Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Attacks on civilians. Sumy Oblast, Zhytomyr attacks and in general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No quarter order and EJIL:Talk! as reliable source

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

This is blog and therefore covered by WP:SELFPUB. This is a really important info ([2]). What we need here is an official statement by Ukrainian government published somewhere and a coverage in mainstream secondary RS, such as NYT, CNN, etc. After reading this blog and first source, I understand that Ukrainian government did NOT make this an official change of their policy. Right? My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Image of killed civilian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion: Article needs an Infobox, or something like that. What should it include and omit?

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

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

Suggestions? Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Castration of Russian soldiers

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

It wasn't the ministry of defense but the owner of a war-zone hospital who claims he told his doctors to castrate captured Russian soldiers: [3], [4]. There are multiple sources but, unless the order was executed, this doesn't qualify as a war crime but rather as war talk and war propaganda. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I understand that was a bad joke. There was no Russian prisoners in the hospital, no one to castrate. The guy even apologized for his joke: "He said his hospital "does not castrate anyone and is not going to. Those were the emotions. I'm sorry. We are saving lives. Period" [5]. Also, none of these sources is particularly reliable. There are numerous discussions like that in social media. They do not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(And it says the same thing about incitement.)

United States of America

Practice Relating to Rule 156. Definition of War Crimes

III. Military Manuals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: Below is information on how to keep your account and identity more secure while editing here

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

I encourage everyone to read both. Click on "Show" (On the Right side of the bar below) to see it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesapeake77 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)   —and unsubst'ed by Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is an informal term

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

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

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

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

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

Changed my mind. Here's why.

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

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

Therefore yes, this war INCLUDES genocide.

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

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

There are no sources stating that Mariupol residents are being sent to "relocation camps". The City Council of Mariupol said that many thousands of civilians are being forcibly transferred to Russia, but they never mention systematic internment of these refugees.

The other argument about Russian motivations for the war seems to be WP:OR. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, "Russia is housing an estimated 5,000 at a temporary camp in Bezimenne, east of Mariupol, seen in satellite images." [6]. This is one of the camps, and sources are saying about multiple camps [7]. How exactly these camps should be described ("relocation", "filtration" or "concentration") is not entirely clear. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Will look into it. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes they are alleged to be being sent to camps. I have seen the news article myself. It is a different article than the one you are mentioning.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What amounts to a war crime? Lack of mention in sources and WP:OR

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

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

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

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

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

I am not sure how much should we be trusting US Embassy in Ukraine as a RS. They reported the other day how Russia shot and killed 10 people standing in line for bread, which were actually victims of a shell attack. [8] [9] [10] Could be a case of wording, but seems dishonest at best.

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

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

  That is not correct per your own reference. I don't condone attacks on civilians, of course, but I believe you are confusing concepts. Not all civilian victims are due to war crimes. We should have this very clear when editing this article. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead2

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

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

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

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

Option 1 Keep

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

Option 1 Keep

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

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

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

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

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

None of the cited sources (we currently have only a couple from CNN) claim that it was in fact a torture of Russian soldiers. They only say there is a video, and it must be investigated if the video was authentic and what had actually happen. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Video footage purporting to show the torture of Russian prisoners of war is being investigated" (The Guardian, [12]). Everything happened "allegedly", "reportedly", "purportedly", and so will be for quite a long time. We'd better find a rule of thumb. So far, if I'm not wrong, we've followed these two guidelines: 1) Unless we are reporting non-controversial facts, in the text we specify the source ("according to") and faithfully summarise the content they're conveying (e.g., "w is a war crime", "x might be a war crime", "x should be investigated", etc.); 2) In the heading we state clearly what it is all about, the subject e.g. "Targeting of humanitarian corridors", "Attacks on civilians", "Detention of civilians and torture", etc.; we don't qualify or anticipate the content ("Alleged detention and torture", "alleged targeting of humanitarian corridors"). Why should we change now? We should aim at WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed the lead, "abusing" to "torturing", and mentioned Ukrainian shelling on civilian areas. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I too agree with Option 3 and would welcome an expansion of the lead, which is now too sketchy and unsatisfactory. We should make it more informative while doing our best to keep it fairly balanced and not emphatic or apologetic. I've added a bit of contents in the last few days (here and here), which obviously isn't enough and should be improved. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian prisoners. Contents

I have doubts about this info added by @Alaexis, already reverted by @My very best wishes, originally inserted by @Misser420. The source now (CNN) looks good, but for some reason I cannot access the article: [13] - can you? is it the CNN? I see that the news is reported also by Goodworldnews [14], which is not reliable. So do we have RS or not? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666, it's still there at [15]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, everything in this article is alleged as there have been no formal investigations or legal proceedings. If a reliable source is reporting incidents that have been alleged to be war crimes, they should be put here for now, no matter how dubious we as editors may find the primary sourcing underlying the claims. Verifiability, not truth is how things work on Wikipedia. Applying heavy scrutiny to allegations against one side but not the other also breaches NPOV as mentioned. Letcord (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Letcord. Unless another RS says this video is potentially fake, there is no reason not to include it with the CNN source. It is common for soldiers to upload videos to a YouTube in this manner and then taken them down when command finds out about them for some reason. LondonIP (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Human Right Watch Report - Ensure Safe Passage, Aid for Mariupol Civilians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No any sourcing to TASS please. This is not an RS, especially on such subject. Also, the removed segment has absolutely nothing to do with HRW Report, it is unrelated [16]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• [17] - Once again, no primary sources like TASS, please. The secondary RS are many, e.g. [18], and unlike TASS, they explain the context, i.e. the both resolutions proposed by Russia were rejected because they "didn’t mention the Russian invasion that caused the escalating crisis...", but this is simply not about the subject in the section (the actual attacks against civilians). My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

spelling

Hi, I am new to this editing of Wikipedia articles so I'm just going to ask someone to please fix a spelling error on the "Chernihiv Oblast" segment as the term 'destroy' is typed distoryed

Thanks to anyone who read the message and fixed the minor problem. 75.157.89.102 (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting it. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Irpin refugee column shelling - Human Right Watch Statement - “Both sides have an obligation…”

There is a discussion on the Iprin refugee column shelling article talk page. I would appreciate if people could review and provide their input. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The HRW article [19] first tells specifically about this incident, but then switch to another, more general subject, i.e. "Over the past several days, Russian and Ukrainian forces have held talks to discuss opening safe routes of evacuation for civilians in areas across Ukraine..." and so on. Then it debates the "laws of war" in general and the texts cited above appears. What they say in that part is NOT about this specific incident in Irpen. As phrased, it creates wrong impression that Ukrainian forces did NOT "take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm". But the source does not say it at all. To the contrary, this and other RS put the blame on the Russian forces in this specific incident. That could be different in other incidents, but they must be judged on a case to case basis. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)