Wikipedia

Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20

< Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Xx236 in topic Amnesty International: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Amnesty International: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians

Latest comment: 1 year ago126 comments14 people in discussion

This is the source "Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians". Amnesty International. 2022-08-04. Retrieved 2022-08-04. Here a few news reports [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and here @My very best wishes's revert [9]. I cannot believe that in an article on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine we should publish anything about this report by Amnesty. It is even difficult for me to formulate an argument, since the relevance of that report and of the replies to that report seems so obvious to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, this report by AI has been covered in a number of news sources and commented on by Ukrainian government. But this report does not say that the Ukrainian side has committed any "war crimes". Please place this content to other pages if you wish. According to the article title and content, "Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians" [in some cases]. Yes, this is possibly true, and it is hard to imagine how it would be otherwise during urban warfare. However, nowhere the publication tells that the Ukrainian forces used people as "human shields" to deter Russian forces (and they could not be deterred this way) or explicitly calls these specific incidents "war crimes" by the Ukrainian side, unless I am missing something. It does explicitly say that Russian side has committed "war crimes" in Kharkiv and elsewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"A Russian air strike on 28 April injured two employees at a medical laboratory in a suburb of Kharkiv after Ukrainian forces had set up a base in the compound.
Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law."
Even if the article doesn't mention "War crimes" , it does show many incidents. So ukraine setting up bases in hospital isn't a "war crime"?
Btw
“Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.” - Agnès Callamard RandomPotato123 (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law. I think that is enough to post it here AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you RandomPotato123 (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it is not. This AI article makes a very clear distinction between actions by Russian and Ukrainian forces. Just to clarify, this paper say: In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv... and Indiscriminate attacks [by Russian forces] which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes., so it can be used for sourcing the specified war crimes by Russian forces. On the other hand, AI does not accuse the Ukrainian side of any war crimes here, but only of endangering civilians. That endangering (allegedly documented by AI in several cases) is a serious matter, and Ukrainian government denied it, but this is simply not a war crime, and therefore a content for another page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with AI doesn't accuse part but the article does list incidents committed by Ukraine which comes under "War Crimes". This source can still be added to this wiki page . All one has to do is mention the incidents on AI's article RandomPotato123 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I dont this that Editors here, with very visible is in any mood to include report by world largest human rights group. is there any other way of contacting an editor to add it ? Mrboondocks (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock
AI Ukraine did not participate and criticized the 'report' https://news.yahoo.com/amnesty-ukraine-office-not-involved-172500671.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAASG0mu4z7f_DTH0wM2icAPmz0rIW2fRgOW07OGddmPSetmKNli8zJfpVvc3rPCgjXidxBTLuhNbH635yb8zyd5f-zREL7GyLdMiqztDorcVDQsrd0ExYyXRLjj2FkPX-BDNVbzg3LG8iLSmTz5vuHpVKnocKYeBoJOBAjEX8wEd.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Xx236, I think that is standard operation. If war crimes are being investigated, it should be done by a third party. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure sure that Russia did not influence the report?Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The section describes multiple incidents of Russian abuses in this section. Not all of them were explicitly called war crimes and therefore it makes no sense to apply a different standard to the reports of the Ukrainian forces putting civilians in danger. Alaexis¿question? 09:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@My very best wishes, Amnesty International has accused Ukraine of war crimes during its ongoing military conflict with invading Russian forces according to Newsweek. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This is because Newsweek (2013–present) is not generally a reliable source according to our Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. According to generally reliable sources, such as Guardian (#1 in your list) [[10], not only this is not a war crime, but even accusing Ukraine of endangerment is highly problematic. This is apparently one of controversies to be included to Criticism of Amnesty International. Amnesty itself is an RS "for the statements of fact", but it does not accuse Ukraine of war crimes in this publication (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    • My very best wishes, NPR: report accusing the Ukrainian military of stationing its troops and artillery near residential areas. That goes against international conventions of war intended to protect civilians caught up in conflict and Ukrainians need to acknowledge their alleged moral high ground takes a total adherence to international law. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    • My very best wishes, more: NPR: Ukrainian officials have claimed that their defensive posture against Russia justifies all tactics used so far, and that the report unfairly implicates Ukraine in war crimes. Even Ukraine isn't arguing that the report mentions them commiting war crimes. This is a non-discussion. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Do these NPR articles assertively say that the incidents were "war crimes" by Ukraine? No, they do not. To the contrary, they cite people who say they were NOT war crimes and criticize the Amnesty [11]. If you look at the cited publications, they are not so much about Ukraine as about the highly controversial report by the Amnesty. Hence, this belongs to page Criticism of Amnesty International. My very best wishes (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    • My very best wishes, could you please provide me the citations and sources from third parties stating that AI's report is false, and that the aforementioned actions by Ukraine do not constitute international humanitarian law violations? Thanks AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
No one said the report was "false". As about "humanitarian law violations", maybe (I have no judgement on this), but they are not necessarily war crimes. You need to read the NPR sources you just brought above [12]. It says: "Donatella Rovera, the [AI] report's author, says that situations like these arise on all sides of any war, and that it's up to Ukrainians to address the concerns as soon as possible.". But he did NOT call the Ukrainian actions in these cases war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
My very best wishes, Ukrainian officials: "the report unfairly implicates Ukraine in war crimes." Can't be more clear than that. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
That should not mean a lot since they are an involved side, but a number of 3rd party RS say these cases were NOT war crimes, and most importantly, the report itself and the author of this report do not say they were war crimes by the Ukrainian side if one looks at the source. Hence does not belongs to this page (at least in Ukraine sections), but rather to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@AdrianHObradors: that is Ukrainian officials interpreting the report, so with attribution, that would seem valid for us.
What MVBM said is what we currently have starting the lead of war crimes: A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as ..., where I've added bold to that. The Rome Statute Article 8.2.b.(xxiii) does say Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations; so the hypothetical case for the ICC or for the Prosecutor General of Ukraine Andriy Kostin (if sufficiently independent from the government) would be to investigate if, for example, missiles were fired from civilian areas rather than un-populated locations with the aim of making the soldiers legally immune from attack, which would not be easy to prove.
In any case, the borderline between "violations of IHL that are/are not war crimes" in this case is much less clear than for well known war crime types; legal type sources giving interpretations or notable precedents would probably be needed. Boud (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Disclaimer: I have not checked what the dominance of sources is in terms of interpretation here. Boud (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, an official Amnesty representative, "Mitieva stressed that researchers found evidence that the Ukrainian military has violated international humanitarian law, not committed any war crimes." [13], as of course was already clear after reading their original report. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
still why are you soo hellbent on not including findings of this report by Amnesty international ?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/ Mrboondocks (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
are the incidents of Russian forces, explicitly mentioned as war crimes ?. Ideally a war crime should be determined by a war crime tribunal or by a International court. Mrboondocks (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
┌──────────────────────────────┘
My very best wishes, that is not an official International Amnesty representative. That is a person that worked for IA Ukraine (not the same), a branch that did not form part of the report, and that person has since resigned from AI Ukraine. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This is one of the main reasons why I've always argued for adopting a "senso latu" notion of war crimes in this article (so the lead should rather be War crimes are serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as...): the distinction between war crimes stricto sensu and other violations of international humanitarian law is often very subtle and controversial, and requires a fair trial to be assessed. To that end, a tweet by the US Embassy or a piece in the Daily Beast are utterly useless. Take for example the distinction between torture and inhumane treatment, which is the degree of suffering ("severe pain"); more to the point, take the distinction between "use of human shields" (a war crime stricto sensu) and "failure to take the necessary precautions to protect the civilian population" (Article 58(c) Additional Protocol I, a war crime lato sensu). As Boud rightly notes, on most occasions the distinction is entirely dependent upon the intentions of the perpetrators, which are difficult to ascertain without a fair trial. However, in this article we have always accepted speculative/hypothetical allegations of war crimes (e.g., "According to Human Rights Watch/Amnesty/etc., this might be a war crime..."). By the way, each and every allegation of indiscriminate attack is inherently speculative and hypothetical: every apparent indiscriminate attack might be due to a failure of the weapon or to bad soldiering skills. Analogously, saying that Ukrainian forces have put civilians at risk by establishing bases in populated residential areas is identical to saying that they might have used the presence of a civilians to render certain areas immune from military operations. To sum up my arguments:
1) We should adopt a lato sensu notion of war crime.
2) Even if we adopt a strico sensu notion of war crime, documented cases of failure to protect civilians may be regarded as hypothetical allegations of use of human shields, just like cases documented cases of bombing civilian objects have been regarded as hypothetical allegations of indiscriminate attacks.
Finally, even if we were to deny that this report is documenting war crimes in any way, it would still be relevant to this article because what it says, if accurate, might exonerate the Russian army from some of the allegations of indiscriminate attacks. Therefore this report should be mentioned in various sections of the article, e.g. "Attacks on hospitals and medical care facilities" (e.g. Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations.) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty’s Ukrainian branch director explicitly stressed that this is not evidence of war crimes.[14] Doesn’t belong in this article. —Michael Z. 16:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, Amnesty Ukraine is not an unbiased party and they were left out of the investigation for a reason. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Says what reliable secondary source? —Michael Z. 16:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Mzajac, I don't know how to express how I feel having to explain this to someone that has been not only a member of Wikipedia, but also an admin, since 2005. I can only imagine this is a subject close to you, but you should still be able to see. On one side we have an actual report written by Amnesty International, and on the other one we have... what? Kateryna Mitieva, a spokeswoman for AI Ukraine. I can't find any mention from her on any AI page, and not only that, but she has resigned. So yeah, a personal statement from someone that used to work at Amnesty International Ukraine isn't a RS. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The primary efforts of international organizations should be directed at ending Russia’s war, not instructing the Ukrainian Army on how they should defend themselves from genocide, officials said Seriously, Ukraine is literally saying "we are under attack so if we commit war crimes is ok". It is awful. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC); edit: no //literally//, but nearlyAdrianHObradors (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the subject is close to you. You seem to think that AI is unassailable, and ignore criticism of its colonial action of criticizing Ukraine’s defence from 2,700 kilometres away while actively excluding their own local people on the ground from the analysis. Meanwhile, you cast aspersions against Ukrainian AI with your unsupported “not unbiased” and reasonless “for a reason” comment. And you ignore that Pokalchuk released her statement before resigning.
Anyway, you’re distracting this off topic. Amnesty International does not say this is war crimes. No one says this is war crimes. It doesn’t belong in this article. —Michael Z. 19:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Mzajac, no one? Even Ukraine themselves have said it: Ukrainian officials have claimed that their defensive posture against Russia justifies all tactics used so far, and that the report unfairly implicates Ukraine in war crimes. And this subject is close to me,as in that I feel aversion against war crimes. AI report is of course assailable, but so far there has not been any serious argument against the report content, only against the report on itself. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Does the report say Ukrainian war crimes? No.
(It does explicitly address war crimes, saying the Russians committed them. Your “on one side” comment above is a straw man, because that side doesn’t exist.)
Who says this report rightfully or accurately identifies Ukrainian war crimes? No one.
Who says it’s problematic?
 —Michael Z. 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
It's interesting that when Human Rights Watch basically said the same things a few days ago no one reacted so vehemently [15]. Probably the reason is that HRW was documenting 3 or 4 cases (I don't remember) while AI basically claims that that tactics is systematic. I agree that neither AI nor HRW say that that tactics amounts to a war crime giving rise to individual responsibility of the perpetrators: it would amount to a war crime "stricto sensu" if the reason why they place military targets within residential areas is that they want to render themselves immune from Russian attacks. That, however, doesn't mean that the report (and the tactics it alleges) is not relevant to this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mzajac, I don't have much time to check all of the links right now, but I was reading Lillian Posner's blog entry on The National Interest and I am a bit baffled. Yet I think she reflects very well on her entry everyone else's reaction to the AI report.These “both sides” narratives give the mistaken impression that Russia and Ukraine are equally culpable for a war Russia started. Like, who thinks that?
Ukraine’s record when it comes to upholding humanitarian law in wartime is hardly spotless, but Amnesty appears to be nitpicking. [...] The report makes no mention of the Ukrainian government’s repeated attempts to evacuate civilians from Kherson, Zaporizhie, Mariupol, and Donbas. Ukraine’s record on protecting civilians, while perhaps not to the “fullest extent possible,” has been very full indeed. If I didn't know any better, I would believe that she is saying that some humanitarian law violations are ok. "Your honor, it is true that my client kicked that grandma down the stairs, but why is no one talking about how last month he helped 7 grandmas cross the street and held the door open for 3?" AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
So “the subject is close” is a valid speculative criticism of my arguments, but not of yous, even though you literally said it is stated to you. Then you go writing a mini-opinion piece analyzing the arguments of an editors’ criticism. This is descending into “no you are” and chit-WP:CHAT. I don’t believe any of this changes the plain fact that the only war crimes mentioned in the piece are Russian war crimes. I think we’ve more than exhausted the discussion.
The passage should be reduced to a balanced mention that cites criticisms of it, at best. It’s more appropriate to remove it and mention it in Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas. —Michael Z. 22:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Mzajac. only war crimes mentioned in the piece are Russian war crimes what piece? The AI report? Because the report is quite clear:
We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas. - Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.
Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. [...] Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law. This part doesn't call it a war crime, but still, ties directly with this article, as it would mean that Russian attacks to hospitals are not war crimes.
Ukrainian military has routinely set up bases in schools Same thing.
And, by secondary source [16] Amnesty International issued a report [...] accusing the Ukrainian military of stationing its troops [...] in ways that may amount to war crimes I don't know, perhaps I'm really not seing something, but it seems pretty clear to me AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Are all violations of the laws of war war crimes? Our article war crimes doesn’t say that but qualifies its definition.
Only a single secondary source says “may amount to.” So any mention of AI’s accusation should, at best, qualify it thus.
Amnesty only definitively accuses Russia of war crimes. Since reading responses to its “report,” I’ve modified my view. The report is heavily criticized, and should not be used as a source, but only as an opinion presented with some of the many qualified and expert dissenters. I still don’t think it belongs in this article, because it only makes us look like we’re fishing for even the weakest possible accusation against Ukraine. —Michael Z. 22:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Are all violations of the laws of war war crimes No. Violations have to be "gross" (extreme) and they have to be intentional. Volunteer Marek 18:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
ICC Statute, Article 8, defines war crimes as “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict”.
Where you found out "they have to be intentional" Mrboondocks (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)strike sock
And for those casting baseless aspersions at the Ukrainian branch, less than two weeks before the shameful and sketchy “report,” numerous problems are reported at the top by experts, including “the presence of a white saviour and colonialist complex,” “limited understanding of armed conflict leading to erroneous claims and incorrect analysis,” and “false claims.”
 —Michael Z. 21:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Another, rather thorough and disciplined criticism of Amesty’s release:
 —Michael Z. 16:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
More:
 —Michael Z. 17:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
We have various contents in this article that don't qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu" (giving rise to individual responsibility). On various occasions editors have decided that mere violations of international humanitarian law that don't amount to war crimes "stricto sensu" can be reported in this article (e.g., attacks to nuclear power plants, lack of agreement on humanitarian corridors). That's not necessarily wrong because we have many secondary sources documenting that the expression "war crime" can be applied to any serious violation of international humanitarian law, even if it doesn't give rise to individual criminal responsibility. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
We have various contents in this article that don't qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu". One more time. You inventing your own definitions of "war crimes" and then calling them "sensu strictu" or "sensus ijustmadeitupso" is completely irrelevant. The only question is whether this "various content" is well sourced or not. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Another reason why it would preferable to account for this report in the section on Human shields (which perhaps we should rename "Human shields and failure to protect civilians") is that this would allow us to report some of the criticism raised against the report. For example, both the reaction by Zelenskyy and the reaction by Amnesty Ukraine are relevant. Alternatively we could and should publish bit and pieces of the report where they belong thematically (indiscriminate attacks, attacks against hospitals) as I have just done [17] [18]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This has been included to section "Human shields". Once again, which sources say that Ukrainian forces use civilians as human shields (i.e. that they forced civilians to shield a legitimate military target in order to deter the enemy from attacking it). I can see zero such sources so far. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    This could have been addressed less disruptively by adding "and failure to protect civilians" to the title of the section, as I suggested here above. Various editors have worked on the text that you have just so light-heartedly delated [19] for the second time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Gitz6666, I propose instead of "and failure to protect civilians" to use "and endangerment of civilians". It reflects better AI report, and makes more sense. Stationing military troops in a hospital doesn't "fail" to protect the civilians, but directly endangers them. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Well, "endangerment of civilians" is closer to the words used by AI, but "failure to (take necessary precaution to) protect civilians" is closer to the legal terminology - the relevant source of law being Article 58 Protocol I, which you can read here [20]. "Endangerment of civilians" is very broad, and one could immediately argue that it was Putin the first one who put civilians in danger when he invaded Ukraine; "failure to protect" is more specific, because it refers to specific duties upon the combatants - e.g., if you need to place a machine gun in a care house, you'd better first evacuate the building, otherwise you're not taking the precautions you're required to take. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
No, Putin did not "put civilians in danger". He ordered to kill civilians by shooting them with missiles while they attended shopping malls. That was war crime (according to Amnesty, etc.). Do not you see the difference? Another highly relevant question (per your link): did the Ukrainian authorities try to evacuate their civilians from the cities under attack? The report by Amnesty does not say it, but in a lot of such cases people just refused to be evacuated. In many other cases they did want to evacuate, but it was already too late, with Russian forces shooting at any cars with civilians who tried to evacuate. These are reasons why this report by AI is so disputable. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This content is now placed in section "Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets". Such placement fixes the issue with "human shields", however other issues discussed above I think remain. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

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

the report is very controversial but no one says it's factually wrong. Most of the criticisms are in terms of opportunity, playing in the hands of the enemy, creating "false balance", etc. AI Ukraine speaks of "inadmissibility and incompleteness" of the report and the new ombudsman highlights that urban warfare is not prohibited as such. But no one says "we did not place military objectives within hospitals and schools, we always evacuate civilian buildings when we use them for military purposes. We can use the report by AI as a reliable source on facts. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
"False balance" it is. We should not make it on the page by placing content that does not belong. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
"False balance" policies aren't a permission to censor factual information covered in multiple sources. I don't think there's a serious dispute about contents of the report; the discussion in the sources is about morality of talking about Ukrainian army violating IHL, as many see these violations as necessary and permissible.
I think @My very best wishes and @Mzajac are right that endangering civilians isn't the same as killing, however, jumping from such judgement to excluding mention of the report from the article is a giant leap.
Both AI's Callamard and secondary sources call it a report about war crimes (NPR was mentioned above, Telegraph referred to it as a report into alleged war crimes by Kyiv’s armed forces. too). I don't see how an argument of not including because of "zero sources" can be made when such sources are present. @AdrianHObradors articulated this in more detail above.
REDFLAG doesn't apply either, as there was a similar HRW report days ago. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
REDFLAG most certainly applies as there are AI officials resigning over publication of this report, “PaulT2022”. Volunteer Marek 22:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, she resigned after getting doxxed (ph). That's a term for having your personal details posted online against your consent. (Quote from NPR's Kiev correspondent.) Not the same thing as resigning in protest.
What's important is there's no fundamental difference between what AI and other organisations are reporting.
Another well-known outlet of pro-Putin propaganda CBC (sarcasm) just published a large article, connecting all three reports and questioning lack of possible Ukranian war crimes investigation: More than five months after Russia's invasion began, Ukraine's Prosecutor General's Office claims to be investigating more than 26,000 alleged Russian war crimes. But it's unclear to what extent Ukraine is probing any actions of its own armed forces that may have violated international laws or put civilians in harm's way
Comments on the topic from the HRW's report author:

But regardless of whether their adversaries are following the rules of war, Ukrainian forces are also legally bound to limit harm to civilians, said Human Rights Watch (HRW) senior crisis and conflict researcher Belkis Wille... "If armed forces are in the area, of course that means the area becomes at risk of targeting," said Wille. "Where Ukrainian armed forces are based, that is a legitimate military target for the Russian side."
...
Wille said a complicating factor in examining whether any Ukrainian fighters are responsible for violating international law is that there are a number of different uniformed factions beyond the Ukrainian military... these "newly constituted fighting groups" are in a "grey area," without a clear command structure, and abuses could go "completely unchecked."
— https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-war-investigations-1.6541732

These reports (and associated commentary) are directly relevant to the article regardless of whether these violations are war crimes or not as they add important context to Russian war crimes involving attacks on civilians. PaulT2022 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
First, PaulT2022 let me congratulate you on learning on how to properly format your comments and refs and learning the intricacies of Wikipedia mark up and policy so quickly! Just barely created the account and you already sound like a Wiki veteran. Grats!
Anyway, no she didn't "resign because she was doxxed". She actually issued a statement where she tells us exactly why she resigned:
As we noted, Amnesty International representatives eventually turned to the Ministry of Defense asking for a reaction, but gave very little time to respond. As a result of this, although unwillingly, the organization created material that sounded like support of Russian narratives. Seeking to protect civilians, this study instead has become a tool of Russian propaganda.
See? The report became a "tool of Russian propaganda"
More: I have repeatedly spoken to the higher management, which, unfortunately, in this situation, has not taken proper steps to protect the interests of the people for whom the organization works and the entire human rights movement. In addition to the lack of proper response, the great activist initiative of people outraged by this press release was ignored.
So. The people within AI, are tone deaf, and don't work for the people they're supposed to be protecting. When faced with criticism they attack the critics.
the leadership of Amnesty International and I broke up in a valuable way. So I decided to leave the organization. I believe that any public service should be done within the local context and with consideration of the consequences. Most importantly, I am convinced that our research should be done scrupulously and with the consideration of people whose lives often directly depend on the words and actions of international organizations.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with "doxxing". It had to do with AI putting out a report which sidelined local activists and researchers, which went into constructing the report with a pre-set narrative, and with being completely tone deaf and arrogant in response to criticism.
Volunteer Marek 18:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek please take Google Translate and read the Myrotvorets post I've linked below. Its obvious that Ukrainian AI staff are speaking and acting under duress. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@PaulT2022, “it’s obvious that” = WP:original research.
That is just false. Most of the many news items about the resignation explicitly state that it was after the Amnesty report not after doxxing, or in response to Amnesty’s report, over the report, or over a disagreement with Amnesty, or, yes, “in protest.”[21][22] Her statements criticized her own organization’s actions and the report,[23] and her resignation statement blamed higher management.[24] —Michael Z. 19:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
“After getting doxxed” speaks to when, not why. It is neither the same nor different from resigning in protest, it is immaterial to that question. —Michael Z. 16:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I think its clear from the context of NPR interview that Ukrainian AI workers were harassed because of the press release AI published. Its not ok to threaten someone like this https://t.me/myrotvoretsnews/14862 regardless of the transgressions AI head office might have done. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it is not "clear from the context" that Ukrainian AI workers were harassed. Again - THEY TOLD US why they resigned. And it wasn't because of "harassment". It was because they thought the report was such bullshit that it merited resigning over. Stop inventing excuses. Volunteer Marek 18:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
while it's not okay, I think you greatly overestimate myrotvorets' effect in 2022 Cononsense (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
"Experts widely condemn Amnesty International report ", "Amnesty has this week determinedly set about shredding its credibility " Etc. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek, did you listen to the interview you just shared? the one whit the expert saying "I don't think there's much doubt that what the researchers saw it's technically true ... my colleagues and I have even seen some examples of this ... the criticism mostly comes down to what the report doesn't say", etc.? Obviously we can use the report by AI as a source. Even if one where to concede that Amnesty International has become a global centre of Putin's propaganda (which frankly is ridiculous), WP:BIASED would apply, which doesn't make the report non-reliable. If someone thinks that Amnesty International is not a reliable source on warfare and international humanitarian law, I suggest you open a discussion at RS/N. This thread cannot be about "can we use the report as a source?", but rather about "where should we use it? saying what, adding what kind of context and background?" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
"Technically true" that what? Regardless, this report is hugely controversial, there's resignations over it, there's pieces in several major outlets condemning it, etc. - we can't use because it's "technically true". And RS/N has nothing to do with this. It's WP:REDFLAG, WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe I posted sources above that say AI is factually wrong about what constitutes violations, and questions the integrity of its investigation for lack of sourcing, lack of evidence, lack of specifics, lack of an indication of how evidence was collected. In case it’s not obvious, the press release is the entire “report”. If we include it, we need to include an indication of how much dissent there is. There will be more about why it’s wrong than about it. —Michael Z. 22:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
But that's precisely the reason why we'd better summarise the report in the section on Human shields, which we could rename "Human shields and failure to protect civilians" or perhaps (copying one of the headings of the OHCHR report) "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields". In that way we could say something about the debate surrounding the report, which is relevant to this article. Alternatively, we will use the report (which is a RS) in the sections to which its findings belong thematically without providing any context and criticism. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The press release “report” is not an uncontroversial RS. Its substance, methodology, and conclusions has been criticized by multiple sources in important editorials and by experts, including the local experts of the organization that produced it. —Michael Z. 16:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • [25] - Good removal. This is simply not on the subject of the section which is indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets by Russian forces. However, a similar claim still remain in this section (2nd para from the bottom). It is reliably sourced [26] and provides various views on this subject. For example, according to Arestovich, "the country’s [Ukraine] military doctrine, approved by parliament, provides for the principle of “total defense.” That means that volunteers in the Territorial Defense Forces or in other self-defense units have the legal authority to protect their homes, which are mostly in urban areas...“We cannot prevent our citizens from defending their homes, freedoms, values ​​and identities as they understand them.” But again, this is not about war crimes by the Ukrainian side. Hence does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    I see that some editors (@My very best wishes, @Volunteer Marek and possibly also @Mzajac) don't want any reference to the report by Amnesty International in this article. Other editors (@RandomPotato123, @PaulT2022, @Alaexis, @NHCLS and myself) published or argued for publishing contents from the report. Also @Boud and @Xx236 joined the discussion but if I'm not wrong didn't share their views on this point. So, how shall we move forward? Is it possible to build a consensus of some sort or should we open an RfC or what? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh come on, please stop it with these continuous and persistent claims of WP:FALSECONSENSUS (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). NHCLS has not commented anywhere on this page. "RandomPotato" and "PaulT2022" are two accounts that were created... like yesterday. The former's first edits to Wikipedia were thinly veiled attempts to justify Russian war crimes in Kremenchuk [27]. Yeah, sorry, you don't have consensus so stop claiming otherwise. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on whether the report gets added to this page or not. I just wanted to clarify that the report specified that Amnesty had investigated several reports, found that some cases the Ukrainain military were putting civilians in danger (when they were several kilometres away from the frontlines and when there was alternatives nearby) and in some cases the Ukrainian military wasn't. If the consensus ends up being that the report does belong on the page, than just reducing the report to the headline would be a little misleading, I think. That's as far as my opinion goes. NHCLS (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I did not claim consensus. Clearly there's no consensus. I just pinged the editors who joined the discussion or published relevant contents so as to know their opinion on how to proceed: more discussion on the talk, RS/N, NPOV/N or RfC? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
You didn't? Great. Then I take it you won't be edit warring over it without an RfC right? Volunteer Marek 00:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a consensus on not removing Stara Krasnianka (care house). This is the subject of a thread here above. If you and MVBW keep on removing it, you're engaging in disruptive editing and edit war. However, there is not a consensus on including info on the AI's report and/or on using it as a source. Three editors (if I'm not wrong) object to it, so we need to build a consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
No, there is no such consensus, just like there are no reliable sources which call it a war crime, despite your repeated claims otherwise. Repeating false claims over and over again does not make them any less false. And THAT is disruptive. Volunteer Marek 01:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I've had plenty of disagreements with MVBW and VM, but in this case I would tend to agree that the recent Amnesty report is widening the scope in a case that is strongly dependent on legal interpretations and precedents and risking WP:SYNTH, and, somewhat like the case of Denisova, there seems to be dispute about how carefully the report was worded: Oksana Pokalchuk publicly resigned and there appears to be internal dispute within the International Secretariat of Amnesty International (the research section, independent of national sections). Callamard's public tweet about "social media mobs and trolls" doesn't match Amnesty's usually careful language (it was in her own name, not the organisation's name). So far there's a 3-sentence summary at Amnesty International#2020s but nothing in Criticism of Amnesty International. I would suggest that people wanting to include the info from the report start off with a wider article, Violations of IHL in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Violations of international humanitarian law in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (I'm not sure what WP:TITLE would prefer) with a brief paragraph of overview, a section with a summary of this article and a {{main}} cross-reference, and a section on the Amnesty report and similar things, to cover cases where there are currently only hints that the IHL violations might be a war crime. Boud (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    What confuses me is that this article starts off explicitly saying This article is about individual actions during or after the Russian invasion that may be war crimes. and many of its sections are based on questionable sources calling certain IHL violations war crimes, apparently included on the assumption that the event might be deemed a war crime by a more authoritative source in future and/or being an IHL violation endangering civilian lives makes it relevant enough for inclusion.
    My impression is that this practice hasn't been questioned until OHCHR, HRW and AI began publishing reports implicating Ukrainian forces in some of the violations.
    If there's a present consensus that IHL violations should be in an article separate from the war crimes, and a RS newspaper calling an IHL violation a war crime (for example) isn't a sufficient RS for inclusion, I think taking a step back from this discussion and creating another thread on the scope of the article to reach consensus on RS and scope first may be more productive; there's no urgency in including anything while there's no consensus on scope or sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Boud Violations of IHL in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn't make much sense to me, first because that article would be identical to this one plus (at best) those contents that MVBW and VM don't want us to publish, and secondly because "serious violation of IHL" is one of the possible definitions of "war crime" (as I documented above) and in this article we've adopted that definition on many occasions. But apart from that, even if we were to follow your suggestion, we would still need to say something about Ukrainian fighting tactics (as reported by AI, but also HRW, OHCHR, WoPo and others) in this article. Most of the fighting is urban warfare and therefore it is natural that one side alleges indiscriminate attacks and the other side alleges use of human shields. You cannot cut out one of the two sides, publish detailed reports of indiscriminate attacks and say nothing about military objectives placed in residential areas: apart from the issue of WP:NPOV (which is serious), the reader would be deprived of essential information for understanding what's going on. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    I also agree that Amnesty report should be included here Mrboondocks (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Gitz6666 re [28] - there was no “mistake” here, so please self revert. Volunteer Marek 02:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve changed my views on this somewhat, after reading multiple important responses to the Amnesty International release (I linked several in two bulleted lists above), and from points brought forth in this discussion. I’m no longer convinced this is unconnected to war crimes and irrelevant to the subject of this article, although neither am I convinced that Amnesty necessarily accused Ukraine of war crimes (as I am not confident that any breach of IHL is necessarily a war crime – anyone have more insight on this?).

But the Amnesty release is not a reliable source. It has received way too many criticisms from qualified people including by the local experts within its own organization. It is a controversial opinion, and it is notable at least as much for its controversy as its content. It can be stated briefly with attribution, and with acknowledgment of its controversy.

And given WP:DUE WEIGHT, if it is mentioned, its coverage should be as brief as possible. It should not become an article section or several long paragraphs, or that would constitute a false balance by inflating a controversial claim about Ukrainian forces’ actions to “balance” the confident information about thousands of Russian war crimes. The current 200+ words is too much.

I think if included it should simply state that Amnesty alleged some violations of international humanitarian law but was criticized, and not expound the allegations in detail.  —Michael Z. 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree, I think it'd be better if the paragraph about unspecific concerns is re-written to use other reports that have been uncontroversial and received more thorough coverage in secondary sources to take encyclopedic shape. Instances of Ukrainian forces endangering civilians are relevant and have been reported in multiple sources. It should be possible to describe them without relying on the single AI report.
To answer the question in brackets, the issue with "war crimes" is that two different definitions are used: a crime with personal responsibility (as defined in the War crime lead) and a "common" understanding of IHL violation as breaking rules of war that endangers civilians (see comments in WP:NORN#Treating lexical cohesion in sources and WT:OR#Lexical cohesion in sources for example). Thus we're seeing sources describing same event as a war crime and not (even sometimes "undeclaring" a war crime, as @AdrianHObradors aptly remarked). IMO this has little to do with reliability of the source.
I think that getting to a consensus about scope of this article without necessarily thinking in terms of how a specific news is reported would be helpful. I see at least three possible options:
1. When a RS says a war crime is a war crime. This eliminates OR, but the problem is very few get prosecuted, so it'd be based on weak sources (such as Twitter statements by politicians reprinted by CNN) or sources saying something like "possible war crime" (as in "will become a war crime after verified on ground / after individual responsibility is determined", but IMO writing about an unconfirmed or predicted event is unencyclopedic).
2. When an event meets a pre-agreed definition of war crime. (Such as https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule156.) I think its problematic, as it puts legal matters in the hands of editors.
3. Consider every IHL violation that endangered or hurt civilians to be relevant enough for inclusion without necessarily implying that its a war crime. This appeared to be a long-standing consensus until the recent reports by HRW and OHCHR were released. The downside is the article essentially becomes an article about IHL violations.
To be honest, I don't have an opinion which one is right, but I think its important to reach a consensus on what is relevant to eliminate battles over content that get re-sparked with each event and apply the same criteria to all sources and all IHL violations consistently.
@Mzajac, I understand you've been in Wikipedia for a very long time and think that your input could be very valuable in getting discussions about this article in the right direction. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the option number 3 is the only realistic one, with the caveat that we cannot and should not list *every* IHL violation but rather summarise and apply WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE. Alaexis¿question? 19:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Every violation? The UK head of Amnesty International said “You never really have one side which is completely not committing any violations at all.” Ukraine is conducting over 25,000 war crimes investigations.[29] —Michael Z. 19:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Re Option 1, most RS are hesitant to call something a war crime and usually report that "a politician X says that Y is a war crime" or "if confirmed, Z would be a war crime." Alaexis¿question? 19:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this thread deteriorated into tl;dr. Obviously, there is no consensus for inclusion. If anyone really wants to include this, please make an RFC about it. My opinion: these materials are sourced and can be included somewhere, but not on this page, at least as written, because they are not clearly defined as war crimes in sources. Are they human rights issues? Yes, certainly. But that would be for including to other pages about human rights, this war, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    1. @Mzajac Re as I am not confident that any breach of IHL is necessarily a war crime – anyone have more insight on this?, you can have a look at this discussion Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#On_the_scope_of_this_article,_again. Both at the beginning and at the end of the discussion I share some sources on this. I'm sharing another source here below at point No 3.
    2. I agree with Michael Z that the report is not unconnected to war crimes and irrelevant to the subject of this article, which means that we should decide how to use it. If we don't want to use it as a source because it's too controversial, we could have a self-standing subsection on "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects" and provide information both on the findings of the report and on the criticism that were raised against it. We could either place that subsection in the first section ("Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets") or in the fourth section ("Human shields"). In the latter case, we could rename the forth section "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields" (as I did yesterday) or "Human shields and failure to protect civilians".
    3. With regard to the notion of "war crime", the second option highlighted by @PaulT2022 is a no-no (WP:OR prevents it); I agree with Alaexis that the third option - serious violation of IHL, violations that endanger civilians - is preferable. This is the definition of "war crime" that we find in this authoritative source: [30]. We should adopt it. The first option (we publish only if a source says that it's a war crime) is quite silly because it is purely accidental that the words "war crime" are used by RS and because we would need to accept non-reliable sources with no legal expertise (statements by politicians, news reports) as well as purely speculative statements ("this might constitute a war crime").
    4. @My very best wishes is making very disruptive all-encompassing removals of text, like this one [31] (including Stara Krasnianka + change of the title of the section on "Human shields" + Washington Post on "heavy military equipment" placed in civilian areas + Amnesty International report); he's also using wrong edit summaries (recent additions? both Stara Krasnianka and the WaPo were here on 12 July 2022; WaPo on "heavy military equipment" was here on 7 May). This behaviour needs to be addressed somehow somewhere because it makes collaborative editing impossible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
What's "disruptive" is your repeated attempts to re-insert that text into the article despite it having no consensus for inclusion and no support in sources. Volunteer Marek 01:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
[32] - Yes. Speaking on Stara Krasnianka case, it could only be included as a war crime by the Russian rather than Ukrainian forces because the patients were killed by Russian forces. However, if Ukrainian forces were stationed in the building (I do not think this is well established after looking at sources) that arguably made it a legitimate target, hence including it as a war crime by Russian forces to this page can be disputed. Speaking on the Amnesty report, I think it does belong to page Criticism of Amnesty International (not here) given the amount of criticism it received. But even that report does not say it was a war crime by the Ukrainian side. In fact, the report by Amnesty say it were Russian forces who commited war crimes because it were they who indiscriminantely killed the civilians. But that report is not the best source on the war crimes by Russian forces. There are others. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
No, my repeated attempts to re-insert that text were not disruptive: [33]. But we should discuss this in the above section on Stara Krasnianka. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The report by Amnesty obviously needs to be included. --007Леони́д (007Leonid) (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock

Amnesty International’s priority in this and in any conflict is ensuring that civilians are protected; indeed, this was our sole objective when releasing this latest piece of research. While we fully stand by our findings, we regret the pain caused and wish to clarify a few crucial points.

In our press release, we documented how in all 19 of the towns and villages we visited, we found instances where Ukrainian forces had located themselves right next to where civilians were living, thereby potentially putting them at risk from incoming Russian fire. We made this assessment based on the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL), which require all parties to a conflict to avoid locating, to the maximum extent feasible, military objectives within or near densely populated areas. The laws of war exist in part to protect civilians, and it is for this reason that Amnesty International urges governments to comply with them.

Amnesty International wrote to the Ukrainian government detailing our findings on 29 July. In our letter, we included GPS coordinates and other sensitive information about the locations, including schools and hospitals, where we had documented Ukrainian forces basing themselves among civilians. We did not make this information public in our press release due to the security risks it would pose to both Ukrainian forces and to the civilians we interviewed.
— Amnesty International

AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This report by Amnesty does not reveal any new facts. Of course Ukrainian forces are fighting in urban areas (there were thousands reports), and of course some civilians remains in the same areas because they were either unwilling or enable to evacuate (there were thousand publication about this too). This is nothing new. No one needs coordinates. Only the interpretation by Amnesty is new and highly controversial, i.e. that the Ukrainian military forces endanger civilians by protecting their cities. But again, even this Amnesty report does not call this war crimes by Ukrainian forces. Hence, this can not be framed as war crimes by Ukrainian forces on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The interpretation by Amnesty is not new. Both the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights ("in the course of hostilities, both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups as well as Ukrainian armed forces took up positions either in residential areas or near civilian objects, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for the protection of civilians present, as required under IHL") and Human Rights Watch ("Russian and Ukrainian forces have put civilians in Ukraine at unnecessary risk... in three cases, Ukrainian forces based forces among homes where people were living but took no apparent action to move residents to safer areas.") have raised concerns about endangering civilians. Like the Amnesty report, neither referred to it as a war crime, just a potential breach of international humanitarian law, so whether it belongs on this page is debatable, but the concerns are not new. NHCLS (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, this is not a new interpretation. Actually, the Ukrainian government made a significant effort to evacuate people, and we need to know what exactly had happen in every case (but we do not). I have seen a number of video where interviewed civilians explained why they are refusing to leave when the cars with volunteers came to pick them up. They gave numerous reasons like lack of money or disabled relatives. Some even said they waited for "Russian brothers" and condemned NATO. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Why are you so afraid to mention report of world largest human rights group ? Mrboondocks (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
As various editors noticed, the notion that Ukrainian army placed military objectives near civilian objects is not at all new and is well supported by RS (Washington Post, HRW and OHCHR). What's new in the Amnesty report is that they say this has been done systematically - they speak of a "fighting tactics" and "19 towns and villages". The report has raised a lot of criticism of various kinds, but I don't think that anyone has conclusively demonstrated that it is false in point of fact: maybe that fighting tactics is fully legitimate and the Ukrainian army has no other option; maybe the Ukrainian army is used to evacuate civilian buildings, but they cannot force unwilling civilians to leave; maybe the report is inappropriate and creates a false balance between the fighting parties. None of this is a reason not to publish a report which, together with the criticisms of that report, is central to the topic "War crimes in Ukraine". Note that "placement of military objectives near civilian objects" might be a war crime stricto sensu (involving individual responsibility) if the goal is to render an area immune from military attack; alternatively, if that's not the goal, it might be a serious violation of IHL endangering civilians (a war crime lato sensu, which does not involve individual responsibility).
How should we deal with all this? I think we should create a subsection on "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects", where we should have contents on 1) WaPo, HRW and OHCHR; 2) AI report; 3) Criticisms of AI report.
If there's an agreement on this among editors, we should discuss where we want to place that subsection: A) in the first section on "Indiscriminate attacks"? B) In the third section on "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians"? C) In the fourth section on "Use of Human shields"? D) In a new self-standing section to be placed between "Ill-treatment" and "Use of Human shields"? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gitz6666I agree with you that Amnesty report should be included here in section of human shields, it is amusing to see how some editors here are going at arms length to avoid including the conclusions of world largest human rights org here.
Is there a way to complain about them to Wikipedia higher tier editors ?. these acts by them clearly reflects a bias in editing and could harm standards of wikipedia Mrboondocks (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock

Arbitrary break

I striongly support running an RfC. Right now the situation is ridiculous: the claims made by local Ukraian authorities a few days after the events are considered due (This shelling has been regarded as a war crime by region authorities) and the article has lots of similarly sourced claims while a report by Amnesty International is purged from the article. The fact that it has been widely discussed and criticised by some means that we need to mention this criticism as well rather than ignoring it. Alaexis¿question? 20:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the deliberate shelling of Ukrainian civilians by Russian forces is a war crime. But protecting them from the massacres by Russian forces is not. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
How would you phrase the question for an RfC @Alaexis? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@[[User:Alaexis|Alaexis] @Gitz6666should repeated purging of reports by some editors here (that reflects a clear bias) be highlighted to higher hierarchy of wikipedia ? Mrboondocks (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Two simple questions 1) Should we mention the main findings of the Amnesty International report in this article? 2) If the answer to Q1 is yes, should we mention them as it was done here? If the answer to Q2 is no, what should be changed? Alaexis¿question? 08:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem with these simple questions is that there are other sources on "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects": apart from Amnesty, we also have Human Rights Watch, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and an old article by Washington Post. Moreover, the Stara Krasnianka care house attack needs to be reported in this article, and it might be related, diven the dynamics of the incident. So another way of doing this would be to publish a section on "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects" with a subsection on Stara Krasnianka. If/when this gets reverted, we could have an RfC on the whole lot. Does this make sense to you @Alaexis? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's try! Alaexis¿question? 09:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you, purging of Amnesty report on how Ukrainian forces are endangering civilians, could be taken as an act of Bias, and can harm credibility of Wikipedia Mrboondocks (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I have not paid close attention to said alleged 'purging', but it still sounds like it's heavily being instrumentalized by Russia right now:
This Russian Embassy tweet is not the only evidence that Moscow is exploiting the Amnesty report for propaganda purposes. Amnesty International’s Moscow office was forcibly closed by the Russian authorities in April 2022. Its website is blocked in Russia and Russians are not typically able to access Amnesty content. However, Meduza reported that the recent Amnesty report had become a trending news story on the Yandex News aggregator, which does not index independent media, suggesting that the Russian authorities are deliberately spreading the story to discredit Ukraine and justify violence towards the civilian population.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/flawed-amnesty-report-risks-enabling-more-russian-war-crimes-in-ukraine/ Cononsense (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Amnesty reflected a fact, Russia using Amnesty findings is not a ground for purging report from article. Israel for decades used similar reports on Hamas firing from civilian areas as a justification for its indiscriminate attacks on Gaza, so should those reports be removed also ? Mrboondocks (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The report is now covered where it belongs, in Criticism of Amnesty International#2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 05:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

So criticism of report by Zelensky who clearly has a conflict of interest in this is a ground for removing the report ? should Russian officials calling out Amnesty reports be treated in a similar wat, or do times magazine and a British conservative journalist holds more credibility than the world largest human rights org ?
I support @Alaexis opinion on calling RfC. and I see this act of removing the report from here as a pure case of bias in some Wikipedia editors, these acts harms credibility of scholarly standards of Wikipedia Mrboondocks (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

And now one of the founders of Amnesty, Per Wästberg, resigns in protest over this report [34]. Yeah… we’re not using this piece of junk in the article. Volunteer Marek 07:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

per wastberg personal protest is not a ground for ad hominem criticism of Amnesty report, unless you can show substantiated criticism of the report that is not a ground of callinf the report as "piece of junk", but shows how some editors are blatantly biased in Wikipedia regarding Russia Ukraine crisis. Mrboondocks (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Wth does a "ad hominem criticism" of a report even mean? Volunteer Marek 20:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
argument you previously posted citing Per Wastberg to call Amnesty report a "piece of junk" is a text book example of discrediting the source.
Unless you can show substantially how Amnesty report is factually wrong (which no one has said so far) it wont be a piece of junk. Your argument does makes a strong case on biases of some wikipedia editors Mrboondocks (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
By the way Amnesty International had started already in June to denounce the placement of military objectives in heavy populated areas in Kharkiv, here [35]. Page 34 is entirely dedicated to "UKRAINIAN FORCES LAUNCHING STRIKES FROM RESIDENTIAL AREA":

Such practices endangered civilians in the areas and violated international humanitarian law, in particular the obligation to avoid, to the extent feasible, locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.

(quoting Rule 23).
On 29 June, also the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern about Ukrainian forces, as well as Russian forces, taking up positions close to civilian objects without taking measures for protecting the civilians ([36] para. 34) and documented the consequences of this fighting tactic in the case of Stara Krasnianka care house attack. That incident is quoted also by OSCE in its 20 July ODIHR Interim Report on reported violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in Ukraine [37], which contains a section on "Placement of military positions near civilian objects and the use of ‘human shields’". Stara Krasnianka is mentioned as raising serious concern about the use of the presence of civilians to render certain areas immune from military operations, i.e., according to OSCE and OHCHR it might be a case of use of human shields.
At the end of July we had Human Rights Watch documenting three cases of Ukrainian forces taking position among homes where people were living without taking any apparent action to move residents to safer areas [38].
Apparently news outlets have been more reluctant than international agencies and NGOs to report this kind of possible violation of IHL. However already at the end of March Washington Post wrote that

Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes, said human rights activists and international humanitarian law experts.

And then we had the last very controversial report by Amnesty International. I read some of the criticisms raised against the report, but apparently no one says that it is factually wrong. The most penetrating criticism alleges that the Ukrainian military has no other option available ("military necessity"). Even so, however, military necessity must be established case by case, and these episodes episodes might qualify as serious violation of IHL. Based on the criteria for inclusion we've always followed in this article, they must be reported here.
Are there other RS on this? I intend to write a subsection on "Placement of military positions near civilian objects". If some fellow editors object to this, we can have an RfC on this, but I find it questionable and possibly even contrary to policy, as NPOV is a non-negotiable policy and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy <-- true, but it's not "User Gitz6666 gets to do whatever they want-ocracy" either. Start an RfC if you must (and weren't you *just* counting votes the other day?) Volunteer Marek 20:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a good solution. Focusing on what the article says is much better than a discussion if a recent news report or a press-release should be "added".
Reports discussed here mention multiple instances of military positions being placed next to civilians. Concerns about such acts were raised by multiple IHL organisations in the recent months. Some of them were called war crimes in secondary RS (in the AP investigation for example), but even if we don't consider them as such, they're relevant to the Russian attacks being discussed in the article. Furthermore, I think there were at least two instances where Ukraine reported Russian attacks deliberately targeting civilians that were later found to be caused by placement of military objectives in civilian buildings (Stara Krasnianska, and, writing by memory so may be mistaken, MRLS hidden in a shopping mall early in March).
With regards to the AI report, I think it'd be best if as little of it, if any, is used as a source. Although the criticisms are mostly related to its one-sidedness enabling Russian propaganda rather than reliability, balancing this bias would be a massive and likely unnecessary task.
Having a dedicated section would also allow to provide a due coverage of Ukrainian military view, that there's no other way to protect civilians, or reports of civilians unwilling to leave mentioned by MVBW. The argument by Pravda expert is persuasive and it seems to be similar to how The Guardian reported such IHL violations. PaulT2022 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll share a sandbox later on today and let's try to have a good quality text including Stara Krasnianka for an RfC by tomorrow at the latest. I also remember the shopping mall incident but gave no RS at hand. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the problem here is very simple. The murder of civilians by Russian forces (i.e. the apparent war crimes by Russian forces) were misrepresented on this page as a war crime by Ukrainian forces. Even the heavily criticized report by Amnesty did not do it. I have seen a number of distortions, but that one would be on the top.My very best wishes (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_20&oldid=1146077249"