Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

add the Borodianka

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

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

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

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

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

move some things and add more

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

Bombing of Chernihiv:

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

On the subject of this article, and ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals

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

1. If we adopt the notion of war crimes "stricto sensu", then ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of pro-Russian supporters fall within the scope of this article. It is true that article 4 Geneva Convention IV defines "protected persons" as those who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict "of which they are not nationals". But the Elements of Crime [1] state: "With respect to nationality, it is understood that the perpetrator needs only to know that the victim belonged to an adverse party to the conflict". Knut Dörmann, War Crimes Under the Rome Statute [2], explains that art. 4 Geneva Convention IV had already been interpreted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia as implying that "allegiance to a Party to the conflict", rather than nationality, may be regarded as a crucial test, and quotes the Tadic Judgment, IT-94-1-A para. 166. The same point is explained by Alexander Schwarz, "War Crimes", in Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law, 2014 [3].
2. The war in Ukraine is not only an international armed conflict but also an internal one [4]. In a civil war both parties share the same nationality, yet war crimes can be committed, and this reflects both customary international law [5] and treaty law, in particular Common Article 3, which prohibits, among other things, "cruel treatment and torture" of persons not taking active part in the conflict. Based on this, ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of marauders, bootleggers and curfew violators qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu"; the same applies a fortiori to pro-Russian supporters.
3. Finally, let's get to war crimes "lato sensu". When in March I was arguing that we shouldn't cover every attack with civilian casualties but only "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" ones, because only these qualify as war crimes under current IHL, some editor – I don’t remember who – told me: why should we stick to the law, if the law is bad and allows for the killing of civilians? I don't object to this, it's an interesting point, and anyway it justifies the editorial line which de facto prevailed, so that we are now covering many crimes that our RS don’t explicitly qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu": see sections "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", "Bombing of Kyiv", "Bombing of Borodianka", bombing of "Zhytomyr Oblast", "Bombing of Odessa", "Chemical weapons", " Kidnapping of Ukrainian children". Is this a problem? Maybe not. It seems to me that the rationale is that any violations of IHL as well as any violations of human rights which is closely related to the war fall within the scope of this article: crimes committed during the war and because of the war, strictly related to the war, but not necessarily prohibited by IHL as war crimes. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This is another example, the latest one, of what one could call human rights lato sensu: [6]. Does this pertain to this article's subject? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Boldface only used here to emphasize key points)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Speaking on the original subject on the top, i.e. "ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals", that could be decided on a case by case basis, but something like this [7] is totally unrelated to any war crimes whatsoever. People in Ukraine are punishing (in a very peculiar manner) their own people who were caught red-handed while looting. They are not pro-Russian supporters, and even if they are, that's irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe we should follow your original proposal, "Human Rights in Ukraine during the 2022 invasion", and place there both migrants + marauders and Russian supporters. Apart from migrants, also cases of discrimination against people fleeing from Ukraine were reported ([8]) which could be stuffed there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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

what about the sections about humiliation of POWs? if its not going to be restored, it surely should have its own page or something and be linked here, as, even though according to you guys its not a war crime, its still a violation of the geneva conventions, maybe the page could be called "Treatment of POWs during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something like that, the genocide part though, its already talked about in a separate article, so, if there's no new information that can be added, it could be removed, because, isn't genocide a separate crime? (not a war crime but a separate thing like certain violations like the crime of aggression)? same should go for the nuclear power plants and the "denying free passage to civilians" part, they should instead be merged with their respective articles, although we could link them here in the see also section so, incase anyone wants to check in on that, they could go to that page and read about it. 177.181.244.248 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Torture and mutilation of Ukrainian soldiers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you think that "both sources are about same issue so not SYNTH", @Volunteer Marek? [9]. The info added by User:Shadybabs [10] is about "torture and mutilation in the town of Borodyanka"; the intercepted call about torture and mutilation was allegedly made by a Russian solider in Kharkiv Region (so says Ukrayinska Pravda), which is 500 km away. The very fact that we are discussing about this proves it's a case of WP:SYNTH.
I think there might be a rough consensus on retaining the info published (but not verified) by NPR, provided that the heading of the section complies with our guidelines (e.g. "Intercepted conversation about war crimes"), but there's no consensus on adding info about mummy getting excited over torture and mutilation of heroic Ukrainian soldiers. That's too fishy and was published only by unreliable/deprecated British tabloids (Daily Mail, Metro UK and Daily Mirror) plus Ukrayinska Pravda ([11]). Note that Ukrayinska Pravda has a link to the Facebook page where the Ukrainian military intelligence service first published the interception: that post, which should be here, has been removed and is no longer available. So I'd say no: this utterly fails WP:V and should not be published. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

@Volunteer Marek, how do you know they were soldiers? The people who were found killed and mutilated in Borodianka were likely to be civilians, not soldiers. The RS we quote (actually not so "R" really: the Mirror...) doesn't say they were soldiers, and all the account we have from Borodianka (e.g. [12][13] [14]) talk about mass killings of civilians, not soldiers. So now the subsection is not only WP:OR; it is also bad original research. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

OTAN Propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia terrorizes the world with nuclear weapons.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

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

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

Rape of infants and children

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, mainstream RS (CNN and CBS) say that "there were credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops". The Ukrainian official responsible for documenting such claims, Lyudmyla Denisova provides some details. Was she ever found to lie about something? Not to my knowledge. So, I would consider her claims very much credible. And this is not an extraordinary claim, given what we know about Bucha and other places. Besides, Zelensky said the same: [16]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, here is an additional, newer ref [17] (by official Ukrainian news agency Ukrinform, attributed to the same Lyudmyla Denisova). I do not insist all such atrocious details should be included to the page, but a summary should. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Migrants

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

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

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

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

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

• Which RS say that was a "war crime" by Ukrainian government? Perhaps I missed it after looking at sources? And if the source does not say it, then just arguing about international law (as above) qualify as WP:SYN. Do these sources even say that was an illegal detention by military forces? After quickly looking [19], I understand that was a lawful detention by civilian authorities, pretty much as it would be in the USA. Not a good practice and possibly a human right violation, but not a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition we should not include pure propaganda to this page, it belongs to other pages. For example, putting [20]: Putin appealed directly to Ukrainian troops and urged them not to allow "neo-Nazis and Banderites to use your children, your wives and the elderly as a human shield in section about the alleged Ukrainian war crimes is nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Bilohorivka school bombing and Kremmina stuff

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

Bilohorivka school bombing

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

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

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

References

Disrupting humanitarian corridors>Preventing civilian evacuations

@My very best wishes changed the heading of the section "Disrupting humanitarian corridors" to "Killing civilians during their attempted evacuation" because "Here is a typical illustration to the discussion at talk page. Of course "disruption" would not be a war crime, but this is not the issue" [21]. Then they probably noted (my hypothesis) that there was no RS supporting the new heading and that Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol was already covered in the article, and changed the heading again to "Preventing civilian evacuations" (edit summary: "or at least that") [22]. But the problem remains: "preventing civilian evacuation" is not a war crime, or at least we don't have a RS unequivocally stating that it's a war crime. So I'm asking to MVBW: do you agree that, based on the criterion you are defending here above in the thread Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#On_the_subject_of_this_article,_and_ill-treatment_of_pro-Russian_supporters_and_other_individuals, we should drop the whole section? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I fixed per cited sources like that one [23]. It say: "Russian forces continued to shell the Ukrainian city of Mariupol on Saturday, despite agreeing to a ceasefire just hours earlier - throwing an attempted mass evacuation of civilians into chaos.". So that was the issue which clearly qualify as a war crime. This is shelling which prevented the evacuations.My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Well, according to an explanation by PBS,

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that denying free passage by the occupying military authorities is either a war crime or a violation of international conventions [25],[26]. But this issue can be framed as "firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors" [per citation above] for inclusion, unless this is already included. That is what had happen on a number of occasions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Shields 2

Brief recap. The section "Human shields" has always been very controversial among editors. At the end of April/early May we had extensive discussions/edit wars, which can be read here in the thread Human shields. Those discussions had left the section in this miserable state until on 7 May I made an "inclusionist" proposal so as to unblock the situation: here the edit and here the explanation in the talk page. Nobody objected and the discussion was closed and the issue settled. But consensus can change, so instead of dismantling the section piece by piece ([27], [28]) with edits that enjoy no consensus, we'd better have a meaningful discussion. But first a point of order: shall we first restore the text that we had before my 7 May edit or rather the text after that edit? Because the text that is now online doesn't reflect a consensus and cannot be imposed through edit war ([29], [30], [31], [32]). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Targeting of nuclear power plants

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

Yes, here is RS that say it [33]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Please see my reply above [34]. RS provided. Your source is not particularly assertive ("it is less likely"), and it also discusses it as a possible/alleged war crime. Here is a citation from your RS: The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv tweeted, “It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant.” So whatever these different RS have to say on the subject of shelling the nuclear plant being a possible war crime need to be summarized and included to this page. Given the huge coverage and significance of this incident in RS, that absolutely must be included. This is not a video of doubtful origin. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

No, I am saying that your source [35] is an RS. That is where the info about the Embassy appears, and it does not matter how the Embassy (or whoever) communicated their claim. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion of the incident as a possible "war crime" is notable and appears in multiple RS (e.g. [36]), which justifies its inclusion to the page as a possible "war crime" during this war. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think this is a crystal clear case that must be included to the page per coverage in RS. These RS (including one in the beginning of the thread [37], PBS, CBS and others) extensively and explicitly discuss if the incident was (or could be) a "war crime". Hence belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Hmm... You just said this content should be included in your opinion [38], and now you argue it should not? My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks 1

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

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

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

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

No, I am not wrong, simply because this is not my opinion. I plainly cited a source [39] and it is directly on the subject. On the other hand, what you say above about Dresden is not on the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that should be probably qualified as an environmental crime per sources like [40]. Is it also a war crime? See here: Environmental destruction is a war crime, but it’s almost impossible to fall foul of the laws. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Naimark, Ukraine And The Cloud Of Genocide

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

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

It's an opinion piece by Norman Naimark, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. While you might find it persuasive, it only becomes fact when it gains consensus support among genocide experts. According to a U.S. intelligence official speaking to NBC News, "Genocide includes a goal of destroying an ethnic group or nation and, so far, that is not what we are seeing."[41] Not all wars, whether just or unjust, are motivated by genocide. TFD (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

But that MSNBC ref is dated April 15. Right now, after some investigations, this is different. And these crimes are indeed currently described as genocide in RS [42]. According to a report by "leading experts" on genocide, the following qualify as genocide [43]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, authors are experts, see this thread [45]. Yes, Putin said (incorrectly) that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. But he also said that Ukrainians have no right to exist. That's why sources above say about incitement of genocide. Furthermore, his military forces, paramilitaries and FSB has actually accomplished the genocide (as these and other sources say). My very best wishes (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Is genocide a war crime?

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

That's a good point. The UN distinguishes between war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.[46] TFD (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you talk of bad faith? Consistency is the best proof of good faith. I can provide dozens of sources that distinguish between genocide and war crimes, starting from the ICC Statute (article 6 is on genocide, article 8 is on war crimes) and from the Oxford Handbook of IHL (with a chapter on "The Criminalization of War Crimes versus the Criminalization of Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide"). So instead of ranting about my "insanely bad faith", you should try to find a reliable source on the point you're making, for the sake of consistency. Alternatively you should concede my point and admit that the "stricto sensu" approach to war crimes isn't viable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, sure, certain types of war crimes are also genocide (consider Srebrenica massacre as a famous example). This already quoted from scholarly and journalistic sources in section just above [47]. Hence there is an overlap. This is something page must briefly mention, and it already does just that. If needed, such section could be clarified/expanded on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  We already have an article on genocide allegations: it's called Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. As this article is about war crimes, and you yourself have on many occasions argued that its subject is war crimes, and war crimes only, there's no point - and it's openly inconsistent - that you insist on retaining a section on genocide allegations: genocide is not a war crime. Obviously "certain types of war crimes are also genocide", as well as certain types of war crimes are also military actions; we don't have a section on "military actions" and we shouldn't have a section on "genocide". Alternatively, let's change our approach to the article subject matter, let's say that any gross violation of human rights associated with the war pertains to its subject, and let's include genocide and other stuff. But we cannot have a case by case approach: sometimes war crimes stricto sensu, other times things that are not war crimes, but that are related to war crimes and that MVBW and Volunteer Marek want to have in the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again, there is an overlap of two subjects. This is very common. In such cases we have separate pages, but each such page should briefly mention another page/subject and explain the overlap. That is exactly what this section does [48]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Showing photos and videos of killed Russian soldiers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of consensus to include, together with legitimate policy based objections means it stays out until consensus is reached, per WP:ONUS. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing the "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" section while keeping the section called "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" looks like a rather IDONTLIKEIT approach. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, removing that section without removing the other actually looks like tendentious editing. By the way, I had almost forgotten the very existence of that section on Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers. Which is surprising because I myself had written a good part of it. Now, obviously I'd like it to remain as much as I like the section on Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers to remain. To me a reader who's browsing the article on war crimes in the Russian invasion might be interested in finding them both, and I don't see any good reason for dropping them. However, since the section on the Russian POWs has been repeatedly and forcefully removed, I think it's time to say goodbye to the Ukrainian POWs: it's a matter of consistency, that is, neutrality. I'm now removing it myself. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here we have multiple RS (Amnesty International, HRW, ICRC, Washington Post, Times of Israel, etc.) claiming that the Ukrainian authorities might have violated the Geneva conventions because "prisoners of war and detained civilians must be treated with dignity" and because they are "absolutely protected against ill-treatment and exposure to public curiosity including images circulating publicly on social media". If you think that this is not serious enough a violation to qualify as war crime and/or international prosecution will not be pursued (does it matter?), that's an interesting point: could you provide a reliable source on this?
Speaking about of (lack of) sources, could you please tell us why do you think that drafting a law (was it eventually approved?) facilitating the adoption of Ukrainian children amounts to a war crime? The sources I read speak of a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So I removed your contents on this [49]. I also added a few new contents on the alleged war crime of deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia: [50]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

some misguided and non policy compliant “bothsideism”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is actually an important point and I think you should discuss it thoroughly sooner or later (at NPOV/N?). I agree with Dunutubble: war crimes (the subject of this article) cannot be construed as "viewpoints" for the purposes of WP:UNDUE. If they are notable and verifiable enough they should be reported; there's no way of balancing torture with killing with rape etc. Volunteer Marek argued, if I remember correctly, that as Ukrainian war crimes are less widespread and/or less heinous than Russian war crimes, on most occasions reporting them would be like giving them undue weight. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, some explanations are needed here.

1. I don't want to discuss whether kidnapping children is a “war crime” or not. Denying that would be as absurd as denying that shooting a POW in the leg amounts to torture. I myself have just added info on allegations of forced deportation of children to Russia: they are allegations of war crimes.
2. However I don't think that approving (not even approving: "drafting") a law on easing adoption procedures for Ukrainian children is a war crime. As you first inserted these contents, and now reverted my removal, as per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD I think it is you who should open a discussion and explain your reasons. Reverting my revert is not collaborative and it only forces me or someone else to revert you again.
3. With regard to interviewing Russian POWs, "sometimes blindfolded or bound, revealing their names and personal information, and expressing regret over their involvement in the invasion", I think the legal issue is whether POW abuse passes the threshold of "humiliating and degrading treatment" under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, in which case it may well qualify as a war crime. It all depends on the circumstances of the cases and on delicate assessments. We don't have enough information and our RS don't have them either: so some of them say it's article 13, but others (WoP and HRW) don't exclude humiliation and intimidation; most of them speak of the Geneva conventions without specifying the provision. So unless you have an authoritative source that clearly settles the question and explains that these are not war crimes as they fall under article 13 and not under article 3, I think we should leave the section as it is. Note that when in 2014 pro-Russian separatists organised a parade of Ukrainian POWs in Donetsk, reliable sources said this was a war crime: [51] [52]. I don't see these episodes as being significantly different.
4. With regard to WP:UNDUE we clearly have different readings, and we'd better find a place to discuss them, as here it might be off topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Have Ukrainians organized a parade of Russian POWs?

Yes. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Background and context to the section we are talking about: Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers. "The gory online campaign", as WoP calls it: "Ukrainian officials have argued that the chilling images [of dead Russian soldiers] will alert Russians to a devastating war effort the Kremlin has sought to conceal. In videos they’ve shared of the phone calls they’ve allowed prisoners to make to their families, Ukrainians can be heard urging the soldiers to ask their parents to rally against Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop the bloodshed"; according to HRW, "videos of captured Russian soldiers who appear under duress or are revealing their names, identification numbers, and other personal information". The two things (photos of dead soldiers and videos of POWs under duress) belong, according to WoP (and to the Ukr officials they interviewed), to the same "tactic", "effort", as WoP put it, that is, policy, and circulated through official government channels. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

And here, single purpose account with barely any edits, you're using false (but very laconic and sparse) edit summaries [53] [54] (the whole point is that HRMMU doesn't say anything about war crimes). The purpose here appears solely to exacerbate the dispute. We're in WP:NOTHERE territory now. Volunteer Marek 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Ohhhhhhh! Twenty seven edits! Basically 8 edits to "establish the account", then the rest to pick fights with me. And "stretching back to 2020" just means that he is still WP:STALKING my edits two years later [55] <- here calling my good faithed edits "vandalism" two years ago. It's a freaking sleeper WP:SPA account. And let's remember that another user got topic banned from this area precisely for calling other editors' edits "vandalism"

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

• Indeed, according to sources, not all violations of Geneva conventions are war crimes. Only some are. This is consistent with my previous comments on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop trying to bully this info into the article. There's obviously no consensus for its inclusion. Start an RfC if you really insist on it. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with excluding this material. Yes, this might be clarified at an RfC, but I doubt there will a consensus for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

[56] - yes, this also can go, unless something new will be discovered about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you guys debate here, but definitely not "Showing photos and videos of killed Russian soldiers". Please open new thread and explain what's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Gitz6666, I’m fine with excluding this material as well [57]. Volunteer Marek 18:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

POV tag

This section about the mistreatment of perceived "marauders" has been repeatedly removed from the article even though it was well sourced and well documented. The decision of some editors to remove the "Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers" section but to keep "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" was an obvious case of POV (the Ukrainian soldiers section has recently been deleted, a decision I would also criticize), even though the parading of Russian POWs has been documented.

I have no idea why but some editors refuse to let any mention of Ukrainian war crimes enter the article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not “well sourced”. None of these sources refer as a war crime because it isn’t. If I burglarize my neighbors house while our country is being invaded by Canadians, that is not a “war crime”. It’s just a regular crime that happened during a war. Sources. Sources. Sources! Sources which say this is a war crime, not your own original research. If this was indeed a war crime then it should be trivial to find a freakin’ source which says so! We’re wayyyyyy past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and this spurious POV tag is just more of this WP:TENDENTIOUSness. Volunteer Marek 18:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No one suggested to keep section "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers", and it was removed. All that content may belong to page Human rights in Ukraine, not this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tag. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Kidnapping of Ukrainian children

Re this, as already explained (although not in a separate section), the first paragraph of that section provides context for the section. The sources which state this is a war crime are there. Not every sentence or piece of info needs to be sources to a source which explicitly use the term "war crime". That seems like either WP:POINT or WP:GAME.

As far as the numbers, these have actually been confirmed by... Russian authorities, and have been widely reported in reliable sources, so pretending that this is just Denisova is misleading to say the least. Same phrasing has been used by the US embassy [58], the UK foreign ministry and it's ambassador to UN.

Sources here use the phrasing "kidnapped" or "abducted". Not "deportations", which is kind of ... let's call it "insulting". At most they might call it "forcible deportations". Volunteer Marek 21:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

All the sources use the term deportation, while the term "kidnapping" always appears in "scare quotes" and is attributed. While it is fine to say that the U.S. calls this kidnapping, we don't have a reliable source for the term. Deportation is listed by the U.N. as a war crime, while kidnapping is not.[59] That's what the perpetrators would be accused of if they are put on trial for war crimes. TFD (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This is simply not true. This source does not use scare quotes on the word kidnapping, nor does it use the term "deportation" (yes it attributes the info). This source does not use scare quotes on the word kidnapping, although it also used the phrase "deported AGAINST THEIR WILL". This source uses the word kidnapping, without scare quotes, to refer to the abduction of children specifically and saves the word "deportation" for the broader phenomenon of Russia abducting Ukrainian citizens. This source uses the word kidnap and abduct, without scare quotes, and compares the practice to the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany and the abduction of Native American children by the US government in 20th and 19th centuries. This source uses the word kidnap, without scare quotes, and does NOT use the word "deport".

I could keep going. But this is more than enough to show that your claim that, quote, "All the source ue the term deportation, while the term "kidnapping" always appear in scare quotes" is just completely false. Volunteer Marek 06:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to go one by one, but most of the sources you posted don't say "Ukrainian children are being kidnapped". They say that Ukraine or the US Embassy is accusing Russia of that. I'll go one by one if you want me to. And also, see WP:CHERRYPICKING. I think TFD is right, I don't know why you insist in using the word kidnap. If deportation is a war crime and Russia is deporting children, that is what we should put on the article and not complicate or editorialize the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

We can - and should - definitely attribute statements which are relayed by reliable sources. However, these sources do use the term "kidnapping" (without scare quotes). Volunteer Marek 09:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"Kidnapping" and "deportation" obviously describe exactly same events, which we all seem to agree are war crimes. But we must make an attribution: "according to Ukrainian authorities", and they call it "kidnapping". Hence kidnapping. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should avoid giving any attribution to the Ukrainian authorities, as they are clearly not neutral, and just focus on actual research by neutral reliable sources. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, allow me to quote from the first source you mention: "Russia is kidnapping children in Ukraine, says US embassy":

• The mayor of the besieged city of Mariupol compared the ‘kidnappings’ to the actions of the Nazis during World War II
• The US embassy accused Russia of “kidnapping” thousands of Ukrainian children as local officials alleged Russian troops are forcing deportations of civilians as they bombard eastern cities.
• This is not assistance. It is kidnapping,” they said.
• Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boichenko also compared the “kidnappings” to the work of the Nazis during World War II.

So yes, "kidnapping" is always in "square quotes" or attributed, while deportation is not.

Incidentally, it's worth noting the final paragraph of the article. "The reports of forced removals have not yet been independently verified, though Russian state news agency TASS claimed that millions are asking to be moved into Russia." So your statement that Russia has confirmed the number of deportations is misleading.

We should report what the sources say as fact, not the unconfirmed accusations they are reporting.

My very best wishes, I do not agree that kidnapping is a war crime. Article 135 - NY Penal Law lists kidnapping as an offense under New York State criminal law. But there is no mention of kidnapping in the UN list of war crimes. Note that when American police illegally arrest and detain people when acting in their official capacity, we don't refer to it as kidnapping. We would only use it if they were acting in their personal capacity. In this case, the term kidnap would only be appropriate if Russian soldiers acting in their personal capacity abducted people for their own personal criminal motives.

TFD (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The first source does not use scare quotes in the headline. It does use them in a sub title. It does NOT use the word "deportations" contrary to your assertion.

Now do second source. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it does not use scare quotes in the headline because it is directly attributing it. Russia is kidnapping children in Ukraine, says US embassy. Second source is a weird one. The writing is extrange, and they do say that Russia is kidnapping children. They even go ahead and put the link to the source in the middle on the text between parentheses, which is ukrinform. They end however stating This could be qualified as kidnapping, which is just weird. I checked the website and seems to be managed by just six people. I am not saying is a bad website, but we should find better sources for Wikipedia.
Third source does not use quotes in the title, because again they directly address that it is an accusation by the US Embassy in Ukraine: US Embassy accuses Russia of kidnapping children. Even ends up saying Reports of the forced removals have not been independently verified. Fourth source: Russia’s reported abduction, then talks about how bad it would be, and ends with If Russia is forcibly adopting Ukrainian children. And your last source, again, says that Russia has been accused. I think this puts the subject to rest. For now (and of course this can be subjected to change in the future), and per reasons stated, by your own picked sources, I am a clear oppose against changing deported to kidnapped on the article. I am not against putting something along "Ukraine accused Russia of ...", although I don't like putting accusations, for the same reason we don't put Russian accusations in. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If anything, this disproves your point. Your linked source [60] is actually South China Morning Post that is allegedly "on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad". In this citation it spins the issue by providing "..." for kidnappings in the body of the text (although not in the title of the article). If you look at the actual citation of statement by US embassy (in the same article), it says:

“According to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Russian forces have illegally removed 2,389 Ukrainian children from Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts to Russia,” the US embassy in Kyiv tweeted on Tuesday. “This is not assistance. It is kidnapping,” they said.

There was no "..." for kidnappings. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MVBW, I believe you got confused with what TFD is saying. It is not his linked source. It is the source that Marek chose for his argument. And the US embassy of Kyiv is not a good source. We can put in the article what they are saying, of course, but can't put their information as true without third party verification. By the way, I imagine with "..." you meant quotation marks? Took me a second to understand what you were saying, I was looking for ellipsis on the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I mean scare quotes introduced as a spin by South China Morning Post in their article, while the claims by Ukrainian and US authorities do not have such scare quotes. But regardless to exact wording (kidnapping, abduction or forced deportation) that all means exactly same actions by the occupiers, which are also more or less similar to actions described on page Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany (it now belongs to the category "Nazi war crimes in Poland"). My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Well of course Ukrainians and the US don't use the quotes. It is their statement. What TFD and VM are arguing is that the term "kidnapped" should not be used here in Wikipedia because the only time the reliable sources are using them is either when directly attributing the statement (no need for quotes), or with quotes, which they used to refer that it is from a statement and not their wording. That means it isn't first hand information, it is second hand information through an unreliable source. As such, that info shouldn't be added to Wikipedia (unless attributed, as the RS themselves do). AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As was mentioned, I did not introduce the South China Morning Post as a source, VM did, and I merely mentioned what it said. And I cannot follow your logic that we should take unverified claims by the U.S. and Ukrainian governments as facts, when secondary sources do not.

Note also that people do not but their own words in quotes, that is done by people reporting what they said. For example, I have not put these comments in quotes but, if I decide to quote your comments, I will put them in quotes.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what you guys are suggesting here because both versions in the diff under discussion [[61] are sourced and say essentially the same. Do you suggest to replace "Kidnappings" by "Forced deportations" in the title? Well, I do not see much difference, but cited sources say "kidnapping". My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the cited sources do not say kidnapping. The choice is between following sources and writing the article from a neutral point of view or writing it from the view of the U.S. and Ukrainian governments. There are two problems with the second method that you propose: (1) There's no clear reason why to use their viewpoint rather than that of Russia. (2) Government positions are subject to change. Biden and Trump for example often had alternative facts from each other. Under your view, every time the U.S. gets a new president, Wikipedia would have to change many of the facts in articles. TFD (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources do say kidnapping. From the second source: "This could be qualified as kidnapping and requires an immediate and forceful response from the international community." and "By shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure, Russians kill parents and kidnap children on the territories in Ukraine which they have invaded and temporarily occupy. " You just completely ignored all the sources I posted and simply repeated your false claim. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping", just like we use (wilful) killing of civilians, not assassination (or murder) of peaceful citizens, and we talk about indiscriminate attacks, not about massacres of innocent people. This follows from WP:NPOV: prefer nonjudgmental language, use impartial tone. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping". It does not make any sense to me. For example, Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany does correctly belong to the category "Nazi war crimes in Poland", right? My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

yes, but... so what? this is a non sequitur. The article you mention is not "War crimes in Nazi Germany". It is about "Kidnapping", and obviously and rightfully kidnapping can be categorised under war crimes (in Poland). I really don't see the point. Nobody is claiming that "kidnapping" is a "wrong" word or that it doesn't mean (in certain contexts) "forced deportation"; we are claiming that in this article NPOV suggest we use a less impactful, more restrained and more precise terminology. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you do agree that kidnapping of children (this is not adoption!) can be a war crime? Great! Well, that is exactly what the cited sources say, and they are not Facebook. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course I agree with this! Forced deportations of civilian is a serious war crime. I myself added this a few days ago as well as the sections "Deportations" and "Arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of civilians" almost in their entireties. I object to 1) using the word "kidnapping" and 2) providing sketchy, unilateral and not pertinent information about adoption. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What is 'Enforced disappearence'? Enforced conjuring trick? Or rather a language trick? Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides, there's another issue: drafting a law on adoption is not a war crime. Does anyone know who drafted the law, did they approve it, what did it establish? So far we only have the "not so reliable" allegations on Facebook by former-ombudswoman Denisova, duly reported without fact-checking by some news outlets. To be clear: I don't think that this decree is an act of generosity by the Russian state - not at all. But we cannot even depict it as a war crime - if that's what we're speaking about in the article - can we? There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. We cannot just say that it is "background and context" to an alleged war crime (forced deportation) and report it without any scrutiny directly from the Facebook account of Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666, your comment is strange. Are you denying that the Duma "drafted a law which would formalize the kidnappings by allowing Russians to "adopt" these children"? Are you saying this is false info from Denisova? The source being used in the article is not Denisova nor does it attribute this claim to her.

And sorry, we don't have articles on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Aodoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, probably because ... to start articles like that would be fucking sick and disgusting. Volunteer Marek 22:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Why sick and disgusting? No, don't answer: I'd rather not know. These are notable topics and there's no reason to politicise everything, to see everything in terms of "us against them": that's the contrary of writing an Encyclopedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something that should be obvious. Calling a duck a duck is not "politicising" anything. Weaseling information to the point where you're whitewashing war crimes against childten is "contrary of writing an Encyclopedia". Maybe info on Bucha massacre belongs in an article on Unfortunate deaths during the invasion of Ukraine but not here, ey? Volunteer Marek 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW, we should update the info because such a law was not only drafted but actually passed [62]. Volunteer Marek 22:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

But that's exactly the same link I've just shared in the comment you're replying to, isn't it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(honestly, I can't get over the proposal above. Should someone start an article on Adoption of poor orphaned Polish children by magnanimous Nazi German families during World War Two as well?) Volunteer Marek 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeh, I think that calling a probable act of genocide [63] an "adoption" is a very peculiar POV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh god, I missed this the first time. This is fucked up too: the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child) Apparently the interests of Ukraine children is to have their parents murdered by Russian soldiers so that some super awesome benevolent Russian family can adopt them instead. Of course they'll be better off with a *Russian* family than with their backward, probably nationalist, Azov azov azov, not-denatzified Ukrainian birth family!!!!! (/s).

Jfc, you're really tipping your hand here Gitz6666. Volunteer Marek 22:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And of course these kids will rarely be adopted, but rather go to a Russian orphanage, which is really a hell (frequently a death sentence) as described by Rubén Gallego in his "White on Black". This is not to say that Ukrainan orphanages are great. That kind of things was highly controversial even when done by Elizaveta Glinka, but it looks a lot worse in context of this invasion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany was not considered a war crime but a crime against humanity? TFD (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Really, this is taking it too far. There are far reaching Ukrainian claims. They are just claims. All that may have happened is a draft law and some Russian speaking kids crossing with their families as well as some Russian speaking orphans crossing the border to Russia from a warzone. Civilians die in Donetsk and Lugansk, in the Russian controlled parts, from Ukrainian shelling regularly like here. They flee the warzone.BaderBad (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And your source is? Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

'Forced Deportation' is not 'Naturalisation'. This is propaganda language. Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not just [voluntarily] crossing the border. The people, including children are detained by Russian forces or occupation authorities and then deported to Russia, instead of allowing their evacuation to Ukrainian territory. Usually their Ukrainian passports are confiscated in the process. That is what (and more) cited sources, e.g. [64], say. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your link says, "Some sources claim." There is a different between proven facts and unverified claims. Here's an interesting 2002 editorial in the Christian Science Monitor about the false Nayirah testimony, "When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators." If you remember, the U.S. government successfully promoted an obviously false story that Iraqi troops have killed babies in incubators. It seems unlikely that with a surplus of orphans, Russia would want to acquire more. TFD (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What in the world does Nayirah or US have to do with any of this? Also - "It seems unlikely that with a surplus of orphans, Russia would want to acquire more." - this is pure original research on your part. We follow sources. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, the numbers of deported children provided by Ukrainian and Russian authorities are the same/similar: "Nebenzia, the U.N. official, stated that 190,000 Ukrainian children had been transported to Russia." [65]. This is not "fake". Now, according to this [66], "International humanitarian law classifies the forced mass deportation of people during a conflict as a war crime. "Forcibly transfering children" in particular qualifies as genocide, the most serious of war crimes, under the 1948 Genocide Convention that outlawed the intent to destroy - in whole or in part - a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. And yeh, that exactly what they do. According to "Lilia Gumerova, education committee chair in Russia’s senate, said last month she was appalled that Ukrainian children brought from the “liberated territories in Ukraine” did not speak Russian. She promised they would attend summer school to learn Russian and “liberate their tongues.”" [67]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  She did not say it. I suggest you watch the video and check the official transcript here. She said (I'm quoting a Ukrainian source that Polygraph quotes) "Many children don't speak Russian at the level required to master our school curriculum" ("Многие ребята с освобождаемых территорий не владеют русским языком в достаточной степени для освоения нашей общеобразовательной программы") and nothing about liberating their tongues. Alaexis_¿question? 18:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is a dispute about whether the children were deported or evacuated. Neither version has been independently verified. And the Reuters story is wrong. Genocide is considered separate from war crimes. That's why it has a separate convention. I suggest you consult the information posted on the UN website.[68] TFD (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is NO such dispute in the sources. Stop inventing absurd original research. If you think that "Reuters story is wrong" well, kudos to you, but we go with Reuters not the personal opinion of some Wikipedia editor. This is pretty much a straight up admission that you are conducting WP:OR here and not following our policies. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously the Russians didn't admit they have "deported" 200.000 children. As they've been accused of forced deportations, we can report this and we can report the source of the accusations which, for the time being, is Ukrainian authorities only; as far as I know, Save the Children, HRW, Amnesty, the HRMMU, etc., have not yet taken a stance on these allegations.
With regard to we go with Reuters not the personal opinion of some Wikipedia editor, I disagree. The point is quite simple, really: genocide is not a war crime. This is beyond doubt, a quick search on the web proves it abundantly, and we have loads of authoritative sources that overshadow Reuters. Do you want one more? This one, accessible through the Wikipedia Library, is entirely dedicated to the distinction between war crimes and genocide ("both categories of crime cover essentially different protected interests", "Both categories of crimes ... contain a number of elements which are not required by the other", "The facts of a particular situation may be such that both genocidal crimes and war crimes might have been committed in the course of a particular conflict and it will be appropriate to recognize these as distinct criminal events" - therefore cumulative convictions are possible). So if two journalists of Reuters write "genocide, the most serious of war crimes", they are simply wrong. Genocide is the subject of a different article, Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and is not the subject of an article on war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it strange that you continue saying: genocide is not a war crime. This is beyond doubt.... A genocide can be also a war crime. The cited source say [69]: "International humanitarian law classifies the forced mass deportation of people during a conflict as a war crime. "Forcibly transfering children" in particular qualifies as genocide, the most serious of war crimes, under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Do you have any sources saying that forcibly transferring children during this war does not qualify as a war crime and potentially as a genocide? For example, your link above does NOT say that genocide can not be also a war crime. Sure, the representatives of Russia say otherwise, just as a lot of other things (e.g. that they are not engaged in the war with Ukraine, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Genocide and war crime are different points of view. The same fact may be both or one or none. Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

this is entirely correct. "The same fact may be both or one or none". War crimes and genocide are two different crimes/concepts/descriptions. Just like, say, "white" and "heavy", or "crime" and "sin". Now, if we have an article on white, we don't want a section on heavy (although heavy items can be white). If we have an article on "crime in the state of New York", we don't want a section there on "Sin in New York" (although certain crimes are also sinful, blasphemous, etc.). But you're arguing that in an article on war crimes in Ukraine we must have a section on genocide (althoughwe already have a dedicated article on the subject). Why? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Right so let's recap. According to Gitz6666:

1. Genocide during war committed by the aggressor is not a "war crime"

2. Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians

3. A law which legalizes and facilitates this practice internally within Russia is not important context for this because no one called the law itself "war crime".

I think that sums it up. Now, go ahead and proceed with more WP:WIKILAWYERing. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your n. 1 is a correct summary of my arguments; n. 3 is a tendentious summary, because of the "legalizes and facilitates this practice" (which practice?); n. 2 is entirely false: where did you get this from? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, could you please answer my question: where did you get your number 2 from? Please remember Wikiquette and strike through your comment, which is a gross misrepresentation of what I've been arguing for in this thread. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Not Vishegirskaya, not Podgurskaya

https://www.instagram.com/gixie_beauty/ Марианна Вышемирская Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the whole paragraph about the unencyclopedic person? Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian prisoners of war

"Ukrainian prisoners of war" section is, as Volunteer Marek would put it, an attempt at "bothsideism". Please read it carefully.

1. It starts with the HRMMU expressing "worries" about their treatment. Indeed the HRMMU wrote about "a large number of videos with intimidation and insults of Ukrainian POWs following their capture". Based on the discussions we've recently had and standards we applied to similar videos with Russian POWs (very detailed and well-sourced section "Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers", now removed), this doesn't qualify as a war crime (RS doesn’t' qualify it as such).
2. Then we have Denisova reporting that "Ukrainian prisoners of war had launched complaints about their mistreatment by Russian authorities". Again, for the same reasons and based on the same standards, this needs to go: no allegation of war crime.
3. Then we have subsection "Executions of surrendering Ukrainian soldiers", where a US ambassador says they have "evidence". That was in April, since then that evidence has not been released, AFAIK, so the whole subsections lacks notability (if its subject is "US ambassadors says") or verifiability (if its subject is "Russian army killed Ukr. POWs").
4. Then we have the news by CNN (also others) on a POW confirmed dead. suspicious but we know too little, and RS make no allegation of war crime.
5. Finally we have "Intercepted conversation about killing". Same as before: no allegation of war crime, RS saus "unverified".

Given the criteria for inclusion we have decided to follow (war crimes stricto sensu and strict verifiability) the whole section needs to go, unless we come up with better contents and sources - I've done a quick research without success. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that executions of POWs qualify as a war crime, no matter what side. I would say that an official statement by Beth Van Schaack, a US ambassador-at-large for global criminal justice to the UN Security Council carries a lot of weight. Was she found previously to promote an obvious misinformation and nonsense, such as some of her Russian counterparts? Not to my knowledge (same can be said about Denisova). Something like a couple of videos with disputable content about the alleged abuse of Russian POW is more questionable. Therefore,I would suggest to keep both parts (i.e. about Ukrainian and Russian POWs), but make them very short and approximately of the same length. Both are only/mostly allegations at this point, but clearly allegations of war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I do agree there is no 100% reliable documentation/proof about all such cases in section War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Treatment_of_prisoners_of_war. So it might be reasonable to remove this whole section if we want to keep the bar very high. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This way of arguing undermines any attempt at using the talk as a means of cooperation among editors. The sections "Kneecapping of Russian soldiers" and "Execution of captured Russian soldiers" are well-sourced, with independent and reliable news outlets and human rights organisations making explicit allegations of "stricto sensu" war crimes - the test that you yourself proposed. Why do you bring those sections up? You were told that that test of yours was inevitably going to have major consequences on the whole article.

Points 1 and 2 above don't pass the "stricto sensu" test and need to go. Points 3 has a serious issue with verifiability: you said we needed RS alleging war crimes, and now you claim that an ambassador saying "we have evidence" and not disclosing evidence is enough. Point 4 and 5: no RS claims that a war crime was committed. The POW died, there's a suspicion of ill-treatment or killing but nothing more; an intercepted conversation circulated but RS says "not verified" and we don't know if that conversation was followed by deeds.

So I think that if we want to keep the section on we must find different contents. For example, this article (on Bucha) is relevant: those men were Ukrainian defence volunteers who had surrendered, surely they qualified as POWs. We need to report stuff like this, not "intimidations and insults", war talk by ambassadors, and suggestive photos and recordings with no actual allegation of war crimes based on them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This whole section is sourced. But all of that: (a) alleged isolated/anecdotal incidents/cases as opposed to systematic violations/crimes described in other sections, and (b) we can not be 100% sure that the alleged incidents even had place and what exactly had happen (there is no such concerns about most other incidents described on this page). Therefore, one could argue this whole section should be removed. As about NYT ref, does it say these people were POWs? I think they were just civilians or at least not acting/active members of the Ukrainian forces when arrested/captured. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

NY Times says "They were husbands and fathers, grocery store and factory workers who lived ordinary civilian lives before the war. But with restrictions on men leaving the country, coupled with a resolve to protect their communities, most of the men joined various defense forces in the days before they were killed. " That means (even if the RS doesn't say so explicitly) that they qualified as POWs under IHL (see article 4(2) Geneva Convention III). I would have no objection to having this (and other similarly well-sourced contents) in the section on "Ukrainian prisoners of war". This is the kind of contents we should report.

Note that the section on Russian POWs is equally well-sourced. The distinction between isolated/anecdotal and systematic has been proposed by some editor for the lead section. It proved to be untenable (is Bucha isolated or systematic? how to distinguish btw individual and collective case?) and in any case it wouldn't make any sense outside the lead section (e.g. Mariupol theatre airstrike would fall short of this test, which is absurd). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, this can/should be included.My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol hospital airstrike

Let's remove the second and third paragraph. Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. If I'm not wrong (my memory is bad) I myself wrote those two paragraphs. At the time they were (or at least they looked to me) highly notable; now, in the midst of the catastrophe, what happened to those two pregnant women is no longer notable enough. Besides, there might be some WP:BLP concerns here - am I wrong? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it was me: [70] - not that it's important in anyway, but still... what d'we do? I agree with Xx236 and would remove the paragraphs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You may want to replace the whole section with the lead from Mariupol hospital airstrike, that reads pretty well. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have tried, I am unable to do the edits.Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian POWs 2nd discussion

In the grand scheme of things, with mass murder and mass rapes in the background, perhaps this isn't really that significant but sources are calling the death sentence to two British-Ukrainian and one Moroccan-Ukrainian POWs a war crime [71] so perhaps this should be included. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not? The original source we should quote is this one, however - "Welsh Online" is just republishing from "The Conversation" - and in reporting the info we should make it clear that the alleged war crime does not result from sentencing POW to death when they are proven guilty of committing a war crime, but rather in the questionable fairness of the trial and impartiality of the court. Also this article could be used for providing some context and analysis: this might be a retaliation for the trials to Russian POWs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

a bunch of sources could be copied from the Aiden Aslin article. pretty much every british media has covered it since aslin (aka cossackgundi) was quite well known on social media in britain Cononsense (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

another article by polygraph.io (voice of america's fact checking website);

https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-russia-claims-humane-treatment-of-ukrainian-pows-but-this-evidence-casts-doubt/31879063.html

two cases - one by The Media Initiative for Human Rights, an ngo who interviewed some pows after they were involved in a prisoner swap, and another by Franceinfo.fr.

not sure if they pass the litmus test of this page or not. Cononsense (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A tweet released today by news organization Visegrad 24 shows a Russian Colonel identified only as V. Gorshenin discussing the torture of Ukrainian POWs on state TV. The original untranslated video can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.158.163.51 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• war crime does not result from sentencing POW to death when they are proven guilty of committing a war crime (said Gitz above). Yes, sure, but these 3 foreign citizens were not convicted or accuses of committing any war crimes. They were sentenced merely for being foreign citizens in Ukrainian Army. Therefore, yes, include. Also, that "polygraph"-sourced content can be included. This is a tricky subject though. For example, Ukrainian laws consider foreign citizens to be members of their own Ukrainian army, after signing a contract (hence they are definitely POWs). However, Russian law officially forbids any participation of foreign citizens in Russian Army (please correct if I am mistaken). Therefore, a citizen of Belarus, for example, who fight in Russian Army could be considered an illegal combatant rather than a POW. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes You have misunderstood my edit here. Please read the text carefully before delating it, because it is a rendering of what this reliable source says and it's fully compatible with the point you make in your edit summary. If there's a problem with my English, please correct. The points we need to express are the following ones:

  1. Foreign POWs were not charged of war crimes; they were charged only of joining the armed forces of Ukraine and fighting with them, which does not constitute a war crime;
  2. Russia and the prosecuting authorities in the self-proclaimed republic of Donetsk failed to recognise their POW status;
  3. Therefore Russia and the prosecuting authorities violated the rights of the POWs under IHL.

  I restore the text because I don't see any substantial disagreement. If you want to improve the quality of my English, please modify the text as you think best. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is all correct, but as written, your phrase incorrectly implies they we charged of war crimes (but not guilty of that). Moreover, this is very long and convoluted phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

one missile falls on Donetsk

One missile falls on Donetsk, which *may* (it's disputed) have been launched by Ukrainians and we make an article about it and put it in this article as, supposedly, a "war crime".

Meanwhile, Russia fires literally tens of thousands of missiles on Ukrainian cities which kill literally thousands of civilians and which literally erase some of these cities from the face of the earth.

But we absolutely must have an article and text in this article about THAT ONE maybe-Ukrainian missile!!!!!! Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!").

So why is that stuff REALLY here? Simple, because it was a big propaganda push on pro-Russian social media so someone scraped together some borderline sourcing and crammed it in here. There have been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article - and Wikipedia as a whole - into some kind of pro-Russian social media fork / OSINT aggregator. Even putting the inherent POV in this endeavor, that's simply not what an encyclopedia is.

I'm removing this info as it's very obviously very UNDUE. If we were being honest here we'd have text on every single one of those tens of thousands missiles fired on civilian targets by Russia. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

1. One missile falls on Donetsk ... and we make an article about it" No, it was not "we" editors of Wikipedia who made the article, it was first The Guardian (here) plus other news outlets that also qualify as WP:RS. Then some fellow editor (not me) took their time and effort to write down a few contents probably because they thought the incident (alleged indiscriminate attack with more than 20 civilian casualties) was verifiable and notable enough to be included in the article: I agree with them.
2. There's no point in saying that they scraped together some borderline sourcing and crammed it in here - the sources look good to me, much better than other pieces of war propaganda that are constantly pushed into this article.
3. Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!") ... There have been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article ... If we were being honest here ... This way of attributing mean intentions to fellow users is annoying - we have policies and guidelines (WP:CIV, WP:GF) that protect us from this.
4. On the merit: are these contents WP:undue? We have almost 20 subsections dealing with indiscriminate attacks, some of them with relatively small casualties (Mariupol hospital, 4; Irpin, 8; Odessa, 8). Now you select one bombing that killed 23 people and say that it needs to go because the Ukrainian army might have done it... I'm not persuaded. This incident received good media coverage, and I don't think you can strike the balance based on the kind of arguments you provided.
5. I've restored the section until a consensus for removal is reached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't get it, Volunteer Marek, are you saying that Ukrainian war crimes don't count because Russia did more? War crimes are war crimes, Marek. I doubt the people affected by the missile will be ok with it if you tell them that it was only one missile and that Russia is launching more. AdrianHObradors (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying a Russian false flag attack isn't a "Ukrainian war crime". I'm saying that cherry picking a single incident when there's literally tens of thousands of ones like it is UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This event has been covered by RS such as The Guardian and HRW so it clearly satisfies the notability criteria.

However, it was hardly the first attack on Donetsk in which civilians were killed, if anything they appear to have intensified recently. We should have a section about all of them here. Naturally the sourcing is complicated as the Western media are not present in Donetsk whereas the Russian media have their own bias and reliability issues. But this should not make us ignore what is happening there - in addition to just being plain wrong it would also be a violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 09:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Russian media have their own bias and reliability issues" . . . as in they have zero reliability. Question -- does the sourcing include a reliable source which characterizes this as a war crime? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are talking about the specific incident in March, then are two versions of what happened: a strike by a Ukrainian missile or a Russian false flag attack (either a missile or some kind of IED). However, both sides call it a war crime: Russia, Ukraine. Alaexis_¿question? 13:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A single missile striking the city centre is more clearly a war crime than a coordinated and prolonged bombing: in fact, it's very difficult to come up with a military reason that could justify it. Anyway, sources rule on this, so there's no need to speculate about it.
Re "false flag attack", however, I'm not at all sure about the source. Both the Guardian and Reuters say "Ukrainian military spokesman Leonid Matyukhin"; Ukrainska Pravda speaks about "Analysis of the founder of the Conflict Intelligence Team Ruslan Leviev", and indeed on youtube there's this video, which we quote. But I couldn't find any written and well-documented analysis on this, nothing on their website, nothing that looks even remotely as a reliable source: just an interview to Ruslan Leviev on youtube. Is he reliable? is he independent? I remember @Volunteer Marek making this point very convincingly in a discussion about Kramatorsk railway station attack: we need "MULTIPLE serious reliable sources", they cried, before publishing something so ludicrous as an army voluntarily bombing its own territory. I agree with them and I think we should drop altogether the reference to "An analyst from the Conflict Intelligence Team, an independent investigative organization". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim is not WP:EXTRAORDINARY when the country involved is Russia. See Russian apartment bombings, in particular the sentence "Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at the Guardian Source here. In the first four paragraphs, it makes it very clear that it's disputed as to who did this. This discussion could do with a link to the disputed section. IF it is to be included, it needs to be contextualized in terms of each side accused the other, Russia has a history of making false flag attacks on its "own" people, and so on. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, speaking of contextualisation, Ukraine has a history of shelling Donetsk as well. I'm a bit surprised by this approach - I mean clearly Russia is responsible for the lion's share of the crimes but it would be a very unusual war if one side never committed any crimes. Alaexis_¿question? 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Denisova's dismissal

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)

All Russian war crimes are only "alleged"

User:Gitz666 can you stop trying to sprinkle in the word "alleged" in front of every Russian crime described in this article? See WP:ALLEGED. Also please cut it out with pretending that these crimes have not been documented. This is especially problematic in light of your previous comments in which you claimed that kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Volunteer Marek 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." A further issue is WP:BLP crime, we cannot state as a fact that someone committed a crime, including genocide, unless they have been convicted. It doesn't matter how certain we are, because it is not up to Wikipedia editors to weight evidence and determine facts, per NOR. TFD (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting WP:ALLEGED, Volunteer Marek, which is precisely the guideline we needed, as TFD demonstrated. Just two points:

1. I'm not "sprinkling" the article with the word "alleged"; if one were to read what you write without knowing the article, one could even believe you. I'm actually restoring the word "alleged", which for some reason you've decided to massively remove from the article;
2. I have already asked you before to stop attributing to me false ideas that I've never supported and that I find hateful. You alleged that according to me Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians. This is false, I asked you to strike through your comment and you didn't comply. Now you are repeating again that according to me kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Now please, either you strike through that false comment of yours and apologise, or you provide a diff here or in my talk page showing where I'd made these ludicrous comments. Providing a diff shouldn't be too difficult. For example, if I were to claim that you argued that shooting Russian POWs in the legs doesn't amount to torture, I could easily provide this. I'm sure you could try to do the same - and utterly fail, because I've never said what you apparently understood. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

In your #1 you admit that you are "sprinkling" the word "alleged" in front of everything and then proceed to argue semantics. Stop restoring it where it doesn't belong.

Re your #2, this comment speaks for itself: There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. This is you proposing to refer to the kidnapping of Ukrainian children (after their parents were murdered by Russian soldiers) as "Naturalisation" and "Adoption". In the same comment your wording actually manages to imply that it was in the interest of the (Ukrainian) child to have their parents killed and then be adopted by some Russians. You said it. It's right fucking there. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)