise: if it is not readily apparent from the article that they had someone who knows international law as a source, or perhaps if they are experienced in covering war on both a policy and ground level, then they cannot be an RS for what can be judged to be "potential war crimes". Now obviously nobody will ever go before the ICC for any of this, but I'm saying even to talk about crimes in theory you need someone who knows something about the laws. Again, there are a lot of misconceptions.^[3] SamuelRiv (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. "... their use in residential areas may qualify as the war crime of indiscriminate attack" seems fully supported by the very sources you're quoting. The "violation of humanitarian law" the Guardian is referring to is clearly the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks, which may be committed by using weapons and tactics that are inherently indiscriminate, such as landmines and cluster munitions. Using these weapons is not in itself prohibited but the attacker needs to take special care so as to avoid excessive civilian casualties, which maybe in Bucha didn't happened. If you're looking for not sufficiently verifiable contents in the article I suggest you carefully read the section on sexual violence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subtler reading than my frustration may warrant perhaps, but subtlety is often what's important in controversial and technical matters. The WP article's wording is not as bad as The Guardian's. Look at the first sentence of ICRC, who generally have a pretty good understanding of international law in their reports, and compare to The Guardian's wording in their second sentence. They would have been on steadier ground with a simple transposition: "The imprecise use of lethal weapons in densely populated civilian areas ...". As far as the WP article, it's better in being a conditional and classifying as a crime of indiscriminate attack, but the clear implication in the structure of the sentence is that the use of high explosives in residential areas is itself indiscriminate, which is not the case. At the core of my frustration is when this happens with a current, important article in which misinformation is detrimental to public discourse, and there's a misrepresentation on the very first random citation I check. Obviously this is not the first time.

I did a second random check and landed in the nuclear power section. Since most of it was direct quotes or noncontroversial supporting facts, there wasn't much that could be wrong, and what I did check was supported by citations, which is great. I'll say for the sake of article length and style there seems to be a lot of weight thrown around to accusations by relative nobodies, or as part of a global PR campaign, which is of course followed by weight given to official replies, all of which is wasted space to say absolutely nothing. Propaganda has been part of war since its inception, and WP:NOTNEWS is in part a guideline to not report anytime someone cries wolf. There's the facts of an attack, and experts opine on whether or not it's legal -- that's all that's necessary IMO. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, "imprecise use of lethal weapons" means bad soldiering skills, but doesn't amount to the crime of indiscriminate attack, which requires an element of intent: basically, that you don't give a f* about whether you're going to hit military objectives or civilians, which arguably is the case when you're using indiscriminate weapons in heavy populated areas. With regard to nuclear plants, we've had lots of discussions on this talk page. The last one was this [23], and we came to the somewhat paradoxical but honest conclusion that the reason we're having it here on this article is... that we just want to have it. The best sources say that the attack was contrary to IHL, but doesn't qualify as a war crime. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, what is your source regarding military technology and skills of the Russian army? As far as I know it is a political decision to use obsolete and unprecise arms. And a political decision to use untrained cannon fodder kidnapped in Donbas.

BTW, will you in the future accept my "Imprecise use of English language"? My skills are equally bad like Russian soldiering skills. I may attack you indiscriminately rationalizing my words with your rationalization/whatewashing of Russian crimes. If you accept mass crimes, would you demand banning me on the basis of my language problems?Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Words don't kill, at least not here on Wikipedia. Yet I'm afraid you're misunderstanding what I said: I said that in Bucha the Russians (according to reliable sources) DID NOT make an "imprecise use of weapons" (which wouldn't amount to a war crime), but rather used inherently imprecise, indiscriminate weapons in a populated area, which (according to reliable sources) may well qualify as a war crime. Plus there are all the other horrible things they did there (deliberate killing of civilians, sexual violence and possible torture, summary execution of POWs). So you see, what I said cannot be interpreted as "accepting mass crimes". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in this article violates synthesis. SYN provides examples where two statements, both reliably sourced, are conjoined in order to imply a conclusion not in the original source(s). When someone threw a shoe a George W. Bush, it would have been odd to write, "While being in possession of shoes is not prohibited in Egyptian law, throwing them at people may qualify as a crime." TFD (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would you better express what the RS says (the use of imprecise lethal weapons in densely populated civilian areas is a violation of humanitarian law)? Although I'm pretty sure the violation of IHL the source is referring to is the prohibition on indiscriminate attack, you're both right that the formulation we use (their use in residential areas may qualify as the war crime of indiscriminate attack) adds something to what the source says. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is not a RS for how law works (and that sentence is downright wrong per before). WP:RSLAW applies to international law too. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Guardian is indeed a RS, and I will trust it over the opinion of random Wikipedia editor. If you really believe The Guardian is not an RS take it to WP:RSN (good luck with that). Volunteer Marek 00:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing over whether reliable sources are experts in international law or whether some event fits somebody’s definition is completely irrelevant. If reliable sources call it a war crime so do we. Volunteer Marek 02:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [24] - adding sources (e.g. ISW) which say that the destruction of Mariupol was a war crime is great. But as far as the relevance to the subject of the page has been established, providing more details on the destruction of Mariupol using other sources is fine. One does not need every source to say "that was a war crime". That would be ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So international law is relative now? Sounds like an outlook for a life completely grounded in reality. Yes, sources such as the BBC do need to say something is or may be a war crime, and that statement has to come from someone who knows what a war crime actually is.

  And for those who have not gotten it through their heads yet, let's do a quick primer: there is no threshold for how many civilians get killed in how brutal a manner for something to become a war crime, nor for how many houses or how much infrastructure gets destroyed. If someone dies, that's awful, but death does not in itself imply the crime of murder occurred. Take that analogy, and make it 100 times more cynical, and you'll approach international law. Or you can read about your legal protections for yourself. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources detailing a UN Report about Ukraine forces positioning military personnel in a Nursing Home. Would suggest the “Human shields” section needs updating, sources below. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-says-ukraine-stationed-troops-in-nursing-home-bears-some-blame-for-march-attack/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-10/un-report-finds-ukraine-russia-responsible-for-attack/101224672

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/un-says-ukraine-bears-share-of-blame-for-nursing-home-attack/2022/07/09/ea608b44-ff3d-11ec-b39d-71309168014b_story.html

I had already added a line on the incident in the human shields section a few days ago. Based on the new sources we can now add more contents. The following source also looks reliable and informative: [25]. We should probably move the subsection on the care home in Kremmina from "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" to "Human shields". On the balance of sources it appear that the attack was directed against a military objective as the Ukrainian forces had set up a machine gun nest and an anti-tank firing position in the care home.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source literally says "The report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime.". In that light, putting this into this article is clearly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 17:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OHCR report does not refer to this incident as a war crime. It says it’s “concerned” about these types of incidents. Further, we have another source, Times of Israel, which explicitly states that the OHCR did not label this a war crime.

Please stop edit warring to get this in. Start an RfC if you insist on including this piece of WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop misrepresenting the misrepresentation that is that Times of Israel quote. "Does not conclude" would be accurate for anything one does not inquire about in the first place. I linked to the press release below, and ok, I suppose human shields are a "concern" (keep in mind in all my deletions I was willing to keep in anything that is self-evidently a war crime -- human shields yes, dead civilians no), so then I figured I would be nice and do even more homework for you people and get the June report itself (even though that was also linked in my comment below on the main UNHR Ukraine portal). III-B-34: "OHCHR is concerned that in the course of hostilities, both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups as well as Ukrainian armed forces took up positions either in residential areas or near civilian objects, ... The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I." Now can we start to come to some sort of understanding for the good of common sense? A reporter from the Times is not an RS about international law, but the UN OHCHR (among others, like the NGOs that work with them -- I have hardly been unreasonable) is. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no any misrepresentation whatsoever. "the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude...". Yes, that is what this source and others (PBS, VOA, Euronews) [26],[27], [28]) say on this matter. Yes, this is possibly an interpretation of comments by UN office, the report itself would be a primary document. That's why we are using secondary RS. Remember that authors of secondary RS may use not only the primary documents they comment about, but also a lot of other information. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing based on your own analysis of the primary source in such case is a WP:OR. Sorry for possibly incorrect edit summary ("UN explicitly said"); this needs to be referenced to multiple news reports (strong secondary RS). My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice dude, three sources with the exact same wording, all three citing partial credit to AP, and the Times gives AP the dateline credit. So it's just one source: AP, who says they are getting it from the report. You can see the conclusions section of the report for yourself, and indeed, they don't accuse either side directly of committing specific war crimes. However they do say in incidents 46, 80, 88, 105 (not limited to those) that they were tantamount to war crimes or if confirmed would be war crimes or may be war crimes. Not that that means anything compared to the rigorous standard of proof that this article requires. And your interpretation of both primary sources and WP:OR is completely wrong. The UN report itself is either primary or secondary depending on what you get from it (raw data, interview quotes, etc. in a report are primary, while something like an estimate or tentative assessment is secondary, unless it's in an article about that UN org), and of course the UN had a summary statement on the report linked previously if that makes you more comfortable. WP:OR is entirely for article content, not whatever magic you're saying is improper about me explaining the basics of what's in an article you apparently refuse to read. If you really want a "secondary" source on the UN (as in a third party writing about the report) that covers this event, there is one, but I still have enough respect for the intelligence of the editors here not to link it. Now the next time you want to link a stupid news report to me, make sure it's not the exact same AP article. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where these conclusions/claims by multiple news report sources came from, but that is what they say. They are saying it specifically about this incident, not about all incidents mentioned in the UN report. I agree that UN report itself is a great source for this page, and it does not seem to explicitly contradict to these news reports - according to your comment above. This is all I can say. Sorry, but I am not an expert and have limited time to look at these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24 February to 15 May 2022 (Report). OHCHR. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
A summary is "Ukraine: High Commissioner updates Human Rights Council". OHCHR. 5 July 2002. Retrieved 2022-07-06. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, section on Kharkiv oblast only describes some episodes of shelling of the city in March-April and general summaries from various human rights organisations. Also, for some reason three episodes of bombardments have their own pages: February 2022 Kharkiv cluster bombing, March 2022 Kharkiv cluster bombing, April 2022 Kharkiv cluster bombing. It makes an incorrect impression that there were no or not a lot of bombardments in the further periods, while in reality Kharkiv has been bombed almost every day since the beginning of March (it is reflected by an almost complete list of missile strikes on Kharkiv in the Ukrainian wikipedia, though even this list is not comprehensive). I would like to volunteer to add this information to the English version of the article, but I am not sure about the proper way to do it. The list is too long to keep it here, so I suggest to move it to a separate section in the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) page and reference it here. Cannibal Rat (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a good idea, but if you want to discuss it the right place is the talk page of Battle of Kharkiv (2022). Another possibility is to create May 2022 Kharkiv cluster bombing (obviously only for cluster bombing). The two options are not alternative to each other. With regard to this article, the last update we made was about the 13 June Amnesty International report, which mentions the relentless campaign of indiscriminate bombardments against Kharkiv. However, if there are reliable sources on attacks against civilians objects, indiscriminate attacks or other war crimes in Kharkiv, they should be publish also here. For publishing them here usually it is necessary that a reliable sources states that the attack was a war crime, or might have been a war crime according to someone (e.g. Ukrainian officials), or describes the attack in a way that doesn't leave any doubt about it being a war crime (to that end, evidence of civilian casualties is not enough). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have two questions regarding the topic. Firstly, if some event is both a bombardment in the scope of a battle of Kharkiv and a war crime, should it be duplicated in both articles? Secondly, is the fact of indiscriminate shelling of a residential area enough to add it to this page or should it be directly and literally called a "war crime" by a reliable source? Because the problem is that missile strikes on Kharkiv are so regular now, that sometimes only local media actually write about them in detail. P.S. Regarding your proposition about a separate article on May cluster bombings: recently most of the strikes were done using HE warheads or undisclosed types of warheads, so I don't think that it would be appropriate. --Cannibal Rat (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First question: if some event is both a bombardment in the scope of a battle of Kharkiv and a war crime, then it should be duplicated in both articles, yes, but the description in this article should perhaps be briefer - we would anyway have hatnotes and wikilinks pointing to the article where the event is described in greater detail. To the second question there's not a right or wrong answer, but I think that if you don't have a source stating that the event is a war crime, then any editor could question the opportunity of including information about it. My personal view is that it would be entirely within the scope of the article if one were to expand the paragraph on Amnesty international June report by adding information on at least the main "28 indiscriminate strikes in populated areas" documented by Amnesty. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

local news sources are fine if they have a reputation as reliable. If you are unsure whether this is the case, a lot of them have been discussed at WP:RSN. Each individual source does not have to individually call each bombing a war crime — indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is a war crime and anybody paying attention at all should know this — but in the name of caution, if there are multiple sources, you should prioritize those that do or specify that there were no military targets in the area. The most important. Is to use reliable sources however Elinruby (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS -Gitz is correct. Detail in the bombing article, summary in war crimes article, since there are so many Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I searched and could not find any reference to this particular incident, which took place just this month. Are intentionally directed attacks upon schools, colleges and universities considered war crimes? Source: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/07/06/ukraine-Ukraine-Volodymyr-Zelensky-Kharkiv-university-artillery/4981657148721/ 2601:644:301:D0B0:61B8:28AB:DE43:F463 (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there's very little media coverage (also [29] [30] [31]) but personally I wouldn't doubt that this qualifies as a war crime (unless the University was being used for military purposes, in which case it would qualify as a legitimate military objective). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only victim of the attack is the concierge/security of the university, so I doubt it. --Cannibal Rat (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely that it is a war crime, yes. But in light of the relatively narrow coverage, this would likely be WP:UNDUE for the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the coverage was quite wide in the Ukrainian sources. However, there is a tendency that artillery and missile attacks on the regions that are close to the frontline (Kharkiv region, Donetsk region, Mykolaiv region) do not make it to the international news, because they are too regular. E.g. Kharkiv was shelled literally every day except for two since the beginning of the war. I am not sure how to define the weight of an event such this case. --Cannibal Rat (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian sources can and should be used also for establishing the notability of an event. In this case, as there was only one victim and coverage seems scarce, I suggest to add one or two lines at the end of Bombing of Kharkiv, so as not to disrupt the chronological ordering of the section. Having a self-standing subsection on this incident would not be justified, but IMHO a couple of lines are appropriate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this definitely seems like WP:UNDUE if only one person died (remember, we're talking about Europe's biggest country here! Let's not get bogged down in small details), unless there are other major factors which makes this specific case worth highlighting. Mathmo ^Talk 02:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Whether or not something is a war crime is a matter to be determined by experts reported in reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/booby-traps-ukraine-conflict/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/russia-ukraine-war-invasion-retreat-zelenskiy-kyiv-us-biden-uk-evacuees-escape-mariupol

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/russians-planted-thousands-of-land-mines-and-booby-traps-ukrainians-say-7868817/ Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. In the cited sources (esp. #1) this is described as a war crime. My very best wishes (talk)

Lieber's blog requires inline attribution because he seriously is shockingly bordering on fringe in that post with a number of blatantly inaccurate statements in the intro. The other two are not RS on law. And "of course not" is not an accurate characterization of how law applies, especially in war. If a soldier sets a trap in an urban area and a noncombatant trips it and is killed, is that on its face a crime? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no requirements for sources to be about law. They just need be RS, and the article in Th Guardian certainly qualify as such. So, yes, that should be included. There are many more sources, such as [32],[33],[34], and so on. Scatterable land mines is an especially terrible weapon [35]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-personnel mines are awful and they should be banned. You wanna guess who didn't ban them? How about cluster munitions? And just in case you thought international law cared about your feelings on how terrible a weapon is, consider the amount of loopholes in the Chemical Weapons Convention. If you don't think use of RS on international law should be guided by RSLAW, we can go to WP:RSN if you like. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have another instance where SamuelRiv is attempting to replace reliable sources with their own “expert” opinion. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn’t work like that. Volunteer Marek 00:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prose content of this article is currently about 107,000 characters or 16,000 words or 280 kb of source text, which is easily long enough to start thinking of another WP:SPLIT. A default technical limit in the number of references will also occur when this is too high. I suggest that people start thinking about sections that can be split off as individual articles, with brief summaries to be written and retained here (the lead of the new article would more or less be the summary in this article, apart from differences for context). Many sections are already split off, and their summaries can't be condensed much more.

A practical approach would be that someone willing to do the actual work of doing the split of a big section should make a proposal (though I'll suggest Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks while warning that I don't expect to do the work, and thinking up a valid title would be a challenge), and ask if there are any objections. Boud (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think some small sections can simply be excluded as undue/low significance for this page. For example, we have a section that is all about a single video of unknown origin posted on YouTube. We also have a section about an event that was explicitly described by UN as "not a war crime", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i think we should move the "targeting of nuclear plants" and "genocide" sections to their respective articles and the "denying free passage to civilians" section to "siege of Mariupol". maybe also detention camps and abduction of Ukrainian children to their respective articles too, although we could link these articles in the see also section, some sections of the indiscriminate attacks part may also need to be looked into, still, if youre talking about the mala rohan torture case in the video thing, it was confirmed, so its probably relevant, another suggestion would be to move the reactions and proceedings section to a separate article (so we can keep only documented war crimes here), any thoughts? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removing the Genocide section because it is already a summary of Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Splitting off a subtopic does not mean leaving the reader with no idea that that subtopic exists. Instead, we leave (or write) a brief summary and cross-link. In the Genocide case, we already have a sub-article, a summary and a cross-link. (I shifted the random sentence that someone had inserted to the Genocide talk page.

The sections that are currently under RfC or being negotiated should probably rather wait. Boud (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. These sections should be kept, I did not suggest removing them. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK - just to clarify: I was only responding to 187.39.133.201's points there. Boud (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Indiscriminate attacks during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine looks like a good idea to me. I hope I'll be able to publish my article on "Indiscriminate attack" in the next few days. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure then, i wont oppose keeping the genocide section, i just made a suggestion, although a article separately about the indiscriminate attacks sound a good idea, i still think we should move "targeting of nuclear power plants" and "denying free passage to civilians" part to their respective articles, same with the others i proposed there, the less amount of excessive content on this page the better. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea I think. "Indiscriminate attacks" by definition "are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. [36]. They are war crimes, and they are happening, but a lot of them during this war are not indiscriminate, but directed specifically against civilian targets and civilian infrastructure, such as shopping malls, the theater in Mariupol with children, etc. Such attacks are designed to terrorize the civilian population and rather belong to terror, terrorism or genocide. Putting them to the category of "Indiscriminate attacks" means downplaying them. My very best wishes (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sure, although i dont know a exact word for the article name that would also include the purposefully done attacks, could maybe be "Indiscriminate and -word- attacks during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn’t seem this yet when I responded below to the mention of my user name, but suggested a spit for events that are being removed as “not a war crime” but are nonetheless crimes of aggression or crimes against humanity. Therefore I am, inthe abstract, in favor of a split, but suspicious of how this might be implemented in the details. Case in point, events in Mala Rohan are not “confirmed,” although this article said so until I recently corrected it. Elinruby (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the word that IP187 is looking for is "deliberate" or "direct attacks". That could cover e.g. the Mariupol theatre airstrike. However "Indiscriminate and deliberate etc." is a bit too long and not immediately intelligible to everyone. I suggest one of the following two:

1) "Attacks on civilians etc.". Perhaps a bit inaccurate because we won't be dealing with willful killings, etc.

2) "Indiscriminate attacks' and then in the lead we explain that some of them may be deliberate and some others may be legitimate military attacks with civilian casualties, but we choose them because they'd been described as war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I removed about half of a section that was essentially daily news coverage of people dying and buildings being destroyed, but there was no mention of war crimes or even tangential hints that a war crime was happening. Even if there were claims of war crimes, all the sources were newspapers, which are extremely dubious per WP:RSLAW. But of course this gets reverted, with two-word edit summaries: "Not policy"; "This stays". Yes, RSLAW is a clarifying essay that is linked at the bottom of the guideline page WP:RS. Even if it were an essay by some nobody in their userspace, it talks about the pitfalls of law interpretation by non-experts -- everyone should review it if they're reviewing sources for this article that is about law.

Before splitting the article per the above section, let's separate out the chaff, because if this section was a representative sample, that'll be about half the article. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That can be made shorter, yes, but the destruction of Mariupol should be described in more detail than you did. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please redo my edit then and keep the details you want. Of course, those details must somehow be directly related to what is reliably claimed by someone to be a possible war crime. That is a ridiculously low burden for inclusion, one that is not acceptable for most of WP, but I'm fine with it as even a standard as low as that will improve this article significantly. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that we shouldnt have a list of disparate local news stories, but if the building was bombed, it was bombed. Reporting attribution should wait for at least a decent source, but the event can be notable in and of itself Elinruby (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The event is absolutely notable and should be covered, in an article about the building, or an article about the bombing, or possibly an article about the city if the building was notable among those bombed. But again, not to belabor the point (well actually yes, to belabor the point), this is an article about war crimes. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: It's not enough for a building to be bombed to be on-topic in this article, it has to be, for example, a civilian building, or dedicated to religion, education, art, science, ... hospitals .... @SamuelRiv: Indeed, the belaboured point is pertinent. What are war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute? Article 8.2.(b).(ii): Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; ... Article 8.2.(b).(ix): Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives.

So was 95% or so of Mariupol a military camp?

A separate issue is converting from a day-by-day timeline to a summary of the key points. Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure is a war crime: that's not controversial. Boud (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, of course. What I was trying to express is that this is independent of the perpetrator Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of sources that describe what happened in Mariupol as a possible war crime, that is, "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". Had I not been busy elsewhere recently (ehm ehm), I would have already finished this article on "Indiscriminate attack". Anyway, OHCHR speaks of serious violations of international humanitarian law and gross violations of international human rights law [37]. The Russian army has been repeatedly accused of disregarding the distinction between civilian and military objectives in Mariupol (e.g. by HRW [38]): after having opened a few humanitarian corridors at the beginning of March, they simply decided to wipe out the all area. While sieges are not prohibited by IHL, the besieging party should allow civilian population to leave and humanitarian aid to enter the area. So this is a possible war crime and needs to be reported as such in this article.

However, we should also trim away excessive details especially when duplicated in the dedicated article Siege of Mariupol. I might have missed something, but at first sight @SamuelRiv's bold edit looks a good contribution to me. If I'm not wrong, all the information they removed are already reported in "Siege of Mariupol".

One last note: as I and other editors have already stressed on many occasions, re Mariupol the biggest problem is with the "Denying free passage to civilians" subsection, where no allegation of war crimes is discernible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To agree with Gitz and address the comments above: OHCHR, HRW, IRC, and even Amnesty (despite occasional ridiculous stuff in reports like saying cluster bombs are banned -- Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. are not signatories) are all acceptable sources under RSLAW, and in my edit I removed material from exactly none of those. I failed to assess the legal credentials of staff writers and editors at Sky News, however. And while most journalists can cite the case law protecting their own rights by heart, but that still doesn't amount to a single class on how law actually works. Regarding Article 8 (and every other treaty on the matter), what matters is intention and the lack of military targets. Nobody has seriously accused Russia in general of intentionally targeting civilian targets in lieu of military ones (small arms incidents are a separate matter -- this is about artillery, bombs, and the like), and in the WaPo article (ref 43) the explanation is what you'd expect: "Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets". And this is exactly what you've heard if you've been following the news since the beginning: the bulk of Ukraine's forces fell back to the cities. There also seems to be some notion that if a civilian target is hit that the burden is on the attacker to demonstrate they weren't liable, which also has no bearing on reality, for pretty much any crime anywhere for that matter.

Of course the more salient laws for this particular section might be those which deal with indiscriminate attacks, and not intentional. But here the definition of indiscriminate is much more narrow than you might think: "Indiscriminate attacks" are defined as those not directed at a specific military objective, those that employ a method or means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific military objective, or those that employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited (API Art. 51.4). Bombs, missiles, and artillery all have blast radii which create collateral damage, and then all miss occasionally, and their general use has never been considered indiscriminate, even in cities and even when civilians casualties are part of the collateral damage. Remember, IHL was written by people who wanted to ensure they could still kill each other without having to worry about that kind of thing.

Tldr: No relevant RS were removed; Mariupol indeed had military targets per RS (which is mentioned, which I kept, and I also kept the war crimes accusations from RS that would be negated if it were universally true), deliberate destruction of civilian targets without clear military purpose (and some other exceptions and caveats) is indeed a war crime, but no RS said there was deliberate targeting (and if they were an RS per RSLAW they can of course be mentioned), and all of these things contradict Elinruby's idea that this is somehow independent of the perpetrator. Law is not what you think it 'ought' to be. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I dislike being misquoted, but granted that my previous short remarks may have lent themselves to this. When I said “independent of the perpetrator” I meant that a war crime is a war crime independent of who commits it. It would help the discourse on this page if we all spent less time refuting was has not been said. Since I am here opining about this, I will add a few things that seem to me to need to be said. Some of the editors who have worked on this page possibly have not processed the distinction between war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. Possibly the article should be renamed or perhaps there should be an article about crimes against humanity in this war, but this is one area I see where people are arguing based on different definitions. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that cluster bombs are not strictly speaking illegal, but they are considered so reprehensible that most countries have agreed not to use them. Not illegal does not however mean not notable or horrific. As above, perhaps we need an article split. I have noted this in the past and made an edit about it as I recall, but perhaps this has been lost in intervening edits. I do however oppose as silly stating after every single incident that so and so called it a war crime. This is Wikipedia not a legal brief. Elinruby (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"There also seems to be some notion that if a civilian target is hit that the burden is on the attacker to demonstrate they weren't liable, which also has no bearing on reality, ..."' Using the same source, The respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects rests on the obligation of the parties to the conflict to distinguish between ... This obligation is one of the foundations of humanitarian law. (bold added by me). So there is a burden for the attacker to establish distinguishing civilians from combatants and civilian from military objects. Boud (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The obligations that individuals and states have are different from the basic principle that the burden of affirmatively establishing the elements of an assertion rests upon the party alleging them (sec. 4). (The "respondent" case refers to affirmative defense or counterclaims (sec. 6)). But this is a level of analysis we shouldn't be going into -- our only concern should be to separate sources who can be considered reliable commentators on law. Also worth considering are those who can qualify as claimants in international law, which is exclusively states (so heads of State can be quoted), or respondents, which can be individuals -- see e.g. for a tangential overview Clapham 2010).

Per above, this is indeed WP, and clearly most of the population doesn't know what a war crime actually is, so we absolutely do need to say explicitly when a RS (per RSLAW) says a given incident may be a war crime. Any incidents without such explicit affirmation should be completely omitted, otherwise their very presence in an article with this title misleads a lay reader (which is, again, the vast majority of the audience). SamuelRiv (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We had a few discussions before on how to determine the scope of this article and especially the notion of "war crime". If I'm not wrong, the main one was this. For the record, I argued (and still believe) that we shouldn't be overly interested in what qualifies as a war crime under current IHL: we're editors, not lawyers, and even if we were expert lawyers, we don't have enough information about what happened on the ground (the facts). Plus "war crime" is a legal concept (and lawyers disagree on its definition and reference) but it is also a concept of ordinary language where it basically means - I think - serious "crimes" (violation of human rights, heinous acts) committed in the context of a war and connected to the war. Dismissing the privilege of the legal jargon over common parlance would grant us as editors a greater freedom to include meaningful contents (some of them are here). I didn't get consensus on this, and we basically agreed that for inclusion it is necessary to have a source qualifying the incident as a war crimes or unquestionably describing it as such - which I think it's also a viable and far less "inclusionist" criterion. Finally, I've recently proposed to rename this article "International crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", so as to account for the fact that most editors want to include a section on genocide (which is not a war crime). However, no one agreed and I myself don't feel that the point is that important. To me it's more important that we are consistent with the criterion we've decided to apply, so as to avoid NPOV and UNDUE.

Currently there are a few sections that do not describe war crimes based on the "stricto sensu" criterion we had decided to follow: "Denying free passage of civilians", "Detention camps" and "Targeting of nuclear power plants" (and possibly also "Genocide"). I think we should retain these section if we adopt the more inclusionist "lato sensu" criterion, and if we stick to the old "stricto sensu", we should drop them. Anyway, bottom line is that (1) we need an objective criterion, we cannot decide on a case by case basis, otherwise we become engulfed in endless discussions; (2) that criterion should not be too lawyerly, because we don't have neither the expertise nor the sources and we'd inevitably end up in doing original research on what the law "truly establishes". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

was there ever any discussion of a section spelling out the definitions of war crime, crimes against humanity, etc? Because I think that shelling a nuclear power plant should definitely be considered regardless of whether it would be difficult to prove that those responsible *knew* that it could be dangerous. This is an example of the sort of distinction that infuriates some readers. It was definitely reckless as hell. It needs to be discussed somewhere. I am not sure I am actually advocating a “crimes against humanity” section, because I think it would aggravate the article’s already strong tendency to OR, but it would solve the above concern for example. Also, this article is about events, not laws. If an article strictly about law in this war is found to be needed, it should also cover the Ukrainian statutes under which the Ukrainian prosecutors are gathering evidence Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed in the end we all agreed that we wanted to have that section in the article because the attack was important, widely covered, and reckless, and dangerous. However, apparently under current IHL it was not a war crime, according to the legal expert who wrote one of the RS quoted in the section. Besides, it appears that the Ukrainians started to fire when the Russians were approaching, and this also qualifies as a violation of IHL in those circumstances (the expert says) although not a war crime. Until recently we had the following text in the section (recently removed during one the last edit wars):

Had the Ukrainian forces heavily fired at Russian forces, as alleged by the Russian army, that might have breached the Passive Precautions section of Article 56, paragraph 5, which imposes specific precautions associated with the location of military objectives in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, although it permits defensive installations used defensively. An analysis of security camera videos by NPR shows that the firefight began when a Russian tank advancing on the facility was struck by a missile from Ukrainian forces.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never suggested that editors should evaluate what the law is. I have said that RS per RSLAW should be the only sources accepted to opine on what a (non-obvious) legally defined term is. And while there something called customary international law, that also has legal bounds. We also don't have to define war crimes (which are defined in several treaties) in this article since we can just wikilink to it, and again, this article should not be concerned with our own evaluation (beyond of course the evaluation of WP:NONSENSE), nor should it implicitly encourage the reader to do their own evaluation. Incidentally, per an earlier comment, crimes against humanity also have a legal definition per the ICC; crimes of aggression too, and genocide and ethnic cleansing (though the latter two are also alternatively defined in lay academia, which means WP:SCHOLARSHIP is also allowed if in a relevant field).

If this standard of RS is an impasse, we should take this to WP:RSN. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can take this to RS/N. I will try to explain why I don't agree with yours Even if there were claims of war crimes, all the sources were newspapers, which are extremely dubious per WP:RSLA and with the notion that this article is about law. I think this article is about what happens in Ukraine as seen through the lens of war crimes discourse, which is not exclusively a legal discourse. To be more down to earth: let's say we have a RS saying that according to Ukrainian officials something is a war crime, shall we publish? I think we should. A RS describes something which is obviously a war crime (willful killing of civilians, torture, etc.) without saying explicitly that it is a war crime: we publish. A RS describes something that is not obviously a war crime (bombing with civilian casualties) without anyone saying that it is a war crime: we don't publish. This is only my view, obviously, but I think it reflects the practice we've sofar followed. I don't think that RSLA (which is only an essay) is relevant here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSLAW is an essay that says it is primarily about United States (US) law, and the US is a rogue state in the sense that there are many international treaties broadly related to human rights that the US has not ratified but that many of the world's states have ratified; in particular, the US has not ratified the Rome Statute, so it (the US) effectively reserves what it perceives as its "right" to carry out war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. So WP:RSLAW is of minor relevance to this topic. Ukraine hasn't ratified the Rome Statute, but it specifically requested the ICC to investigate, so the situation is covered by the Rome Statute.

I think that Gitz6666 is partly right in saying that this is not an article directly about law, just as the "battles" articles of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are not articles about law, even though both sides implicitly claim that their actions are legal. The most strictly "legal" part of this article is legal procedures and institutions and legal convictions for war crimes (in the broad, loose sense of all the Rome Statute crimes), but the current consensus of accepting mainstream media and lawyers' or prosecutors' judgments of what are likely war crimes seems to be a reasonable middle ground. The aim in editing has been to keep the distinction between what reliable sources (media or notable individuals) generally perceive as war crimes versus convictions by law courts (which are mostly possible events in the future). Limiting the article to formal convictions along would, at the moment, ironically give us the situation where the three people so far convicted of war crimes (Shishimarin, Bobikin, Ivanov) are people who did carry out the actions, but, per the sources in the articles, probably didn't actually commit war crimes (since intent and awareness were not established, and are, at least, dubious). To some extent, some understanding of law is necessary for editors of this article, because we cannot just copy/paste random sentences from sources; there is always some requirement of understanding in order to make fair summaries of sources and find good sources and judge the quality of sources. We can't edit with no understanding. That's why my feeling is that Gitz is "partly" right. Boud (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, a bit (or more than a bit) of legal expertise is welcome among editors. Besides, lawyers are often used to see the other side of the argument, so to say, instead of jumping to conclusions, so their training and skills may also help in reaching NPOV.

To go back to SamuelRiv's edit (this), I think it is an improvement. I don't fully subscribe to the rationale expressed in the edit summary, but if it were just "trimming" I'd be in full agreement. Please compare this with this. The latter is much better, and all the missing information are already covered in Siege of Mariupol. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The view that this article is "not directly about law" contradicts the dictionary definition of the word "crime".

This article would substantially benefit from applying WP:RSLAW and being trimmed from excessive details; or it should be renamed to something like "Victims of the..." to indicate to a reader that it isn't about law.

Today, the article is a mix of news reports about the war and has no clear scope: instead, whether a certain news report is a war crime is de-facto decided by editors on talk page or in edit wars. The lead doesn't define what the article is about, as required by MOS:OPEN. Any scope definition and pre-agreed criteria for inclusion would be better than the status quo. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are the tangential subjects that you think we'd better trim away? Is there a particular (sub)section or any particular contents that you believe we should drop?

Re MOS:OPEN, I agree with you, but I think that if we were to write something like During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian and the Ukrainian forces were accused of committing war crimes, that is, serious violations of international humanitarian law giving rise to individual criminal responsibility of the perpetrators some editors would object that this formulation is WP:UNDUE because it puts the Russians and the Ukrainians on the same level. The real issue, which has never been adequately solved, is about the notion of war crime and about the criteria for inclusion in the article. On this perhaps we'd better open a new discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why should editors decide what is and isn't a war crime? Ideally we should not be trying to analyze some fine legal details, but rather use common sense when determining whose opinion is reliable and worth republishing when it's claimed someone committed some defined crime. My issue isn't to exclude all media sources, just those that aren't quoting or referencing an RS for law or international law (again, cite HRW and Amnesty all you want), (exceptions can be made for individual journalists who can be reasonably considered experienced in the area, such as those on the beat), or who blatantly misquote or misinterpret primary sources (as I hope I demonstrated with the poor use of language in the Guardian above and the Times of Israel below.)

@Boud, I don't see why scrutiny over legal definitions should apply to an article about "battles". Yes, "battles" are defined in various kinds of law (just like "persons" or "parking"), but they are not defined in themselves as a crime, which carries an inherent burden of responsibility (see WP:BLPCRIME).

The objection that RSLAW is U.S.-focused is appropriate, and it has never been expanded to other jurisdictions. However the lead and the first few sections give a general overview of the types of commentators on law and their general background. One thing that's different about national and international law is that while all major news outlets have a journalist on the national court beat, none, anywhere, have an "international law beat", in part because there's just not enough of it going on.

As I said earlier, a journalist who has been the court beat probably knows enough to accurately represent information on IL in reporting. At the very least, if a journalist is saying something without attribution, it needs to withstand basic scrutiny. And if a journalist is quoting an IL nobody (defined in previous posts) who claims something is an IL crime, then that absolutely shouldn't be reprinted here. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On most occasions allegations of war crimes are made not by (non-legally trained) journalists, but by politicians and officials. This happens all the time - they are the first ones to comment on what happens on the ground. Is their opinion relevant for the purposes of inclusion? I think it is relevant, but the big problem (in my view) is that we lack a shared notion of war crimes - the issue of verifiability comes logically later. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this before, but the only officials who matter with regards to claims about international laws of war (of those who have not clearly been briefed by people who know what they are talking about) are heads of state and possibly certain ambassadors. What in the world is a "shared notion of war crimes"? There are various conventions, treaties, and customary laws set out in international defining war crimes, and that's it. Who is bound by them, who has jurisdiction, who will be held accountable, and who has standing gets into far more detail and ambiguity than we need to, and that's why it's good that there are some RS out there who know this stuff. But it should suffice to say if my house gets hit by a missile tomorrow and I go on the news to claim it's a war crime, that is completely meaningless. Even if I think with all my heart that it's a war crime, that doesn't make it a war crime, and it definitely doesn't mean WP should reprint nonsense. This isn't something conceptually obvious like "assault" or "robbery" or "murder" (all three of which most people get wrong as far as the law goes, by the way, but at least they get the general idea). Just because it sounds like it should be obvious doesn't make it so. Like in science, lots of people think something like "energy" is obvious, or the basic ideas of genetics, but we definitely don't quote any idiot's unironic comment about, say, how they inherited their intelligence from their mother and their hair color from their father. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I explained what I mean by "shared notion of war crimes" here below in a new section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelRiv: "carries an inherent burden of responsibility (see WP:BLPCRIME)" This is irrevelant to the current discussion in practice for this article, since I'm fairly sure that most editors have been following this reasonably carefully in this article: the only cases where named individuals are stated as being suspected as war criminals are the three individuals who have been convicted (apart from a few statements by national leaders that Putin is a war criminal, and Putin is clearly a public figure). Stating that a war crime has happened and is attributable to unidentified members of Russian forces (or, in currently Wikipedia-disputed cases, Ukrainian forces), doesn't fall under WP:BLPCRIME. Adding that, say, "Vladimir Bloggsov" is suspected, where Bloggsov is not a public figure, would have to be "seriously considered" for exclusion. That is not the issue of the scope of this article, because noone is suggesting that we add the names of individual low-ranked, unconvicted Russian soldiers suspected as war criminals here. Boud (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't we perhaps check the case of the Georgian Legion commander Mamulashvili? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with defining war crimes defined as international humanitarian law violations - however these are still law violations, and should be sourced from sources qualified to make such judgement.

There is an entire subsection, for example, sourced from WP:BI and a tweet from a politician. I would rather not say which specifically, as its quite possible there are better sources that say that a particular event is a war crime, and the article is full of such examples. My point is that a verifiable report that someone tweeted that something is a war crime isn't a reliable source to classify the event is such.

I disagree with the idea that claims by politicians should be presented simply because they might turn out to be right. This is what the lead hatnote says This article is about individual actions during or after the Russian invasion that may be war crimes. but this is nonsense; both because "may be" is unencyclopedic and unverifiable by definition, as well as because by that definition article should include all claims by Russian and pro-Russian politicians on the basis that TASS/RIA are "considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians." in WP:RSP PaulT2022 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading WT:OR and what brought my attention is that WP:OR has a requirement of published sources that are directly related to the topic. My impression is that a large part of @SamuelRiv proposals boils down to it and it might be implemented per WP:OR policy directly, without having to rely on WP:RSLAW.

WT:OR archives have some useful examples, how something tangential to the topic, for example, an article about a lawsuit subject, cannot be used as a source for describing the court case per WP:OR despite meeting WP:RS guideline. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure we're all on the same page, nobody here's holding their breath for anybody to get prosecuted, right? There will be virtually meaningless domestic convictions of both Ukrainian and Russian soldiers for "war crimes" that will just be currency for prisoner exchanges until the war ends, at which point those who are left over will be those who the respective armies are willing to scapegoat. Meanwhile Ukrainian military officials may possibly be investigated since they are somewhat cooperating with the ICC, but Russia is not getting touched. And either way there will likely be nothing officially announced by the ICC until after the war. So all we have to go on if we want an article is what RS say.

And to reiterate my stance, RS should be those who clearly know something about what war crimes actually are (UN, NGOs, qualified commentators, any of whom can also be quoted in a newspaper), or alternatively are those who credibly represent states (which have standing to seek remedy in IL, unlike individuals) -- that's total fake-legalese but that's my argument for why heads of state and top generals can make a "credible" public accusation but a mayor or soldier cannot, and I'm open to being completely off-base on this. A stricter requirement would be to also require some reasonable access to what's actually going on in those incidents, but I don't think anyone other than the belligerents have that kind of access (not even the UN), so I don't know if people can get much deeper insight than what's public, or if it even matters. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelRiv thank you, I don't disagree.

The point I was trying to make is that in practice such unreliable spokespeople are usually featured in publications about something not directly related to war crime / IHL violations (for example, an article about the military action, perhaps civil defence or damage, or about response and injuries); using sources that are "not directly related to the topic of the article" is already forbidden by WP:OR, applied by the letter.

In other words, this seems to be a matter of editing, rather than agreeing on a guideline. PaulT2022 (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, I think that this article by "Le Monde" here in French [39] and here in English [40] can be fairly summarised by saying that Independent journalist investigations later confirmed the location of the incident and documented that volunteers of the Ukrainian Slobozhanshchyna battalion were on site when the Russian prisoners were tortured. On 13 May French newspaper Le Monde confirmed the authenticity of the video. As a non-native English speaker, I don't perceive any significant difference in meaning with "authenticated the video" or "verified the video": all these formulations are equally fine with me. However Elinruby thinks differently and has been changing the text adding the tag:who to the mention of the "independent journalist investigation" and, more importantly, first removing any mention to verified/authenticate/confirmed authenticity [41] [42] and lastly publishing that Le Monde authenticated identity of the unit sargeant in the video only [43]. It seems to me that Le Monde, while not demonstrating that those who pulled the trigger were Ukrainian soldiers, still "authenticated" the video meaning that the video is not a fake, not a fabrication. Perhaps this could be said simply by stating Le Monde confirmed the authenticity of the video. The point has already been discussed extensively by the two of us at WP:ANI [44] (also with Levivich), in the talk of the dedicated article [45] and also at WP:AE [46]. Please help us find an accurate formulation of the text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde specifically says it cannot say who pulled the trigger. Maybe this will help, since Gitz does not believe it coming from me. We are in the OSINT topic area, thus I believe the word is used as the information security term of art (my area of professional training). The unit sergeant posted some of the video to his social media feed that later appeared on Russian propaganda channels. It seems clear that he and his unit were in the area. Auerbach, quoted by Le Monde on the geolocation, says that the frame showing him seems to have been shot on a different day at an earlier time. BBC’s experts disagree with Le Monde on the time of day. They also say they can’t verify any of it. Libération, another French newspaper that looked into this, mentions a radio in the background where somebody is speaking in a Russian accent. (The soldiers in the video guarding the prisoners speak Russian in a Donbas accent, says Le Monde.)

The sergeant seems like a piece of work and his brother had just been killed, so it is plausible that he would do this, but it is not proven and we do not have a source that says that he did do it. Furthermore, the Russians are notorious for faking video. I can provide a list of debunked videos if anyone is skeptical about this. All of the versions of the video that I have found so far have been edited. There are also other Russian soldiers turning up shot to death, some with their hands tied. I am still looking at sources, but have not yet found an RS that supports Gitz’ position and am getting tired of being mocked for trying to fix this. See the article on Mala Rohan for contrast.

I think it is ok to quote Le Monde for what they actually do say, but since we are trying to avoid OR supposedly, we should also mention the other sources as well. I mean, if we’re worried enough about balance to dispute whether shelling a nuclear power plant is a war crime because maybe the Russians didn’t know that was dangerous...seems like we shouldn’t be making claims supported by zero RS. I also think we should mention Auerbach by name for those like me who want to look into this, but if this really upsets somebody, I suppose it isn’t critical and can be had in the source. Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Gitz6666 should stop insisting to include non-notable content on pro-Russian side. This whole section should be removed because the story is based on a single video of unknown origin. Same about this section because "The report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime." [47]. "Does NOT conclude", hence this content arguably does not belong to the page. It does not matter which "side". In the first case, this is a poorly documented event without long-term significance (nothing was published recently about it). In the second case, UN did not find it to be a war crime and said it. Perhaps some other subsections should be removed for similar reasons, and everyone is welcome to suggest them. My very best wishes (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He just put the claim that Le Monde verified this back into Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan AGAIN. Elinruby (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That you (User:My very best wishes, per indent) could quote a news article summary of a UN press release as if it were a direct quote from the UN press release itself is precisely why this article and every one about current conflicts and international law like it must be guided by WP:RSLAW. This is utterly ridiculous. we document violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL) committed by all parties. (And if you think I linked the wrong press release, find the right one -- it was recent for a July 9 story.) SamuelRiv (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the USA.Wikipedia.org. An essay about law in a state that reserves the right to carry out war crimes is not an obligatory guide for articles on international humanitarian law. Boud (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

primary vs reliable secondary sources. This is not a law article, check the categories Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much appreciate if we could go back to the original topic of this thread because: 1) the tag:who? is still there and it is not justified (Le Monde identifies the independent researchers who helped in verifying the video, but there's no reason for us stating their name in the article) and 2) Le Monde authenticated the identity of the unit sargeant in the video, as one reads now in the article, is not correct, not only because of the nasty typo ("sArgeant") but also because that's not what Le Monde did. We should just write "Le Monde authenticated the video". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, because that would be wrong. If it were true do you not think there would be another source? Can you hear me now? Let’s assume that you speak better French than a native speaker, and better information security than somebody specifically certified in authentication servers, although I see no basis for the assumption. Let’s find a source that backs up your narrative of Russians as victims. I went looking in all good faith and all I found was three sources that say the Russians were shooting their own soldiers, and multiple versions of the video. If Bellingcat says it’s real, then fine, or for that matter any other named respectable researcher. There is, meanwhile, simply no there there, so please stop beating this dead horse. Elinruby (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely clear, since you seem to be having trouble with this, BBC and Le Monde agree on the geo-location. Le Monde makes, in my opinion, an excellent case that the unit was in the area, but the BBC declines to go there, and disagrees with Le Monde on the dating. The researcher who did the geolocation says that the frame where the sargeant appears in the frame was filmed at a different time than the shooting. You can’t hang an accusation of war crimes on something that flimsy. If you can come up with another source, though, I would at least look. Elinruby (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all stop addressing me in this way and mind wikiquette. I'm not here to be mistreated by a fallow editor who can't behave. I suggest you strike through your pointless bickering and sarcasm. Secondly, the text you inserted about Le Monde has already been removed [48] because it made no sense. That means we need to find a way to account for the investigation by Le Monde. That video is no fake - real Russian POWs were there, and were shot and most probably killed -and we should be able to come up with a text summarising the findings of the many who investigated the video (some of whom even speak French). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see know that the User who deleted the text is clearly a SP. Never mind, apart from mentioning them what I've just said remains valid. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not “bickering”. I am trying to get you to source your claims. I am sorry this offends you. You still don’t have a source that says who shot these soldiers, or that they were Russian, or that they were killed. Probably, forsooth. You could confine yourself to saying what the sources say, which is that it’s an ambiguous video circulated by Russian propaganda sources, where there is consensus as to location. It does portray prisoners being shot, so ok, it’s a war crime. Say what the sources say and cite the ones that say it. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should not second-guess reliable sources. Le Monde uses very clear language

Then there is the BBC article which says that the video is consistent with them being Ukrainians, Ukrainian forces were in the vicinity, but that the perpetrators cannot be identified conclusively. So per WP:NPOV we should state the facts about which all sources are in agreement and then say that "according to Le Monde, Ukrainian volunteers were on the scene at the time when the prisoners were tortured" or something to that effect. Alaexis_¿question? 05:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's also the OHCHR [49] stating that it is

particularly concerned about two documented cases of summary execution and torture of Russian prisoners of war and persons hors de combat reportedly perpetrated by members of Ukrainian armed forces.47 In the first case, members of Ukrainian armed forces shot the legs of three captured Russian soldiers and tortured Russian soldiers who were wounded in the Kharkiv region

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeroll. Please instruct me some more in my native language. Your French isn’t as good as you think it is. Also, the last I looked, two other sources said it was two other sets of dudes who were also in the area, and there’s some stuff in there that happened someplace completely different, so.... in your anonymous video circulated by Russian propaganda sources of unidentified soldiers, nobody is singing the Ukrainian national anthem. But explain to me some more why we should second guess Bellingcat and the Guardian Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand if you're replying to me or to @Alaexis. Anyway 1) the OHCHR report I just quoted is in English; 2) what did Bellingcat and the Guardian publish on the episode? 3) did the "other sets of dudes" who were there belong to the Ukrainian forces (as Le Monde says) or did they belong to other armed groups? In the latter case, could you share a source? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me, these are your edits.Elinruby (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who recently posted a text in French in this conversation is Alaexis, not me, and the only edit I made recently to the subsection on kneecapping (this one [50]) is based on the OHCHR report, not on Bellingcat nor on The Guardian. Your last comment is confusing (two other sources said it was two other sets of dudes who were also in the area, and there’s some stuff in there that happened someplace completely different, so...) and I didn't understand what you're talking about, nor who you are talking to. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to participate in discussion without posting massive walls of off-topic questions then perhaps you shouldn’t. I pointing out that the level of certitude you demand for facts you don’t like is at odds with your behavior over facts you do like. Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 March a fellow user added some contents and sources on "no quarter" [51], which were first freely rewritten [52] ("more precisely") and then, on second thoughts, entirely removed [53]. I opened a discussion No quarter order and EJIL:Talk! as reliable source. The sources were (and still are) excellent: in particular EJIL:Talk! is a prestigious academic outlet. No one joined the discussion and the text was not restored.

However, the OHCHR recently stated [54] (at para. 105):

OHCHR also documented three incidents where Ukrainian servicemen and one incident where Russia serviceman made public threats of giving no quarter to Russian prisoners of war, which would constitute a war crime.

I think we should publish the statement by OHCHR and also recover the old text, which is the following:

On 2 March, after the shelling of residential areas, Ukraine's Special Operations Forces announced that Russian artillerymen will no longer be taken prisoner, but immediately killed.^[1] Such a statement could be interpreted as a no quarter order, which is prohibited by customary international law.^[2] The killing of surrendered enemies would also be in violation of international humanitarian law.^[2]

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is go to EJIL's About: submission guidelines page. It's self-explanatory. It's not the same as a peer-reviewed journal, but it's at least one expert's oversight of only credentialed contributors.

The quotations you provide are an excellent example of the frustrating subtleties of primary sources. The OHCHR text is ambiguous as to whether the threat of no quarter or carrying it out is a war crime, so it's important that the blog clarifies this. The archived discussion somewhat misses the point -- whether it's a Facebook post or written on a pig's butt doesn't matter if it's considered reasonable that some number of combatants from either side think it's a serious/legitimate order or threat. (A threat is a crime in laws of war typically because it provokes reciprocity, afaiu). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this is just a ridiculous claim someone made in social media, even though it was mentioned later in a couple of other sources. Did anyone actually followed this idea? We do not know. Was it implemented on a large scale? No. Was it covered in many RS? No. This is precisely the stuff we should NOT include. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not suitable for this article and it is, once again an attempt to invent Ukrainian “war crimes” (sic) to “balance” the numerous, horrific and well documented war crimes committed by Russians. Volunteer Marek 02:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is a EJIL Talk (whose submission criteria I linked) post by Sajeed Bagheri anything but an RS on what is a potential war crime? I'm sorry, maybe he doesn't have nearly the immense qualifications of international law jurisprudence that a village mayor interviewed by a Sky News journalist has. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that EJIL Talk wasn’t an RS? No? Then why are you strawmanin’? Volunteer Marek 03:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's your issue then? Is it that nobody actually followed through on a "no quarter" order? You do realize that (somewhat uniquely) in international law actual injury is not necessarily required for something to be a war crime, and specifically for "no quarter" it doesn't have to be carried out (citation 130). Of course the interpretation of whether it's reasonably that a soldier on either side would take that "no quarter" declaration seriously as a threat is something that people who actually know this stuff should debate. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 24 hours:

• Videos of Russian soldiers castrating Ukrainian POWs emerge.
• Russia uses cluster munitions to attack civilians at a bus stop, murdering at least half a dozen.
• Russian forces massacre 40 Ukrainian POWs to cover up evidence of torture, murder and mutilation.

And this is just in the last 24 hours.

And you want to argue how some twitter comment or something from March by Ukrainians, about a thing that was never done, just absolutely must be included in this article.

WP:UNDUE was created *exactly* for these kinds of situations. Volunteer Marek 17:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to apply WP:UNDE we should construe war crimes as "viewpoints", which is questionable: whose viewpoints are they? a viewpoint of... the minority, a "fringe" war crime? it doesn't make sense. However, even if we were to apply WP:UNDUE here, it would imply that we shouldn't give this incident as much of or as detailed a description as more widely reported war crimes. Which is reasonable: we shouldn't report this incident in the lead section, and we shouldn't write an overly-detailed description of it. But WP:UNDUE cannot justify the suppression of a "point of view", that is, delating a war crime which is described as such by reliable independent secondary sources just because "compared to the things the Russians are doing, that war crime is not that important". War crimes in Ukraine are a notable topic and this incident falls within the scope of the topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no relevance in your statement to the actual issue. Oh! And today we have the Russian Embassy in UK openly advocating for murder of Ukrainian POWs, in plain sight. Why aren’t you arguing to put that in? Volunteer Marek 22:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source or directly edit the article instead of enquiring about my motives. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not asking for your motives I’m asking you why you aren’t following the WP:UNDUE policy. Volunteer Marek 00:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are asking me, but I know what I've just asked you: could please provide a source? "Russian Embassy in UK openly advocating for murder of Ukrainian POW". Thanks Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────┘
@Volunteer Marek, other editors are not omniscient and aware of everything happening all over of the world at once. If you find something worth of appearing on an article, do please add it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even have the slightest concept of why the threat of "no quarter" is such a serious war crime? If you can't detach your feelings of what should be a crime from what is, then maybe either rely completely on expert RS or just walk away from articles like these. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but I have no idea what you’re going on about. Volunteer Marek 10:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Speaking only on the 1st comment on the top of this thread). I do not think anyone argue that the threat of "no quarter" is not a war crime. Of course it is. But such threat has never been officially made by the Ukrainian government. If it were, that would bring a storm of reports in numerous mainstream RS. There are no such. This is just another "fake" created by propaganda during this war. I am sure that the guys who posted this somewhere on Facebook were Ukrainians, and probably connected to Ukrainian military. But still a "fake". My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by "fake" created by propaganda? Russian propaganda or Ukrainian propaganda? Also I don't understand why do you expect that a threat such as this were officially made by the Ukrainian government. Governments have other business to attend. No quarter orders are usually given by military officials rather than by the civil authorities. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I mostly mean Ukrainians making propaganda. They made this Facebook post (if I remember correctly). There was a large number of various posts in social media by individuals whose claims mean nothing, but were mentioned in a few other sources for various reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But do you understand that it's still a war crime? If it's propaganda for the enemy, that's a war crime. If it's propaganda for Ukrainians, that's a war crime. If it's serious, that's a war crime. If it's nobody follows it, it's still a war crime. The first jurisdiction is always domestic, however, so it's up to the Ukrainian army to prosecute. For perspective, U.S. law requires that a soldier have "effective control over subordinate groups", in which case such a threat carries a potential life sentence. (There's no sentencing guidelines for international criminal law other than mostly domestic precedent). Also, think critically here: who would it serve as propaganda for? If it were a fake, who would it serve? Same question to ask with other videos here -- lots of this stuff is poorly trained poorly supplied scared soldiers doing stupid stuff (that happens to be a serious war crime). SamuelRiv (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were thousands threats by various individuals in social media during this war, some of them claiming to represent various "organizations"; some of them have been discussed in news reports. So unless this is an official threat by Ukrainian government (as reflected in multiple RS), I do not think this passes the bar for inclusion. Same with incidents "documented" in a single video of unknown authorship on YouTube, or arguably in a single intercept by Ukrainian services. "Who would it serve as propaganda for?". Well, in this case, obviously, for the enemy to frighten. There could be other explanations. Maybe that was a posting by a Russian agent to discredit Ukrainian government. Who knows? Not a stuff to be included here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on completely missing every single point. You've had ample opportunity to read up on this online in the meantime -- aren't you even the least bit curious why this is so serious and not simply one threat among "thousands"? If not, maybe this article isn't for you. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you’re going to have to go ahead make the effort on explaining these “points” because snarky condescension only works where there’s some real substance to back it up, and I’m not seeing any of that here. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't understand that your argument "WP:UNDUE prevents us from publishing Ukrainian war crimes unless they are exceptionally serious and widely covered by multiple secondary sources" - your argument is not convincing, and it's not based on policy but on an idiosyncratic reading of WP:UNDE that cannot be accepted. By the way, this is a talk page, sources matter and we need to get the facts right, so if you don't have a source about "Russian Embassy in UK openly advocating for murder of Ukrainian POW", please strike through your comment here above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would appreciate it if you stopped it with these attempts at constructing strawman arguments. Just stop trying to tell me what my “political views” are or “rewriting” what my “argument” is. Second, my understanding of WP:UNDUE is perfectly fine. Here we have a comment on twitter made months ago that was of no consequence and quickly retracted and hasn’t received any coverage in sources in months. On the other hand we have horrific things like mutilation, castration, torture, murder of POWs, all well sourced. But some editors insist that we include that off hand retracted inconsequential comment that no source has discussed in months as a “Ukrainian war crime” and remove the actually horrible stuff done by Russian soldiers. YOU in particular have advocated for removal of the text on the castration of Ukrainian POWs and another editor, that *always* backs you up, has recently removed text about the murder of 40+ Ukrainian POWs murdered in a Russian prison. It’s just messed up. It’s WP:TENDENTIOUS with an exclamation mark or five.

here’s a source for the Russian embassy tweet [55]. Note that I am not saying this should go into the article. What I’m saying is that this is far worse than the off hand comment from several months ago that you want to include in the article. Volunteer Marek 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the embassy tweet, take a look at the U.S. law example I linked above (cited for customary IHL) and tell me if you think it's in the same ballpark as the no quarter threats in question. Orders of no quarter are banned for both military and humanitarian reasons (as is the case with most rules of combat). The first modern forms of international law included protection for taking POWs. Part of the military justification is intertwined with how essential reciprocity is to enforcing the rules of war (p.120 e.g.) (see also WW2 example of no-quarter reciprocity). The other part is simply that in general militaries all agree it's better overall to take prisoners than not, and one recent threat of no quarter can make an enemy more hesitant to surrender, hence both actionable orders and threats are banned by militaries worldwide. And with regards to severity, this is defined as a grave breach of IHL ("All war grave breaches are war crimes, but not all war crimes are grave breaches.") SamuelRiv (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YOU in particular have advocated for removal of the text on the castration of Ukrainian POWs is false. Everybody can read my comments [56] and [57] in the thread here below Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Castration_of_Ukr_POW. Had I wanted to remove the section, I would have undone your edit. It's very easy because you just need to press the "undo" button in the upper right corner of the page with the diff. I'm sure you know this well because yesterday you pressed that bottom four times, plus a couple of manual reverts (User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#3RR). I say "perhaps we'd better wait a couple of days before publishing stuff about unverified videos and in any case we should say that it's unverified"; you revert and revert and revert again stuff backed by OHCHR and first-quality sources because "UNDUE". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've been discussing this for ages and we never came up with a fully agreed solution. Let me try to restate the issue again using a different and more "scholarly" approach.

According to the best available academic sources ^[1][2] there are two notions of "war crimes" circulating in international humanitarian law. The fist one comprises all acts constituting a violation of the laws or customs of war, irrespective of whether the conduct is criminal (Schwarz); all violations of international humanitarian law, regardless of whether they are criminal (Werle and F Jessberger). Let's call it "war crime lato sensu". It's the notion that we encounter in the US Army Military Manual, § 499, FM 27–10 (1956):

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.

Secondly, we have the stricto sensu notion of war crimes, which is the one we encounter in our article War crime and which is - so to say - the purely legal notion of war crimes, the notion that most legal scholars follow: "a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility".

We need to choose between stricto sensu and lato sensu. So far we have followed the stricto sensu notion (with a few not fully justifiable exceptions). Had we adopted the lato sensu notion, most of the contents that you find in this sandbox would still be included in the article. Please have a look.

Once we have agreed on the notion of war crime, we need to agree on the threshold of verifiability. But that's for another discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think such approach would be contrary to WP policies and goals. Just as on all other pages, we should not include something poorly documented (so that no one knows what had really happen, for example the video with "Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan"), and something that best available RS explicitly say was not identified as a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the sandbox article. Why is torture or mistreatment of POWs in lato sensu?

Also, again, we absolutely should not be judging what is and isn't a war crime, but we should be able to make an editorial judgement as to who is reasonably qualified to make such distinctions (as well as to filter out WP:NONSENSE). And Mvbw -- I already showed you above that you misrepresented the source by saying "did not conclude", by linking you directly to the source, so I don't know why you keep repeating nonsense. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sections in the sandbox about Russian and Ukrainian POWs don't deal with torture but with ill-treatment and exposure to public curiosity. We have plenty of legal experts arguing that those episodes amount to violations of IHL; no one says that they qualify as war crimes stricto sensu. Exposure to public curiosity is not a stricto sensu war crime and torture consists in infliction of "severe" physical or mental pain - here we don't have reliable sources alleging that it was torture.

In my view the issue is: do we have good reasons for choosing the stricto sensu notion over the lato sensu notion? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we're getting this distinction correct at all, and really it's not worth it for us to fine-grain analyze something as ridiculously nuanced as international law which has virtually zero case history (and stricto sensu seems require an estimate of whether a person is likely to be internationally prosecuted and convicted, which is simply hilarious.) Humiliating and beating up POWs is a war crime -- lato/stricto doesn't depend on severely you beat them (with one asterisk depending on something like if you're publicly caught). Now beating up your own citizens who speak Russian and are helping Russian troops? I think that could be under the territory of good ol' fashioned political purges, hate crimes, and ethnic cleansing -- possible international law violations, but afaik (could be wrong) not war crimes. (It is definitely a war crime if you harm foreign nationals of enemy states living in your country however.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Re I'm not sure that we're getting this distinction correct at all, the distinction you mention is another one, different from the one I explained. I quoted the source that draw a distinction between a narrow and a broad sense of "war crime"; if you want more information on this, I'm happy to copy and paste text from the sources I quoted.
• Re stricto sensu seems require an estimate of whether a person is likely to be internationally prosecuted and convicted, there's a misunderstanding: "stricto sensu" war crimes are those that give rise to individual responsibility, and that's a normative (or legal) concept, not a predictive (sociological) concept. If you want to know what "stricto sensu" war crimes are, you just have to read Article 8 of the ICC Statute (or an analogous source of law).
• Re Humiliating and beating up POWs is a war crime it's true if you adopt the "lato sensu" notion: violation of IHL. While the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering is a "stricto sensu" war crime (torture), infliction of moderate pain and exposure to public curiosity are forbidden under IHL but arguably don't qualify as war crimes (and we don't have a source claiming that they are war crimes).
• What you say about the relevance of citizenship is not fully accurate: the war in Ukraine is not only an international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but it is also a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between the government and the separatist forces. The ICTY in its "Tadic" judgment ruled that allegiance to a party to the conflict rather than nationality may be regarded as the crucial test in NIAC, and this doctrine is accepted by the "ICC Elements of Crime" [58], that 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. Therefore I believe that the killing of Volodymyr Struk is a stricto sensu war crime. However, as I don't have a RS on this, I've never tried to publish it in this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think one of problems here is an attempt to combine the alleged war crimes by two sides in the same page. We usually do not do that, i.e. we have something like German war crimes or Japanese war crimes. Just rename this page to Russian war crimes during the invasion of Ukraine. That would also help to make this page more focused and reduce its size. In fact, I could split this page in a few minutes, although starting 2nd page, i.e. Ukrainian war crimes during Russian invasion of Ukraine would be WP:POINTy (I would rather avoid creating any page which could be an immediate target of an AfD). My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, what would be the title? Russian war crimes during invasion of Ukraine? Someone should formally suggest it as an RfC. I do not like 2022. This is going to be beyond 2022. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a productive advancement of the debate. You are basically proposing that we should stop reporting about war crimes allegedly committed by the Ukrainian army and we should deal exclusively with "Russian war crimes". I remember @Volunteer Marek expressing the same view on a couple of occasions. You're also maintaining that an article on "Ukrainian war crimes" wouldn't be notable. I suggest that you try to build a consensus on that propositions of yours (RfC is an excellent idea) and in the meanwhile you stop blocking other editors from updating the article, as you have done since the beginning of March, because that's not a collaborative attitude. Until the article's topic changes, you should let us work on the topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misinterpreting my suggestion. I started new thread below to clarify it. This is just an idea at this point, and you can convince me that I am wrong (in the section below, not here). My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing faulty and incorrect text from an article is as much “working on the topic” as adding text to it. There’s no “I get to add whatever I want to an article if I call it “working”” rule on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 22:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that you and MVBW only add text that fits your political views (also faulty and incorrect text, [59] [60] [61]) and only remove text that doesn't fit your political views (e.g. today [62] [63]). I understand you yourself feel at unease with this way of departing from our policies and guidelines, and therefore would like to make things right by changing the topic of the article to "Russian war crimes only". But couldn't you work toward that goal opening a RfC instead of preventing others from working on an article that until now has a different subject? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you refrained from falsely characterizing my edits as “faulty and incorrect”, although I guess that’s a step up from outright lying about my edits (in particular those very ones you link). Volunteer Marek 00:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate it if you stopped trying to tell me what my “political views” are, trying to psychoanalyze me or trying to read my mind. Stick to content, not editors please. Volunteer Marek 00:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another source on the subject of this thread:

There is also practice which does not contain the adjective "serious" with respect to violations and which defines war crimes as any violation of the laws or customs of war.[5] The military manuals and legislation of a number of States similarly do not require violations of international humanitarian law to be serious in order to amount to war crimes.
— "Customary IHL - Rule 156. Definition of War Crimes". ICRC, Customary IHL Database. Retrieved 2022-08-01.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is suppose to address. You’re linking to a definition of “war crime”. Great. Thanks. And? Volunteer Marek 22:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the title of the thread you're commenting in? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another source on the subject of this thread:

The concept of ‘war crime’ may be understood in both a broad and a narrow sense. In a broad sense, it encompasses all criminal acts committed in a ‘war’ or an armed conflict, notwithstanding their character as war crimes in a narrow sense (i.e., IHL violations converted into ‘war crimes’)1 or other international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.2 In this chapter we deal with war crimes stricto sensu
— Ambos, Kai (2014). Treatise on international criminal law. Vol. 2. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-19-965792-6. OCLC 810946816.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors working on this article may be interested in, and should be aware of, this request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gitz6666. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this edit by @Volunteer Marek [64] WP:RSBREAKING says that "It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors." The source says "Yahoo News cannot independently verify the authenticity of the video" so at the very least we should say the same thing, but maybe it would be better to just follow RSBREAKING and wait a couple of days when the info, which is probably genuine, will be confirmed by RS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost certainly going to be a separate article on this event, given the sources, probably before I manage to finish this edit. Separately from the event itself, the viral reactions to the video are clearly notable:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/29/video-appears-to-show-russian-soldier-castrating-ukrainian-prisoner - The Guardian - refers to Amnesty International and Bellingcat comments
• https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-castrate-torture-video-1728988 Newsweek
• https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/07/29/graphic-footage-appears-to-show-russian-fighter-castrating-ukrainian-prisoner-of-war-a78442 The Moscow Times

Whether this qualifies to be mentioned in this article gets back to editorial consensus and the issues being debated above about the wide and narrow definitions of "war crimes". It's rather difficult to see how a castration could be seen as being a military action or being unavoidable collateral damage from a proportionate military action: we don't need a source to state that. Boud (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Post states in plain English that the event is a would-be war crime if genuine: Human rights activists emphasize that cutting off organs is the most obvious example of torture and is condemned by the world community and prohibited by the Geneva Convention. If genuine, the video and photographs are evidence of war crimes. The sentence in this article seems justified (though sources like those here are needed rather than Yahoo), and the specific article on the event, once someone creates it with proper sources and structure, is very likely to be notable and will survive any AfD. Boud (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Sorry, here's the URL for Kyiv Post + archive. Boud (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omg, I’m not even gonna consider the argument that this isn’t a war crime or that it’s a fake video seriously. I. Just. Can’t. It’s going into this article. Period.

The things that go on this page are just mind blowing. Volunteer Marek 17:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't doubt that the video is genuine. However, WP:RSBREAKING is a reasonable guideline: in a few days, we'll be able to write a more accurate and "stable" description of what happened according to RS. To make one example: all the sources here above quoted have the following point in common: "the Guardian has been unable to independently verify the authenticity of the footage", "Newsweek has not independently verified the footage", "The Moscow Times is unable to independently verify the authenticity of the video", "Yahoo News cannot independently verify the authenticity of the video". What shall we write? At the very least, we should write "As of 30 July, the video has not been independently verified". I myself would add this text, but I'm already disgusted by the foreseeable reactions: "ah, the pro-Russian POV pusher!". The things that go on this page are just mind blowing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat says it appears to be authentic. As quoted by the Guardian. In English. I am going to refrain from a compare and contrast, but Bellingcat is an expert opinion, and you know the Guardian quoted them correctly Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit- Volunteer Marek, what do you mean by "suitable" and "confirmed"? The citation clearly talks about the events described as in the context of a war crime. I don't see why it wouldn't be suitable for this page. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Some anonymous guy said something which he heard about from someone” isn’t suitable for this article. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's "a Danish soldier" interviewed by a Danish mainstream source, about his own experience. I don't see "witnessed" in the source text (disclaimer: I don't read Danish), and the Danish soldier doesn't seem to say that he saw the 18-year old being killed, but instead implies that the 18-year old was executed since they were talking the day before the 18-year old died. TV 2 (Denmark) appears to be a mainstream Danish media source.

So the wording should probably be more careful, but the source seems valid and the information seems notable. Boud (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an anonymous person relaying hearsay. Unless you can fill out some details and provide more sources, this isn’t going in. Volunteer Marek 22:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish soldier's identity is known to TV 2 (Denmark). Someone who understands Danish may be able to clarify if this is hearsay or if the Danish soldier is talking about his own direct knowledge. Boud (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum, and let me emphasize that, minimum, here, would be to find other reputable sources. Not saying it would be sufficient, but would def be necessary. Volunteer Marek 23:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, this is the statement of a Danish soldier fighting for the Ukrainian side, confirmed by a reliable source. Unless you argue that TV 2 is not a reliable source, your condition seems a bit arbitrary. You seem to be against the inclusion of the content and keep changing your argument. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s an anonymous guy relating hearsay. Seriously, are there ANY other sources here? Cuz if not, it’s obvious this is cherry picking and UNDUE. (and please don’t misrepresent what I’m saying). Volunteer Marek 10:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, it is an anonymous confirmed Danish soldier fighting for Ukraine talking about his own experience as an volunteer in the Ukrainian war. Not hearsay. If anything you could argue that it is primary source information (relayed, but not verified, by a secondary source). That is an actual argument you could use. I would encourage you to think well of your arguments before posting them to minimize the time that is wasted by other editors. Also I'm sorry if I misrepresented what you're saying, could you clarify what? Thanks. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. Is there any OTHER source here? And yes he’s reporting hearsay, and yes he is anonymous (no idea what “anonymous confirmed” is suppose to mean or why it should matter). My arguments are fine, and I would encourage you not to make condescending insulting comments which waste MY time. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By "anonymous confirmed" I believe AdrianHObradors means that TV 2 confirmed he was a Danish volunteer but hid his name to protect his privacy. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, excuse my lack of knowledge, but could you link me to the Wikipedia policy which states that multiple sources are needed and that one RS is not enough? And calling the Danish volunteer "anonymous" seems dishonest. His identity is protected by TV2, but he is a confirmed Danish volunteer of the Ukrainian army. Also I'm sorry that you felt insulted, wasn't my intention. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDFLAG for one. If you can find one and only source on something extraordinary and that one and only one source is an anonymous dude reporting hearsay… yeah, we’re not putting it in. Volunteer Marek 22:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, thanks. I can see your point. Also, I've seen the same soldier claims to have killed in battle near 100 Russian soldiers, which makes me doubtful of his testimony. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Um, yikes. Well, that illustrates the point nicely. Volunteer Marek 00:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: and @AdrianHObradors:, my understanding of the article in reference is that he never himself had said that he had killed 100 soldiers, but rather this is the statement of the Ukrainian ambassador to Denmark. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunutubble (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Danish, but the title from that article translates to Danish marksman claims to have killed close to 100 Russians in Ukraine, and later says he himself says that he has taken the lives of a number of Russian soldiers who are "in the good end of the double digits". Unless I'm missing something with the translation, it does seem to imply that he has killed close to 100 people during that war (and as of early April). AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────────┘
Thanks Dunutubble, that is exactly what I meant. I have changed the bolding of the sentence hoping it makes it more clear. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest splitting this page into two pages, one per each country involved in the conflict, i.e. the first one would be about Russian war crimes during invasion of Ukraine and 2nd one would be about Ukrainian war crimes during this war. This simply follows common practice, i.e. we have German war crimes, Japanese war crimes, and so on. That would allow both pages be better focused and would help to reduce their size, which is already too big. After looking at responses here (which titles would be better?), I can start a formal RfC about it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War would be a good model for this page. I think that the number of war crimes with unconfirmed perpetrators should also be taken into question when splitting. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I see. Well, I do not think that anything with unconfirmed perpetrators (meaning an unconfirmed "side" rather than unconfirmed person) should be included to this page. One should keep the bar here high. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should say though that combining both sides in the page about war crimes during Lebanon War was a terrible idea from the perspective of readability and understanding this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not including contents about war crimes of which the perpetrators are unknown would mean keeping the bar high? And why are the perpetrators meant as "sides" (states) rather than as individuals, given that a defining feature of war crimes is that they entail the individual criminal responsibility of the perpetrator? I know well that you want to keep the indiscriminate attacks on Donetsk People's Republic out of this article, but is there any NPOV reason for your peculiar way of "keeping the bar high"? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose splitting the page into "Russian war crimes during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine" and "Ukrainian war crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", the amount of Ukrainian war crimes is too small to make a separate article (so it would rapidly get into the notability guideline stuff and maybe merged or rapidly deleted), unless we are to include other non-war crime violations (mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters, mistreatment and detention of migrants, putting military targets close to nuclear power plants and civilian areas, sexual violence (some marauders and pro-Russian supporters were stripped and a Russian soldier was threatened with castration) etc) and maybe the Maisky market attack, although that also creates a difficulty about the march 2022 Donetsk attack (independent investigators suspect that it was a Russian missile, while we still don't have confirmation) and the Maisky market attack itself (it may just didn't happen at all as the only WP:RS we have on it are just saying that "DPR officials claimed it happened" without saying whether its true or not), it would also be a bit WP:UNDUE (ex: the castration threat by the Ukrainian soldier may just have been done in a moment of anger and probably didn't result in the soldier actually being castrated at all), any thoughts? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, I simply wanted to see if others have objections. Right now, I do not see any reason to propose such split, except that to make this page smaller and better focused (but that's a good reason!). I do not see your argument compelling. If such new page will be deleted after splitting, that's fine. Good riddance. Same with other content that might be lost (per comment by Gitz above). If we do not even know which side was guilty, then such content does not belong here. And yes, the Maisky market attack does not belong here too. My very best wishes (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, so if there is evidence of a war crime, but the perpetrators hid well enough and are not identified, you believe we shouldn't put that content anywhere?
I oppose as well, for now, per IP 187.39.133.201 reasoning. Perhaps in the future once the dust settles down and everything a bit more clear. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose. To shorten this article we should create Indiscriminate attacks during the Russian invasion of Ukraine as proposed (if I'm not wrong) by @Boud here above. That proposal might already have consensus. But I strongly oppose the Russian vs Ukrainian war crimes' split for principled reasons: that way of framing our articles would be at odds with the development of IHL and Human rights law in the twentieth century. War crimes are no longer unlawful acts between states, committed by a state against the citizens of another states. War crimes today are essentially crimes committed by individuals against other individuals. This has enormous consequences - e.g. they should be punished first and foremost by national authorities, no matter the nationality of the perpetrator and victim, and international law should play only a subsidiary role. Splitting by nationality would mean going back to the nientieth century and the justification could be only political (as if we were mainly interested in whom, the Russians or the Ukrainians, is to blame the most). MVBW even suggested that the newly created article on Ukrainian war crimes would not be notable enough and should be listed for AfD, which is preposterous. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will keep this in mind if I start an RfC. I can't agree because we have a Category:War crimes committed by country with many countries, and this is a very useful categorization. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This new thread continues the discussion started here above Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#human_rights_office’s_concerns_over_the_potential_use_of_“human_shields”_to_prevent_military_operations_in_certain_areas. If I'm not wrong, so far Ilenart626, SamuelRiv and myself have argued for inclusion, Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes have argued for removing the subsection, and other fellow editors who are active on this page have not yet expressed their views. VM and MVBW argue for removing the incident in Stara Krasnianka because the source literally says that the report doesn't conclude this was a war crime by either side (VM) and because UN explicitly said this case was not identified as a war crime by any side. We're talking about 50 to 60 elderly people who died in a fire following a fight between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces. The separatists had reportedly fired from a tank at the care house where the Ukrainian forces had set up a firing position. To facilitate the discussion on this, I publish here below an excerpt from sources that use "war crime" to describe the incident.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, User:My very best wishes's latest comment is that thread was they digress due to not having time to evaluate the sources, rather than oppose (This is all I can say. Sorry, but I am not an expert and have limited time to look at these sources).

I found the User:SamuelRiv's comment in that thread on interpretation of the sources convincing upon reading the referenced OHCHR report. Would be interested to read User:Volunteer Marek opinion on it, as unfortunately there's no reply from VM to the SR's comment in the "human rights office's..." thread. My understanding of VM's latest comment in that thread is that weight of the Times of Israel reporting on what constitutes a war crime overrides OHCHR's one; if that's still the case, I believe we have a deadlock and no amount of back-and-forth between the involved editors would move it further.

In such case, the discussion whether the news coverage of war crimes should be given more weight than the publications by organisations such as OHCHR, HRW and IRC may need to be taken to WP:RSN as was proposed by SR and VM. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that is not what I said in in section above. I said that, according to four strong secondary RS (linked above), UN/OHCHR did not identify this as a war crime by any side. Importantly, those are most recent RS on this subject (it appears that the earlier sources cited by Gitz above did not describe the whole story). I also said that I have no time to second guess sources or conduct an original research here.My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @My very best wishes I apologise for the misunderstanding; it would've been helpful if yours (and VM's) comments would've specified how you interpret what's written in the source, and how it should be phrased in Wikipedia if included to any of the article, rather than repeating "OR" (i.e. if a source doesn't "identify this as a war crime" - what is "this" the source talks about and how would you phrase "this" for including into an unrelated article where it might be relevant).

  The referenced report has two statements in paragraph 34:

  OHCHR is concerned that in the course of hostilities, both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups as well as Ukrainian armed forces took up positions either in residential areas or near civilian objects, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for the protection of civilians present, as required under IHL. - is the objection here that IHL violations shouldn't be part of this article, or that concluding that interpreting it as an IHL violation is SYNTH?

  OHCHR is further concerned by reports of the use of human shields, which involves seeking to use the presence or movement of the civilian population or individual civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I - do I understand correctly, that you consider that this wording is insufficient to describe next paragraph of the report (number 35, the case of a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) has been emblematic in this regard...) as identifying a war crime? PaulT2022 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to formal reason ("That is what sources say") there are 3 informal ones to not include this material:

1. The patients were killed by Russian forces, but this text paints the Ukrainian side as responsible for the war crime by placing it to the "human shields" section. This is wrong.
2. None of the sources, including OHCHR report (if you read it completely instead of your selective citation), accuses the Ukrainian side of intentionally using these people as "human shields". Trying to use them as human shields would indeed be ridiculous because Russian forces could not be deterred by the presence of Ukrainian civilians (and in fact were not deterred). The report treats this specific case more like a careless placement of military objectives near civilian objects (the title is "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields"), although it does imply the use real human shields in some other non mentioned cases. Therefore (I assume) other cited RS say what they say.
3. This OHCHR report is just one of many sources, and it can not be fully trusted, and this is a complex case. As always, one should cross-verify multiple RS, and what exactly had happen in this case needs an additional investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @My very best wishes On 7 March, soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces entered the care house, where older persons and residents with disabilities and staff were located, as it had strategic value due to its proximity to an important road. - are you reading that this sentence doesn't mean that the forces entered care home intentionally? My understanding is that this says they ignored residents because the forces had to be there due to the strategic value - are you seeing it differently? Or do you mean that placing armed forces next to civilians doesn't amount to use of "human shields" in your views? PaulT2022 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what "human shield" means. As our page correctly say, A human shield is a non-combatant (or a group of non-combatants) who either volunteers or is forced to shield a legitimate military target in order to deter the enemy from attacking it. Key words: "in order to deter the enemy from attacking it". That clearly was not a case here. Hence the description in cited sources (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, the Ukrainian army occupied a building with elderly people and made their evacuation impossible by mining the surrounding grounds. The only difference between this situation being a human shield situation or not is if they announced that there were civilians in the building to the Russian army. If they did, they would be using them as a human shield. If they didn't, they just didn't care at all about their lives and if they died, and used the situation to then denounce the Russian army for killing civilians. Either way, it is quite deplorable. That said, it seems the UN somehow doesn't consider this situation a war crime, so for now it doesn't have a place in the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I said either, dear account created two months ago. Times of Israel summarizes the OHCHR report. Not “overrides” or “contradicts” it but summarizes. And in that summary it points out that the OHCHR does NOT call this incident a war crime. There’s no disagreement between the primary and secondary source here. And that’s why it shouldn’t be in here, whatever original research User:SamuelRiv cooks up. Volunteer Marek 22:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek, @My very best wishes, is there a reason why you're focusing on the Times of Israel interpretation, rather than, for example, the one in AP that appoints portion of the blame to Ukrainian forces and says that Ukrainian forces made the civilian building a target?

But a new U.N. report has found that Ukraine’s armed forces bear a large, and perhaps equal, share of the blame for what happened in Stara Krasnyanka, which is about 580 kilometers (360 miles) southeast of Kyiv. A few days before the attack, Ukrainian soldiers took up positions inside the nursing home, effectively making the building a target.

This is pretty much what I see the report is saying too.

If you want to see an RS saying that this is a war crime explicitly, it has it too: David Crane, a former Defense Department official and a veteran of numerous international war crime investigations, said the Ukrainian forces may have violated the laws of armed conflict by not evacuating the nursing home’s residents and staff. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these sources say anything different than Times of Israel. "Appoints portion of the blame" is not the same as "committed a war crime". "violated the laws of armed conflict by not evacuating" is also not the same. So no, these RS are NOT calling this a "war crime explicitly". Volunteer Marek 00:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to a broad definition of "war crime", any violation of the laws and customs of armed conflict is a war crime. You'll find citations on this here above, On the scope of this article, again, e.g. this one. Anyway the OHCHR explicitly says that this might be a case of using human shields, which is a war crime "stricto sensu" (giving rise to individual criminal responsibility). "Emblematic of its concern for the use of human shield" means precisely that this might be a case of using human shields. Obviously we don't know for sure, trials need to be celebrated in order to ascertain criminal responsibility, so the OHCHR cannot conclude anything final in that regard - the OHCHR is no judge. Perhaps the Ukr forces had no other option available, perhaps it was impossible to evacuate the residents - there are many unknowns which could justify what happened. But that's true for almost each and every war crime described in the article (e.g., any single case of indiscriminate attack could be due to a failure of the weaponry or to a human error) and we've never used such a ridiculously high threshold for inclusion. If something might be a war crime according to RS, then we publish. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t care, and neither does Wikipedia policy, whether your “broad definition” of war crime fits something or not and dressing it up in fancy phrases like “stricto senso” (because it sounds so much better with an “o” rather than an “e” or something) doesn’t change the fact that this is just your own original research. All I care about is what the source says. And no, the source DOES NOT say this was a war crime. Another source explicitly says that this source DOES NOT say this was a war crime. That’s the whole point! Volunteer Marek 08:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OHCHR report does. Here we have the OHCHR and also the Ukrainian prosecutor, other Ukr officials and the US ambassador all saying that what happened - 60 elderly people killed in a fire, a tank firing against their care house, a machine gun placed in that house - might constitute a war crime. Arguing the contrary would be like maintaining that shooting POWs in the leg doesn't amount to torture: who could possibly say such a thing? As this might be a war crime, we should summarise what RS say about the incident. MVBW's this case needs an additional investigation can be said for everything you find in this article; you're making ad hoc arguments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn’t. It says “potential” violations of Geneva conventions. And as as we already discussed (there’s a very serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem here) not all violations of Geneva conventions are war crimes (“grave” ones are). The source DOES NOT say this was a war crime. Another source explicitly notes that the OHCHR did not call this a war crime.

Ive been saying this over and over again. So no, im not making an “ad hoc argument” (do you even know what that means? Maybe lay off the spurious Latin for awhile), you’re just not listening. Volunteer Marek 09:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook example of "ad hoc argument" Nr 1:
A: "UN explicitly said this case was not identified as a war crime by any side [65]. Therefore we shouldn't publish"

B: "Ehm, no, UN didn't say this. It just said that this case is emblematic of its concerns about the use of human shields"

A: "Well, if it said so, that means that what exactly had happen in this case needs an additional investigation [66]. Therefore we shouldn't publish". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook example of "ad hoc argument" Nr 2:
A: "We should immediately publish this even if the video showing torture is unverified [67] [68] / Denisova's allegations are unverified [69] / the intercepted phone calls are unverified" [70].

B: "What about the care home in Stara Krasnianka?"

A: "Well, it's very unclear, we shouldn't be too hasty, this needs an additional investigation". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sight. If you're going to try and throw accusations of logical fallacies around, perhaps you might want to look up strawman argument. The fact that you're not actually quoting any editors but "fake quoting" them (writing stuff to make it look like they said it and putting it in quotes as if it was real) kind of gives it away. Volunteer Marek 19:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gitz6666, can you please refrain from altering your comments after I already responded to them? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 20:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "altering" them, I'm complying with your request: I've added a few diff and template:talk quote for verbatim quotations from recent edit summaries and comments. No strawman argument here, and no fake quotations. For extra-clarity, I also added a new timestamp, here and above, so as to make it clear that diff and templates were added following VM's request Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't request for you to change anything, and yes, you did alter them [71]. I'm also utterly confused as to why you're accusing ME of, ahem, "ad hoc argument" (sic), but then try to back it up providing diffs from a completely different editor. Are you confused or something? Volunteer Marek 23:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're confused VM. Please, read here above at 08:57, 31 July 2022: I was talking to MVBW. I mentioned him and I quoted him. Then you started lecturing me about how I don't grasp the meaning of "ad hoc argument". And I explained to you that MVBW was making an ad hoc example. It's very funny that you confuse MVBW with yourself and at the same time you tell me "we are completely different editors". Never mind, as you know well, it's very easy to make this mistake and confuse the two of you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo, in your comment at 8:57, you were replying to me, not MVBW. My comment you were replying to (8:27) was a reply to your reply of a previous comment, made at 7:46. That was your reply to my earlier comment made at 00:39. MVBW was not in this conversation. Your exact words, directed at me are “you are making an ad hoc argument”, with the “you” clearly referring to me. MVBW was not in that conversation. You didn’t say “they” are making an ad hoc argument, you said “you”. Nice try though. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something upon which disagreement is possible impossibile. A verbatim quotation from my comment (this [72]):

MVBW's "this case needs an additional investigation" can be said for everything you find in this article; you're making ad hoc arguments

In the fist part of the comment I was talking to you; in the second one, I was addressing MVBW as it is made clear 1) by the fact that I write "MVBW" and 2) by the fact that I quote what MVBW had just posted ("this case needs an additional investigation"). It's not a "try", as you say, you can just re-read my comment carefully and I'm confident you will eventually understand it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 a good way to avoid likely confusion if you desire to modify your already answered comment is to strike your old remarks instead of removing them and then type new additions. If you only adding something just type "added at type date etc....” next to the new expansion. That always works nicely. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion was created by a comment of mine which has never been edited. It's the one you find here above at 08:57, 31 July 2022. Volunteer Marek (VM) made the very understandable and easy mistake of confusing himself with My very best wishes (MVBW). Distinguishing the two may be so damn difficult. Perhaps to prevent the mistake I should have pinged MVBW, but I didn't want to bother him with a notification, or possibly I should have written his name in full instead of "MVBW". Editing my comment with the two examples of ad hoc argument, however, was not confusing and was done accurately. The final result is (I think) quite interesting. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading about this. It is hard to believe that it isn't called a war crime, seems blatantly clear. But it appears that most sources are not referring to it as war crime. Closest quote I've found is The Associated Press and the PBS series “Frontline,” drawing from a variety of sources, have independently documented hundreds of attacks across Ukraine that likely constitute war crimes. The vast majority appear to have been committed by Russia. But a handful, including the destruction of the Stara Krasnyanka care home, indicate Ukrainian fighters are also to blame.[73]. So it refers to "likely a war crime", but the report from UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime. I would think that occupying a nursing house with bedridden elders and mining the exterior making their evacuation impossible would constitute a war crime, but I'm not a High Commissioner for Human Rights after all. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that this incident has been reported in this article since it happened at the beginning of March. At the time we had a tweet by the US Embassy ("it's a war crime!"), a statement by the governor of Luhansk oblast ("deliberate and cynical") and a telegram post by Denisova ("a crime against humanity by racist occupation forces"). As far as RS and WP:V were concerned, at the time this was enough for us to publish. Then unfortunately the OHCHR published a report in which it said that there was a machine gun in the care home, that the Ukr forces had already had a clash with the separatists but had kept all the residents inside the house, and that this kind of warfare is emblematic of its concern about the use of human shields. The consequence of this? We remove the section from the article. Those 60 elderly people are no longer the victims of a war crime as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Does this sound right to you? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The politisation of debate in this thread is disgusting.

Several comments express a view that because reports the reports are written in literate English and use synonyms (also to blame, laws of war) instead of "X committed Y" formula the events are not war crimes.

And yet something like G7 condemnation of the Kremenchuk bombing is used to define it as a war crime in this article, even though its written exactly the same way ("Innocent victims were hurt in the attack. Indiscriminate attacks are a war crime.") As are 80% of Russian war crimes, which are nonetheless described in the article in detail, by the way.

What is happening in these examples? They use lexical cohesion to avoid repetition, as well as to avoid implying that there's a final court judgement.

Why is cohesion accepted in sources for war crimes committed by one side, and used to claim OR when other side is involved is beyond my understanding.

How could doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime can be read as anything else but statement of "doesn't conclude who committed a war crime" and instead be re-interpreted to mean that a war crime wasn't committed?

(AdrianHObradors, apologies for posting this as a reply to your comment, it's not meant personal, have no idea how to answer on the top level.) PaulT2022 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "or" means neither one committed a war crime. See Logical conjunction. Volunteer Marek 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "or" is a logical disjunction, not a conjunction. "doesn't conclude one or both committed a war crime" PaulT2022 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PaulT2022, I think if something was declared as a war crime, and was added to this article, and then it was "undeclared" as a war crime, the most reasonable thing to do wouldn't be to remove it from the article, but to keep it and explain how it was and now isn't a war crime. And I prefer not to think that, but it seems to me that most organizations and press are a lot less eager to denounce war crimes when it is the Ukrainians doing it, which would be disgraceful. Humanitarian Laws exist for a reason. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianHObradors I'm in complete agreement with what you're saying (apart from a disagreement about "undeclaring", but I accept that the controversial statement in the source could've been worded better). Accepting imbalances in press coverage is a part of editing Wikipedia per NPOV and I have no problem with it.

My only grievance is that there's no agreement on how OR applies in this article. I've started a thread at WP:NORN#Treating lexical cohesion in sources, which may get some uninvolved input. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic I raised there. Whatever view is taken, it has to apply to coverage of war crimes committed by both sides. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following that discussion and I agree with User:Andrevan that it is not original research to logically interpret simple meanings and group related info given baseline assumptions. If I'm not wrong, that means two things with regard to this article: 1) in order to include, we don't need RS explicitly saying "it's a war crime"; if RS say "it's torture / use of human shield / forced deportation etc." we can include without that being OR; 2) we need some baseline assumption about the notion of war crime. As I showed here above (Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#On_the_scope_of_this_article,_again) there are two plausible notions circulating (broad one: any violation of IHL; strict one: violations of IHL giving rise to individual responsibility) and we'd better choose one over the other and explain it in the lead section.

With regard to the present thread, however, all this is not strictly relevant because, apart from the OHCHR saying "it may be a case of use of human shields", we also have older Ukr. sources claiming it was a case of deliberate attack on civilians. Please @PaulT2022 and @AdrianHObradors, could you have a closer look to this text and tell us if you think it should be restored and/or how we should modify it in order to include it in the article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support restoring with added classification from sources to reflect editors' concerns about OHCHR conclusion. Something along the lines of The Associated Press/PBS considered destruction of the care home one of the likely war crimes. OHCHR report didn't conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime.

(Supporting quote from the AP source: "The Associated Press and the PBS series “Frontline,” drawing from a variety of sources, have independently documented hundreds of attacks across Ukraine that likely constitute war crimes. The vast majority appear to have been committed by Russia. But a handful, including the destruction of the Stara Krasnyanka care home, indicate Ukrainian fighters are also to blame.")

If there are still objections, I think an RfC is needed with two questions:

1. Does the AP quote above supports a statement that AP considered this event to be one of the likely war crimes?

2. Should this article include events where sources name IHL violations, but don't state the event is a war crime directly? PaulT2022 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the proposed text looks like a reasonable mediation and improvement to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree per above, and I also happen to think that brand new accounts which seem to possess extensive Wikipedia policy and mark up knowledge (like using specialized tags to remove other editors’ comments) should not be making controversial changes to controversial articles. Volunteer Marek 07:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What comment was removed by what editor? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666, Volunteer Marek, VM called Paul "dear account created two months ago", which honestly Marek, I think it is a bit of a low blow, would be better to counter their arguments and leave their "age" out. Paul removed that (although it was reverted) using the {{RPA}} template. VM, I don't think it is that hard to find that template. Also many people edit Wikipedia for a time before deciding to make an account. If you really think it is a sockpuppet, I would advice to open a sockpuppet investigation instead of mentioning the age constantly. Yet I find his arguments reasonable and see no need for that.
Going back to the subject, I really don't think it is such a bad idea to add the content to this page. Sure, the OHCHR didn't conclude that there was a war crime. And we should let that be clear. But after all, more than 50 people died in a horrible way due to an incredibly careless act, and it was big enough to cause an investigation of whether it was or not a war crime. I think that is enough to appear on this article. I also believe, as we are all perhaps too involved on this subject, that it wouldn't be a bad time to open a Dispute Resolution Request or a Request for Comment. An opinion from experienced and less involved editors could be helpful. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianHObradors - (off topic, touching it as a response to off topic comment) Actually, the account of that particular user has been created 2 months and one week ago. What’s incorrect about saying that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I think discussion should focus on content. Paul's comments don't seem unreasonable, yet should we ignore what he says just because his account is young? Perhaps is only me, but I don't see what bringing his age apports to the argument. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Glitz’s original wording and Paul’s suggestions are fine. Would also suggest this article could also be useful as a source. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re PaulT2022, if someone suspects they are a SP, they should open an investigation at WP:SPI - am I right? In the meantime, this is a fellow user optimo iure, as Volunteer Marek (who loves Latin) would say.

With regard to this thread, I think we're building a consensus. I would suggest a very minor change: we shouldn't say (with Wikivoice) that "OHCHR report didn't conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime", we should rather say that that's AP's interpretation of OHCHR report. If you agree, the text could be the following:

According to the Associated Press, the OHCHR report said that the Ukrainian military had some blame for what happened in the nursing home, but the report did not conclude that Ukrainian forces or pro-Russian separatists committed war crimes.

(English to be improved, as always). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on discussion above, there is no consensus for inclusion. Please start an RfC if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I see, four editors have agreed on publishing this - @AdrianHObradors, @Ilenart626, @PaulT2022 and myself. Two editors - you and @Volunteer Marek oppose, but that's not a novelty - you have opposed each and every attempt to publish anything about Ukrainian war crimes. I'd like a third opinion about whether there is or there is not a consensus for inclusion here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you making such argument on a number of occasions. This is wrong because WP:Consensus is defined by the strength of the argument and the policies, not by head count. Moreover, you count people as agreeing or disagreeing with something, but you may be wrong. One needs to properly ask the question and then have formal "yes" and "no" answers. That's why we have RfC as a mechanism that includes organized structure and closing by uninvolved admins. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't self-revert anything, and I don't think you're argument were strong at all. In fact, it's only because of WP:AGF that I take your comments to be "arguments" rather that ready-made POV-pushing. It's very difficult for me to believe that, had the soldiers inside the care home been Russians, you would now still be arguing for removing the section because "it's not a war crime!". Obviously this is a war crime, various RS say so, and we need to publish the section. So instead of removing the section and asking for self-reverts in the talk, you should make a constructive proposal as to where and how we should publish this, and try to build a consensus. Note that a section on Stara Krasnianka/Kreminna has been in this article since March, and the release of the report by OHCHR is certainly not a reason for dropping it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is a war crime, various RS say so One. More. Time. This is FALSE. Which RS say so? You keep making this blatantly false claim, you've been repeatedly asked to back it up, you have not done so. That is WP:TENDENTIOUSness right there. What's worse is that it's also been pointed out at least half a dozen times to you that, actually, reliable sources say that the report DOES NOT describe this as a war crime. Please stop. Volunteer Marek 00:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment shows that you didn't even bother to read the text you were removing, let alone the talk page where this has been discussed thoroughly. For this reason, I'm now reverting your last removal. You ask, "One. More. Time. This is FALSE. Which RS say so?". Oh, for the benefit of the uninformed reader:

1. The Times: a horrific act of genocide and terrible crime against humanity
2. Washington Post: The prosecutor general’s office announced war crimes charges against Russia for the alleged attack
3. ABC: The High Commissioner for Human Rights said the battle at the nursing home was emblematic of its concerns over the potential use of "human shields"
4. Associated Press/PBS: The Associated Press and FRONTLINE ... have independently documented hundreds of attacks across Ukraine that likely constitute war crimes. The vast majority appear to be committed by Russia. But a handful, including the destruction of the Stara Krasnyanka care home, indicate Ukrainian fighters are also to blame. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [74] - that was cunning. Placing [unintentional] endangerment of civilians (which is typically not a war crime and therefore does not belong to this page) - to the title of one subsection, along with human shields which is typically a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That edit is pretty much an implicit admission that this wasn't a war crime, that no sources say that it was, but that Gitz wants to include it anyway so he'll subtly change the scope of that subsection (and the article itself). Volunteer Marek 01:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have already discussed about the section "Targeting of nuclear power plants" here: [75]. The problem with that section is that RS tell us that it was not a war crime, and this is especially true if we adopt the stricto sensu notion of war crime as violation of IHL giving rise to individual responsibility. Here above @My very best wishes and @Volunteer Marek argue that that's the only plausible notion, and that in order to include contents in the article we need a RS unequivocally stating that something qualifies as a war crime. Based on this strict criteria for inclusion, the section needs to go. I'm quoting here below what the OSCE report of 13 April 2022 [76] says about the incident:

From various open sources, including statements of the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Mission understands that on 24 February 2022 Russian forces took control over the installation [Chernobyl nuclear power station] but did not attack it. (...) Other, functioning nuclear powers stations are situated in Zaporozhskaya. The Mission understands that on 4 March 2022 Russian forces took control over the installation but did not attack buildings that could have released dangerous forces, if damaged. (...) In conclusion, the Mission does not possess sufficient elements to consider that Russia has violated its specific obligations concerning nuclear power stations. To conclude so, one would have to determine whether the activities around the nuclear facilities mentioned above were not planned and conducted in a manner avoiding the risk of release of radioactivity.
— Wolfgang Benedek; Veronika Bílková; Marco Sassòli (13 April 2022). Report On Violations Of International Humanitarian And Human Rights Law, War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity Committed In Ukraine Since 24 February 2022 (PDF) (Report). Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. ODIHR.GAL/26/22/Rev.1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 April 2022. Retrieved 14 April 2022. {{cite report}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 14 April 2022 suggested (help)

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pending discussion, I added this to the section: [77]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666, I'm between two options. One is what MVBW and VM say, which is reasonable. But I also think that perhaps if something was denounced as a war crime or considered one at some point and then changed, perhaps it also has a place on this article. Explained, of course, how and why it isn't a war crime. But would be good to have it as many people might have heard of it being a war crime at some point and might want to read more about it, or didn't realize that it wasn't really one, so having it here, explained, seems to me that it would do the most overall good. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Obviously that line of reasoning should also apply to the case of the care house in Stara Krasnianka, although in that case it's quite difficult to explain how and why the death of 60 bedridden civilians ceased to be a war crime. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One. More. Time. There is NO source which says it was a war crime, however much original research you try to spin. Volunteer Marek 23:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not "adopting" ANY notion of war crime, sensu stricto or sensu laxo or sensu ijustmadeitupso, except for Wikipedia policy, which is WP:RS. If sources call it a war crime, so do we, if not then we don't (in other words "Volunteer Marek" has made no such argument as Gitz6666 claims, and Gitz6666 is once again putting words in his mouth). Volunteer Marek 23:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

are you arguing for the removal of the section on targeting nuclear plants? Re There is NO source which says it was a war crime if you're still talking about Stara Krasnianka, note that there are numerous sources describing it as a war crime: at the very least the Ukr prosecutor, the head of Luhansk Oblast, Denisova and the US Embassy in an assertive way, and also the OHCHR in a dubitative way (it might be a case of human shields). But all this belongs to the thread here above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say I argued that in order to include such contents we need RS stating that something may reasonably qualify as a war crime. Yes, but we have multiple RS which claim just that. There were multiple claims that such attacks qualified as a war crime: [78],[79],[80],[81],[82]. Looking at more scholary and general sources like [83], "The intentional destruction of cultural property, like the bombing of hospitals and nuclear power installations, is a war crime and can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. We have clear video evidence of these atrocities, and as cultural leaders, we must be on the frontline of documenting these crimes.". Hence this could be included I think. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read your sources before you post them? Independent: Senator nobody; Reuters EENews NewsWeek all about the US Embassy tweet, how it was immediately clamped down upon by the State Dept, how State seemed willing to say the reports of deliberate attacks on civilians were credible but was very much not suggesting any crimes around the nuclear plant when asked directly about it (read the EENews article and tell me if you honestly think State endorsed the embassy's tweet); FP's Argument by a water resources policy specialist -- it's working on the credentials of FP and UNESCO alone, but it's an opinion piece for FP and it's really looking like fringe. As for the "scholarly" source, it's labelled "editorial" (and also reaffirms that in-text, which you also clearly didn't read), and it's also a museum curators' journal, and the authors seem to be saying pretty fringe stuff about both law and history. I wasted 20 minutes on this post, whereas yours probably took no more than 5 -- now that's a crime. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of them, except maybe one, qualify per WP:RS. High-rank officials and organizations making such claims (a Senator, State Department, or Embassy) only make them more notable. No, not all of them are about the statement by the Embassy. Several additional sources can be found on the current version of the page and in the section linked by Gitz6666 [84]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As about "Senator nobody", no, this is Ed Markey, who is the chair of subcommittees on clean air, climate and nuclear safety. His word has a lot of weight. Yes, this is his own view, not a claim by Embassy. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it all boils down to a tweet by the US Embassy and a statement by a US politician. I don't think it's enough for including the episode in this article. The other sources MVBW shared don't say that Russian forces intentionally targeted nuclear power plants. Indeed, we know that they didn't: the OCSE report says they took control over the installation but did not attack it. These sources are as assertive about the nuclear plants as the OHCHR is about the care house: "had they attacked the nuclear plant, this would qualify as a war crime" is identical to "we're concerned that this might be a case of human shields" (the only difference being that OHCHR is far more reliable and independent in its assessment). Finally, the source you quote extensively ("The Museum Journal") is not reliable in the area of IHL. The authors work in the field of museum studies and their views on war crimes are inconsequential to us; it's not even the subject of the article but a passing reference to something falling outside their area of expertise. On the other hand, we have reliable independent secondary sources dedicated to the subject which tell us that nuclear power plants were not targeted and war crimes were not committed (apart from OSCE, also this [85]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deliberate shelling of buildings of the nuclear power plant and later using them as a "shield" [86] are a matter of fact and have received a very wide coverage. Things like that are generally regarded as a war crime (indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure), sources provided. This specific incident was described as a possible war crime in a large number of mainstream sources, but most of them refer to the statement by US Embassy; several others like the statements by Ed Markey claim it independently. So, I think that including such info to this page is fine. Some other info currently included to this page is poorly documented and received a lot less coverage in RS. One should start from excluding these other sections. My very best wishes (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And no, OCSE report says they did attack the power plant. It say that Russian forces "did not attack buildings that could have released dangerous forces, if damaged. They attacked and damaged, however, nearby buildings by attacks that could have affected those able to release radioactivity." In your edit [87] you omitted 2nd phrase in this citation to prove your point above that "OCSE report says they took control over the installation but did not attack it". This is a misrepresentation of the source. My very best wishes (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should refrain from making empty accusations of "misrepresentation". The text I left out - while signalling that with "(...)" - had obviously no bearing on our discussions given the conclusions of the report. In fact, the important point, which apparently you don't want to address, is the conclusion: "In conclusion, the Mission does not possess sufficient elements to consider that Russia has violated its specific obligations concerning nuclear power stations." The Russian forces took control of the power plants in a way that, as far as the OSCE Mission knows, did not constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, let alone a "war crime". On the balance of the best available sources, we should remove the whole section, unless we opt for a more broad criterion for inclusion than "RS stating that a war crime was committed". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latter statement ("In conclusion, the Mission does not possess sufficient elements to consider that Russia has violated its specific obligations concerning nuclear power stations.") does not mean a conclusion that Russian forces did not violate international humanitarian law. You are making this up. Please also check a comment provided as an official response by Ukraine to this phrase (page 3) in the same pdf document: "The Russian federation has forcefully seized control of nuclear facilities where nuclear material is located and damaged buildings in nuclear sites in Ukraine, thereby undermining their safe and secure operation and significantly raising the risk of a nuclear accident or incident. The risks caused by the Russian invasion endanger the population of Ukraine, its neighboring countries and the international community." and so on.) That needs to be included or taken into account in any summary. But overall, that source does not say that Russian forces were not guilty. To the contrary, it say they were guilty of attacking the nuclear plant (see citation above).My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source OSCE Mission says what it says. "We don't have sufficient elements to conclude that international law was violated", is the conclusion they reached after a 3 pages long analysis of the military operations conducted by Russia at Chenrobyl, Zaporozhskaya and elsewhere, and there's simply no reason for cutting it out the conclusion from the text, as you did repeatedly ([88] [89]). The following text cannot be summarised, as you did in your edit summaries, as another way to say "we do not know":

In conclusion, the Mission does not possess sufficient elements to consider that Russia has violated its specific obligations concerning nuclear power stations. To conclude so, one would have to determine whether the activities around the nuclear facilities mentioned above were not planned and conducted in a manner avoiding the risk of release of radioactivity.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but your interpretation/summary of the OCSE report is incorrect. According to your interpretation of the single poorly constructed phrase (which "elements" do they mean?), Russian forces were not guilty of anything. That is not what the report says. It says: "Russian forces took control over the installation but did not attack buildings that could have released dangerous forces, if damaged. They attacked and damaged, however, nearby buildings by attacks that could have affected those able to release radioactivity. The HRMMU reports that some 50 units of Russian armed forces’ heavy machinery, around 400 personnel and “a lot” of explosives and ammunition are currently present at the facility. On 14 March 2022, Russian armed forces detonated weapons in the proximity of a nuclear reactor, allegedly to dispose of them. All this endangered the facility and its staff, but did not have any impact on the radiation levels." My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an experiment: take every suspected empirical fact to be true at face value. Then is there likelihood of a war crime of IL violation? According the Lieber Institute 2022-05-13 article posted previously, and as the OSCE report says, if the command was confident that their behavior was not risky and their actions were not clearly reckless (and no, the facts as laid out in the OSCE do not speak to obvious recklessness), then it's probably legal.

On the other hand, the NYT 2022-08-01 article MVBW linked earlier, taking all facts as true means the Russians shooting from the reactor area would violate customary IHL (search anything in "use of a privileged building for improper purposes" -- they all say about the same thing). It didn't look like the NYT could independently verify that the launchers were "reportedly parked ... between the reactor buildings", but it wouldn't surprise me, just like it wouldn't surprise me if Ukrainians are using civilian assets improperly -- the only thing that's surprising is how apparently nobody's weaponized the hospitals yet. Still, the article is only one day old, and to post it here means making two SYNTH-type leaps not in the source: that the Russians are doing what they are alleged to be doing even though NYT hadn't verified it, and that it would be a violation of IL even though NYT didn't say it. The former at least should be fairly easy for OSINT researchers to verify soon, though I imagine the UN would report it sooner. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Russians had violated art. 56 Protocol I, that wouldn't amount to a "stricto sensu" war crime (giving rise to individual responsibility). We have to take an editorial decision about what counts as war crime for the purposes of this article. Some alleged violations of IHL that don't amount to a "stricto sensu" war crime, like this one, get to be included even if we have excellent sources (by legal experts) telling us "no, this is not a war crime"; other violations of IHL that don't amount to a "stricto sensu" war crime are excluded on that ground, even if we have excellent sources (by legal experts) telling us "this is a violation of IHL". This doesn't make any sense to me, and the only editorial justification for such an unreasonable situation is that in the former case we have a tweet from the US Embassy (or an analogously non-reliable source) claiming "this is a war crime!". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volunteer Marek, sorry, I've reverted some changes of yours:

• [90]: Reverted with summary No consensus for this. I checked the text and it is well sourced and ties well with Amnesty International's report and text under it.
• [91] and [92]: Reverted with summary undo IP edits. Those edits are from 187.39.133.201, who has made many constructive edits to Wikipedia, and their edit said change title to "sexual violence", remove "by russian forces" or "by russian authorities and forces" (its not needed to say by whom it was commited, we dont put "looting by 'russian forces', "genocide by 'russian authorities and forces', etc, the contents already say by whom it was commited., which makes sense. Up to discussion, but I agree with it.
• [93]: This is a statement by an Ukranian official complaining about a report, which has no place on this article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To the first part, which is an edit by Mímameiðr, I agree it needs work, but the information is backed up. It should be edited, not removed. AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you even bother reading the text you were restoring or did you just do a blind revert? "agree it needs work" is a disingenuous understatement. The stuff being removed by the IP is long standing. Perhaps you should ask yourself if reverting on behalf of one edit WP:SPA and IP editors is constructive editing. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the sources added by the WP:SPA (this account, single edit) were a "world socialist website" website (obviously not RS), a video that has been taken down, and some youtube trash. Restoring this kind of crap is WP:TENDENTIOUS to put it mildly. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Volunteer Marek, I don't think you can call an account with just one edit a "Single Purpose Account"... And that IP has around 500 edits, so is more experienced than many users. And even if it only had one, I still believe it is the content that should be judged, not the users. Anyway, I have left that first part out, because it is true that some (not all) of the sources weren't great. The YouTube video is the one that is referred by Der Spiegel (a good source). As you can see, here is the video by Reuters (another good source). The other source was this one, by AP news. All of this sources are very good ones, and support the written text. The text does need work, but it is supported and supports the rest of the section. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an account. Which made a single edit. That edit was highly POV and problematic. If you don't think that can be called "SPA", whatever. Call it something else. Point is, you're restoring disruptive edits by WP:NOTHERE accounts.

  The youtube video is a highly edited and manipulated version of the original Der Spiegel video (which DS took down). They insert fake "subtitles" in between what she says and splice it and edit it to make it seem like she's saying something she isn't. It's *exactly* the kind of source that we never use. The other sources most certainly DON'T support the text ("neo Nazi Azov Azov Azov blah blah blah"). Don't even try to pretend they do. Volunteer Marek 20:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Volunteer Marek, The youtube video is a highly edited and manipulated version of the original Der Spiegel video (which DS took down) DS took it down because We have removed a video from the site that was located here. It later turned out that statements made by a survivor from the steelworks in Mariupol were only partially reproduced. The Reuters news agency, which provided the video material, is accused of omitting the protagonist's critical comments about the Ukrainian armed forces. - DS. About it being highly edited and manipulated, I don't speak Russian so I can't confirm it, but automatic subtitles translated to English match the video's own subtitles. And of course the "neo Nazi Azov" isn't supported, that is why I haven't put back the text and said that it needs work, it fails NPOV. But the actual statements of the text are backed by the sources. Still, I have left the text out, but I believe that after modifying it a bit it would fit the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:AdrianHObradors - at this point it's impossible to reach a conclusion other than that you're trying to be provocative. You're restoring obviously flawed and non-policy complaint text to the article, which was added by a fly-by-night WP:SPA. There's absolutely no reason for you to do this unless you're purposefully TRYING to start an edit war. Please self-revert. Volunteer Marek 20:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Volunteer Marek, I left out the text so we can discuss it. I did revert the other ones (point number 2 and point number 3) as you did not give any kind of explanation for that. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You also used an edit summary which said "see talk" but hadn't actually replied on talk. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Volunteer Marek, Sorry, my bad, I should have posted here before reverting. You were too fast for me! AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Gitz6666, I just saw that you included again my "point number 3" about Dmytro Kuleba's critic of the report. I believe we should limit the article to the war crimes, and leave opinions of Government officials out, but if you and Volunteer Marek want to keep it I won't oppose. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re Dmytro Kuleba's reply, I think we should report replies to allegations of war crime. No matter if they are true or false, they are informative and may have both political and legal consequences. We are already reporting several replies, e.g. "On 10 March, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence claimed that bombing of the hospital was justified by the supposed presence of Ukrainian armed forces"; "the Russian Federation's Ministry of Defence accused the Ukraine-backed Azov Battalion of having purposefully destroyed the building", "The Russian Ministry of Defense denied the accusations", "The Russian Defense Ministry said that they destroyed a "temporary deployment point” of a Ukrainian territorial defence unit", and so on.
  • Re youtube video, I think we shouldn't use primary sources like that. I don't doubt that woman is sincere, but she's terrorised, she might have misunderstood something important about the situation she was in, and as you can see she was interviewed in a camp of the Donetsk people's republic (see the black/blue/red flag), so she might also have been forced, or she might have felt she was forced, to say what she said - it's not for us to say, that's the reason we need reliable secondary sources.
  • The report by Amnesty International is a reliable secondary source, and also the report by OHCHR is a reliable secondary source when it says that the incident at the care house in Stara Krasnianka is emblematic of its concerns over the use of human shields. I believe we should publish that subsection and I think that in the discussion here above, "Stara Krasnianka care house attack", we reached a consensus on a slightly modified version of that text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good morning Gitz6666; I just saw Imbirius changed the statement for Zelenskyy. I think that solves the issue, as of course Zelenksyy's comment is notable enough to keep. Still, I'm not sure about keeping vague things like "The Russian Ministry of Defense denied the accusations". Unless I'm mistaken, both Russia and Ukraine are denying all accusations of war crimes. If a statement provides more info, it should be kept, but if it is only a spokesperson saying "that's false!", I don't think it adds much.
      I agree the YouTube video is a primary source and by itself shouldn't be used. Although in that case it was accompanied by other secondary sources that mentioned it directly. But I won't argue for its inclusion, better sources should be found in any case, and perhaps is not even on the scope of this article.
      To the last part I'll go to the new section below to answer. Thanks for your work as always Gitz! AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is controversial. But you decide 'reliable'. Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The red-linked account was obviously "NOT HERE" and was rightly indeffed. Moreover, the content it tried to include (civilians accused Ukrainian forces from the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion of deliberately shooting at fleeing cars and kidnapping residents and so on.) was an obvious Russian propaganda. I am surprised how anyone could see this another way. But I will say that the just included claims by the AI [94] also do not belong to the page. Here is why. According to the article title and content, "Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians". Yes, this is probably true (and it is hard to imagine how it would be otherwise during urban warfare). However, nowhere the publication tells that the Ukrainian forces used people as "human shields"( which would be an obvious war crime) or calls this "war crime" by the Ukrainian side. Hence does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Amnesty International: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians

  This is the source "Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians". Amnesty International. 2022-08-04. Retrieved 2022-08-04. Here a few news reports [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] and here @My very best wishes's revert [103]. I cannot believe that in an article on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine we should publish anything about this report by Amnesty. It is even difficult for me to formulate an argument, since the relevance of that report and of the replies to that report seems so obvious to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, this report by AI has been covered in a number of news sources and commented on by Ukrainian government. But this report does not say that the Ukrainian side has committed any "war crimes". Please place this content to other pages if you wish. According to the article title and content, "Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians" [in some cases]. Yes, this is possibly true, and it is hard to imagine how it would be otherwise during urban warfare. However, nowhere the publication tells that the Ukrainian forces used people as "human shields" to deter Russian forces (and they could not be deterred this way) or explicitly calls these specific incidents "war crimes" by the Ukrainian side, unless I am missing something. It does explicitly say that Russian side has committed "war crimes" in Kharkiv and elsewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "A Russian air strike on 28 April injured two employees at a medical laboratory in a suburb of Kharkiv after Ukrainian forces had set up a base in the compound.

  Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law."

  Even if the article doesn't mention "War crimes" , it does show many incidents. So ukraine setting up bases in hospital isn't a "war crime"?

  Btw

  “Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.” - Agnès Callamard RandomPotato123 (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law. I think that is enough to post it here AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you RandomPotato123 (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it is not. This AI article makes a very clear distinction between actions by Russian and Ukrainian forces. Just to clarify, this paper say: In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv... and Indiscriminate attacks [by Russian forces] which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes., so it can be used for sourcing the specified war crimes by Russian forces. On the other hand, AI does not accuse the Ukrainian side of any war crimes here, but only of endangering civilians. That endangering (allegedly documented by AI in several cases) is a serious matter, and Ukrainian government denied it, but this is simply not a war crime, and therefore a content for another page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with AI doesn't accuse part but the article does list incidents committed by Ukraine which comes under "War Crimes". This source can still be added to this wiki page . All one has to do is mention the incidents on AI's article RandomPotato123 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  AI Ukraine did not participate and criticized the 'report' https://news.yahoo.com/amnesty-ukraine-office-not-involved-172500671.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAASG0mu4z7f_DTH0wM2icAPmz0rIW2fRgOW07OGddmPSetmKNli8zJfpVvc3rPCgjXidxBTLuhNbH635yb8zyd5f-zREL7GyLdMiqztDorcVDQsrd0ExYyXRLjj2FkPX-BDNVbzg3LG8iLSmTz5vuHpVKnocKYeBoJOBAjEX8wEd.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Xx236, I think that is standard operation. If war crimes are being investigated, it should be done by a third party. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, there’s a ton of controversy around this report and this is probably an instance where Wp:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS should apply. We should see how this shakes out, wait a week or so and then decide whether to include it. Volunteer Marek 09:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The section describes multiple incidents of Russian abuses in this section. Not all of them were explicitly called war crimes and therefore it makes no sense to apply a different standard to the reports of the Ukrainian forces putting civilians in danger. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @My very best wishes, Amnesty International has accused Ukraine of war crimes during its ongoing military conflict with invading Russian forces according to Newsweek. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is because Newsweek (2013–present) is not generally a reliable source according to our Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. According to generally reliable sources, such as Guardian (#1 in your list) [[104], not only this is not a war crime, but even accusing Ukraine of endangerment is highly problematic. This is apparently one of controversies to be included to Criticism of Amnesty International. Amnesty itself is an RS "for the statements of fact", but it does not accuse Ukraine of war crimes in this publication (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My very best wishes, NPR: report accusing the Ukrainian military of stationing its troops and artillery near residential areas. That goes against international conventions of war intended to protect civilians caught up in conflict and Ukrainians need to acknowledge their alleged moral high ground takes a total adherence to international law. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My very best wishes, more: NPR: Ukrainian officials have claimed that their defensive posture against Russia justifies all tactics used so far, and that the report unfairly implicates Ukraine in war crimes. Even Ukraine isn't arguing that the report mentions them commiting war crimes. This is a non-discussion. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do these NPR articles assertively say that the incidents were "war crimes" by Ukraine? No, they do not. To the contrary, they cite people who say they were NOT war crimes and criticize the Amnesty [105]. If you look at the cited publications, they are not so much about Ukraine as about the highly controversial report by the Amnesty. Hence, this belongs to page Criticism of Amnesty International. My very best wishes (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My very best wishes, could you please provide me the citations and sources from third parties stating that AI's report is false, and that the aforementioned actions by Ukraine do not constitute international humanitarian law violations? Thanks AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No one said the report was "false". As about "humanitarian law violations", maybe (I have no judgement on this), but they are not necessarily war crimes. You need to read the NPR sources you just brought above [106]. It says: "Donatella Rovera, the [AI] report's author, says that situations like these arise on all sides of any war, and that it's up to Ukrainians to address the concerns as soon as possible.". But he did NOT call the Ukrainian actions in these cases war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My very best wishes, Ukrainian officials: "the report unfairly implicates Ukraine in war crimes." Can't be more clear than that. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That should not mean a lot since they are an involved side, but a number of 3rd party RS say these cases were NOT war crimes, and most importantly, the report itself and the author of this report do not say they were war crimes by the Ukrainian side if one looks at the source. Hence does not belongs to this page (at least in Ukraine sections), but rather to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @AdrianHObradors: that is Ukrainian officials interpreting the report, so with attribution, that would seem valid for us.

  What MVBM said is what we currently have starting the lead of war crimes: A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as ..., where I've added bold to that. The Rome Statute Article 8.2.b.(xxiii) does say Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations; so the hypothetical case for the ICC or for the Prosecutor General of Ukraine Andriy Kostin (if sufficiently independent from the government) would be to investigate if, for example, missiles were fired from civilian areas rather than un-populated locations with the aim of making the soldiers legally immune from attack, which would not be easy to prove.

  In any case, the borderline between "violations of IHL that are/are not war crimes" in this case is much less clear than for well known war crime types; legal type sources giving interpretations or notable precedents would probably be needed. Boud (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Disclaimer: I have not checked what the dominance of sources is in terms of interpretation here. Boud (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, an official Amnesty representative, "Mitieva stressed that researchers found evidence that the Ukrainian military has violated international humanitarian law, not committed any war crimes." [107], as of course was already clear after reading their original report. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ┌──────────────────────────────┘
  My very best wishes, that is not an official International Amnesty representative. That is a person that worked for IA Ukraine (not the same), a branch that did not form part of the report, and that person has since resigned from AI Ukraine. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is one of the main reasons why I've always argued for adopting a "senso latu" notion of war crimes in this article (so the lead should rather be War crimes are serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as...): the distinction between war crimes stricto sensu and other violations of international humanitarian law is often very subtle and controversial, and requires a fair trial to be assessed. To that end, a tweet by the US Embassy or a piece in the Daily Beast are utterly useless. Take for example the distinction between torture and inhumane treatment, which is the degree of suffering ("severe pain"); more to the point, take the distinction between "use of human shields" (a war crime stricto sensu) and "failure to take the necessary precautions to protect the civilian population" (Article 58(c) Additional Protocol I, a war crime lato sensu). As Boud rightly notes, on most occasions the distinction is entirely dependent upon the intentions of the perpetrators, which are difficult to ascertain without a fair trial. However, in this article we have always accepted speculative/hypothetical allegations of war crimes (e.g., "According to Human Rights Watch/Amnesty/etc., this might be a war crime..."). By the way, each and every allegation of indiscriminate attack is inherently speculative and hypothetical: every apparent indiscriminate attack might be due to a failure of the weapon or to bad soldiering skills. Analogously, saying that Ukrainian forces have put civilians at risk by establishing bases in populated residential areas is identical to saying that they might have used the presence of a civilians to render certain areas immune from military operations. To sum up my arguments:

  1) We should adopt a lato sensu notion of war crime.

  2) Even if we adopt a strico sensu notion of war crime, documented cases of failure to protect civilians may be regarded as hypothetical allegations of use of human shields, just like cases documented cases of bombing civilian objects have been regarded as hypothetical allegations of indiscriminate attacks.

  Finally, even if we were to deny that this report is documenting war crimes in any way, it would still be relevant to this article because what it says, if accurate, might exonerate the Russian army from some of the allegations of indiscriminate attacks. Therefore this report should be mentioned in various sections of the article, e.g. "Attacks on hospitals and medical care facilities" (e.g. Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations.) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Amnesty’s Ukrainian branch director explicitly stressed that this is not evidence of war crimes.[108] Doesn’t belong in this article. —Michael Z. 16:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mzajac, Amnesty Ukraine is not an unbiased party and they were left out of the investigation for a reason. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Says what reliable secondary source? —Michael Z. 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mzajac, I don't know how to express how I feel having to explain this to someone that has been not only a member of Wikipedia, but also an admin, since 2005. I can only imagine this is a subject close to you, but you should still be able to see. On one side we have an actual report written by Amnesty International, and on the other one we have... what? Kateryna Mitieva, a spokeswoman for AI Ukraine. I can't find any mention from her on any AI page, and not only that, but she has resigned. So yeah, a personal statement from someone that used to work at Amnesty International Ukraine isn't a RS. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary efforts of international organizations should be directed at ending Russia’s war, not instructing the Ukrainian Army on how they should defend themselves from genocide, officials said Seriously, Ukraine is literally saying "we are under attack so if we commit war crimes is ok". It is awful. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC); edit: no //literally//, but nearlyAdrianHObradors (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe the subject is close to you. You seem to think that AI is unassailable, and ignore criticism of its colonial action of criticizing Ukraine’s defence from 2,700 kilometres away while actively excluding their own local people on the ground from the analysis. Meanwhile, you cast aspersions against Ukrainian AI with your unsupported “not unbiased” and reasonless “for a reason” comment. And you ignore that Pokalchuk released her statement before resigning.

  Anyway, you’re distracting this off topic. Amnesty International does not say this is war crimes. No one says this is war crimes. It doesn’t belong in this article. —Michael Z. 19:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mzajac, no one? Even Ukraine themselves have said it: Ukrainian officials have claimed that their defensive posture against Russia justifies all tactics used so far, and that the report unfairly implicates Ukraine in war crimes. And this subject is close to me,as in that I feel aversion against war crimes. AI report is of course assailable, but so far there has not been any serious argument against the report content, only against the report on itself. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the report say Ukrainian war crimes? No.

  (It does explicitly address war crimes, saying the Russians committed them. Your “on one side” comment above is a straw man, because that side doesn’t exist.)

  Who says this report rightfully or accurately identifies Ukrainian war crimes? No one.

  Who says it’s problematic?

  • Zelenskyy slams Amnesty International over critical military report, Politico.
  • Ukrainian Branch of Amnesty Int’l Rejects Report Accusing Kyiv of Endangering Civilians, CNS News.
  • Amnesty International report is manipulative and plays along with Russia and its propagandists Ombudsman, Ukrayinska Pravda.
  • Amnesty International's report criticizing Ukraine is dividing the rights group, NPR
  • Lillian Posner, Amnesty International Gets It Wrong in Ukraine, The National Interest
  • Time McMillan, Opinion: What Amnesty International Got Wrong in Its Ukraine Endangering Civilians Claim, The Debrief.

   —Michael Z. 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's interesting that when Human Rights Watch basically said the same things a few days ago no one reacted so vehemently [109]. Probably the reason is that HRW was documenting 3 or 4 cases (I don't remember) while AI basically claims that that tactics is systematic. I agree that neither AI nor HRW say that that tactics amounts to a war crime giving rise to individual responsibility of the perpetrators: it would amount to a war crime "stricto sensu" if the reason why they place military targets within residential areas is that they want to render themselves immune from Russian attacks. That, however, doesn't mean that the report (and the tactics it alleges) is not relevant to this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Mzajac, I don't have much time to check all of the links right now, but I was reading Lillian Posner's blog entry on The National Interest and I am a bit baffled. Yet I think she reflects very well on her entry everyone else's reaction to the AI report.These “both sides” narratives give the mistaken impression that Russia and Ukraine are equally culpable for a war Russia started. Like, who thinks that?
  Ukraine’s record when it comes to upholding humanitarian law in wartime is hardly spotless, but Amnesty appears to be nitpicking. [...] The report makes no mention of the Ukrainian government’s repeated attempts to evacuate civilians from Kherson, Zaporizhie, Mariupol, and Donbas. Ukraine’s record on protecting civilians, while perhaps not to the “fullest extent possible,” has been very full indeed. If I didn't know any better, I would believe that she is saying that some humanitarian law violations are ok. "Your honor, it is true that my client kicked that grandma down the stairs, but why is no one talking about how last month he helped 7 grandmas cross the street and held the door open for 3?" AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So “the subject is close” is a valid speculative criticism of my arguments, but not of yous, even though you literally said it is stated to you. Then you go writing a mini-opinion piece analyzing the arguments of an editors’ criticism. This is descending into “no you are” and chit-WP:CHAT. I don’t believe any of this changes the plain fact that the only war crimes mentioned in the piece are Russian war crimes. I think we’ve more than exhausted the discussion.

  The passage should be reduced to a balanced mention that cites criticisms of it, at best. It’s more appropriate to remove it and mention it in Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas. —Michael Z. 22:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mzajac. only war crimes mentioned in the piece are Russian war crimes what piece? The AI report? Because the report is quite clear:
  We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas. - Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.
  Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. [...] Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law. This part doesn't call it a war crime, but still, ties directly with this article, as it would mean that Russian attacks to hospitals are not war crimes.
  Ukrainian military has routinely set up bases in schools Same thing.
  And, by secondary source [110] Amnesty International issued a report [...] accusing the Ukrainian military of stationing its troops [...] in ways that may amount to war crimes I don't know, perhaps I'm really not seing something, but it seems pretty clear to me AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are all violations of the laws of war war crimes? Our article war crimes doesn’t say that but qualifies its definition.

  Only a single secondary source says “may amount to.” So any mention of AI’s accusation should, at best, qualify it thus.

  Amnesty only definitively accuses Russia of war crimes. Since reading responses to its “report,” I’ve modified my view. The report is heavily criticized, and should not be used as a source, but only as an opinion presented with some of the many qualified and expert dissenters. I still don’t think it belongs in this article, because it only makes us look like we’re fishing for even the weakest possible accusation against Ukraine. —Michael Z. 22:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Times view on Amnesty International’s Ukraine report: Putin’s Propagandists,” The Times.
  • Explanatory thread on legal debates relevant to Amnesty’s limited position on international humanitarian law by a historian and international law expert (20 tweets).
  • Thread disputing AI’s view on defending ground from the ground as a violation by a policy expert on land warfare (4 tweets)

  And for those casting baseless aspersions at the Ukrainian branch, less than two weeks before the shameful and sketchy “report,” numerous problems are reported at the top by experts, including “the presence of a white saviour and colonialist complex,” “limited understanding of armed conflict leading to erroneous claims and incorrect analysis,” and “false claims.”

  • Barbara Kay: The once mighty Amnesty International has sunk to irrelevancy, National Post.

   —Michael Z. 21:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We have various contents in this article that don't qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu" (giving rise to individual responsibility). On various occasions editors have decided that mere violations of international humanitarian law that don't amount to war crimes "stricto sensu" can be reported in this article (e.g., attacks to nuclear power plants, lack of agreement on humanitarian corridors). That's not necessarily wrong because we have many secondary sources documenting that the expression "war crime" can be applied to any serious violation of international humanitarian law, even if it doesn't give rise to individual criminal responsibility. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another reason why it would preferable to account for this report in the section on Human shields (which perhaps we should rename "Human shields and failure to protect civilians") is that this would allow us to report some of the criticism raised against the report. For example, both the reaction by Zelenskyy and the reaction by Amnesty Ukraine are relevant. Alternatively we could and should publish bit and pieces of the report where they belong thematically (indiscriminate attacks, attacks against hospitals) as I have just done [111] [112]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been included to section "Human shields". Once again, which sources say that Ukrainian forces use civilians as human shields (i.e. that they forced civilians to shield a legitimate military target in order to deter the enemy from attacking it). I can see zero such sources so far. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This could have been addressed less disruptively by adding "and failure to protect civilians" to the title of the section, as I suggested here above. Various editors have worked on the text that you have just so light-heartedly delated [113] for the second time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Gitz6666, I propose instead of "and failure to protect civilians" to use "and endangerment of civilians". It reflects better AI report, and makes more sense. Stationing military troops in a hospital doesn't "fail" to protect the civilians, but directly endangers them. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, "endangerment of civilians" is closer to the words used by AI, but "failure to (take necessary precaution to) protect civilians" is closer to the legal terminology - the relevant source of law being Article 58 Protocol I, which you can read here [114]. "Endangerment of civilians" is very broad, and one could immediately argue that it was Putin the first one who put civilians in danger when he invaded Ukraine; "failure to protect" is more specific, because it refers to specific duties upon the combatants - e.g., if you need to place a machine gun in a care house, you'd better first evacuate the building, otherwise you're not taking the precautions you're required to take. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Putin did not "put civilians in danger". He ordered to kill civilians by shooting them with missiles while they attended shopping malls. That was war crime (according to Amnesty, etc.). Do not you see the difference? Another highly relevant question (per your link): did the Ukrainian authorities try to evacuate their civilians from the cities under attack? The report by Amnesty does not say it, but in a lot of such cases people just refused to be evacuated. In many other cases they did want to evacuate, but it was already too late, with Russian forces shooting at any cars with civilians who tried to evacuate. These are reasons why this report by AI is so disputable. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This content is now placed in section "Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets". Such placement fixes the issue with "human shields", however other issues discussed above I think remain. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point we have the head of Amnesty Ukraine resigning in protest over this report and several people from within AI trying to defend it by explicitly saying that the report DOES NOT accuse Ukraine of war crimes, nor does it accuse it of using human shields. Just not taking enough care to evacuate civilians. This shouldn’t be in. Support removing per WP:ONUS and WP:REDFLAG. Volunteer Marek 02:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  the report is very controversial but no one says it's factually wrong. Most of the criticisms are in terms of opportunity, playing in the hands of the enemy, creating "false balance", etc. AI Ukraine speaks of "inadmissibility and incompleteness" of the report and the new ombudsman highlights that urban warfare is not prohibited as such. But no one says "we did not place military objectives within hospitals and schools, we always evacuate civilian buildings when we use them for military purposes. We can use the report by AI as a reliable source on facts. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "False balance" it is. We should not make it on the page by placing content that does not belong. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "False balance" policies aren't a permission to censor factual information covered in multiple sources. I don't think there's a serious dispute about contents of the report; the discussion in the sources is about morality of talking about Ukrainian army violating IHL, as many see these violations as necessary and permissible.

  I think @My very best wishes and @Mzajac are right that endangering civilians isn't the same as killing, however, jumping from such judgement to excluding mention of the report from the article is a giant leap.

  Both AI's Callamard and secondary sources call it a report about war crimes (NPR was mentioned above, Telegraph referred to it as a report into alleged war crimes by Kyiv’s armed forces. too). I don't see how an argument of not including because of "zero sources" can be made when such sources are present. @AdrianHObradors articulated this in more detail above.

  REDFLAG doesn't apply either, as there was a similar HRW report days ago. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  REDFLAG most certainly applies as there are AI officials resigning over publication of this report, “PaulT2022”. Volunteer Marek 22:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Experts widely condemn Amnesty International report ", "Amnesty has this week determinedly set about shredding its credibility " Etc. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Volunteer Marek, did you listen to the interview you just shared? the one whit the expert saying "I don't think there's much doubt that what the researchers saw it's technically true ... my colleagues and I have even seen some examples of this ... the criticism mostly comes down to what the report doesn't say", etc.? Obviously we can use the report by AI as a source. Even if one where to concede that Amnesty International has become a global centre of Putin's propaganda (which frankly is ridiculous), WP:BIASED would apply, which doesn't make the report non-reliable. If someone thinks that Amnesty International is not a reliable source on warfare and international humanitarian law, I suggest you open a discussion at RS/N. This thread cannot be about "can we use the report as a source?", but rather about "where should we use it? saying what, adding what kind of context and background?" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Technically true" that what? Regardless, this report is hugely controversial, there's resignations over it, there's pieces in several major outlets condemning it, etc. - we can't use because it's "technically true". And RS/N has nothing to do with this. It's WP:REDFLAG, WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I posted sources above that say AI is factually wrong about what constitutes violations, and questions the integrity of its investigation for lack of sourcing, lack of evidence, lack of specifics, lack of an indication of how evidence was collected. In case it’s not obvious, the press release is the entire “report”. If we include it, we need to include an indication of how much dissent there is. There will be more about why it’s wrong than about it. —Michael Z. 22:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But that's precisely the reason why we'd better summarise the report in the section on Human shields, which we could rename "Human shields and failure to protect civilians" or perhaps (copying one of the headings of the OHCHR report) "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields". In that way we could say something about the debate surrounding the report, which is relevant to this article. Alternatively, we will use the report (which is a RS) in the sections to which its findings belong thematically without providing any context and criticism. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • [115] - Good removal. This is simply not on the subject of the section which is indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets by Russian forces. However, a similar claim still remain in this section (2nd para from the bottom). It is reliably sourced [116] and provides various views on this subject. For example, according to Arestovich, "the country’s [Ukraine] military doctrine, approved by parliament, provides for the principle of “total defense.” That means that volunteers in the Territorial Defense Forces or in other self-defense units have the legal authority to protect their homes, which are mostly in urban areas...“We cannot prevent our citizens from defending their homes, freedoms, values ​​and identities as they understand them.” But again, this is not about war crimes by the Ukrainian side. Hence does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that some editors (@My very best wishes, @Volunteer Marek and possibly also @Mzajac) don't want any reference to the report by Amnesty International in this article. Other editors (@RandomPotato123, @PaulT2022, @Alaexis, @NHCLS and myself) published or argued for publishing contents from the report. Also @Boud and @Xx236 joined the discussion but if I'm not wrong didn't share their views on this point. So, how shall we move forward? Is it possible to build a consensus of some sort or should we open an RfC or what? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh come on, please stop it with these continuous and persistent claims of WP:FALSECONSENSUS (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). NHCLS has not commented anywhere on this page. "RandomPotato" and "PaulT2022" are two accounts that were created... like yesterday. The former's first edits to Wikipedia were thinly veiled attempts to justify Russian war crimes in Kremenchuk [117]. Yeah, sorry, you don't have consensus so stop claiming otherwise. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not claim consensus. Clearly there's no consensus. I just pinged the editors who joined the discussion or published relevant contents so as to know their opinion on how to proceed: more discussion on the talk, RS/N, NPOV/N or RfC? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't? Great. Then I take it you won't be edit warring over it without an RfC right? Volunteer Marek 00:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a consensus on not removing Stara Krasnianka (care house). This is the subject of a thread here above. If you and MVBW keep on removing it, you're engaging in disruptive editing and edit war. However, there is not a consensus on including info on the AI's report and/or on using it as a source. Three editors (if I'm not wrong) object to it, so we need to build a consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there is no such consensus, just like there are no reliable sources which call it a war crime, despite your repeated claims otherwise. Repeating false claims over and over again does not make them any less false. And THAT is disruptive. Volunteer Marek 01:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had plenty of disagreements with MVBW and VM, but in this case I would tend to agree that the recent Amnesty report is widening the scope in a case that is strongly dependent on legal interpretations and precedents and risking WP:SYNTH, and, somewhat like the case of Denisova, there seems to be dispute about how carefully the report was worded: Oksana Pokalchuk publicly resigned and there appears to be internal dispute within the International Secretariat of Amnesty International (the research section, independent of national sections). Callamard's public tweet about "social media mobs and trolls" doesn't match Amnesty's usually careful language (it was in her own name, not the organisation's name). So far there's a 3-sentence summary at Amnesty International#2020s but nothing in Criticism of Amnesty International. I would suggest that people wanting to include the info from the report start off with a wider article, Violations of IHL in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Violations of international humanitarian law in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (I'm not sure what WP:TITLE would prefer) with a brief paragraph of overview, a section with a summary of this article and a {{main}} cross-reference, and a section on the Amnesty report and similar things, to cover cases where there are currently only hints that the IHL violations might be a war crime. Boud (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]