Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The lead

Unless the lead will be significantly expanded, I do not think this info [1] belongs to the lead because this has described only in a very short subsection of the page. Remember that the lead must summarize content proportional to its appearance in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

No, the default would be the version before you included this info recently to the lead [2]. Such inclusion should be done per WP:CONSENSUS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Maybe you're right, we'll see what they think. I just want to add to my "Mistreatment of PoW is a serious breach of international humanitarian law and should not be passed over in silence", that that applies especially when it's the deliberate product of an official state policy. Images and videos of PoW were posted by the Ukrainian Minister of Interal Affairs for a protracted period of time (more than two weaks) notwithstanding the warnings they had received by Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross: [3], [4]. I understand the scale of the serrounding catastrophe, but each rule of IHL is a trench that should never be abbandoned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this comment belong to this thread or rather to the discussion above "Castration of Russian soldiers"? With regard to the issue of the Russian PoW, there's no bombastic claim, it's a relatively clear case of violation of international humanitarian law, and there's plenty of third party sources: AI, [5] and HRW, [6], and their concerns have been shared, reported or discussed by the Washington Post, [7] the French L'Obs, [8], La Croix [9], Le Figaro, [10], the German Tagesschau, [11] (dubitatively) and Der Spiegel, [12] (explicit condemnation by legal expert Daniel-Erasmus Khan). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I was referring to this, [13], quoted in the article at end of the line starting with "On 16 March, Human Rights Watch described the videos..." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Videos are irrelevant in terms of article content. The article needs to be based off of reliable sources. A news paper quoting some guy is a reliable source only for that man's quote. For something to be included it needs to be written in the RSs own words. If there's a quote from some guy then the article can use his quote, but it can't say in wiki voice some random person's opinion, this is WP:OR. Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please point to specific sentences which are not supported by reliable sources, because I've re-read the subsection "Footage of captured Russian soldiers" and couldn't find any. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Crime of aggression ≠ war crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Second thought. I dont' think we should use the lead to explain the point about the war of aggression. Using the lead as a disambiguation doesn't look right to me. The already informed reader is asked to read pointless text. We should rather remove the text and use a WP:HAT. What about the following one?

  The invasion of Ukraine may constitute a crime of aggression in international criminal law. This subject is addressed in Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's too much WP:EDITORIALIZING and not enough neutrality. If you want to link that page, keep to the essentials; how about this:

  This page is about individual actions during or after the Russian invasion that may be war crimes. For the legality of the invasion itself in international law, see Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

  Part of the problem in teasing out the differences is the fact that the two articles' topics are closely related. Closely related—but not identical, otherwise they would have to be merged. So, the hatnote example above is based on my understanding of the key difference between the two topics:

  1. the other article is narrowly about the legality of the invasion itself, even if everything else during and following it had been strictly according to Geneva
  2. this article is about listing and covering details of numerous individual events that occurred during the invasion and the war that followed, excluding the question of the invasion itself

  If that is an accurate reading of the essentials of the differences between these two topics, then I believe the hatnote suggestion (whose wording could no doubt be improved) should do the job. If it is not accurate, we should get busy fixing the article titles and/or the leads so that the topics are clear; per WP:Article title: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." If we can't clearly tell what the topics of the two articles are, then we cannot possibly come up with a proper hatnote. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I like the text you proposed for the hat, I think it's best. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I would go with that too. While we are at it, the WP:SHORTDESC right now is "Ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court", which I don't find a great description. Any idea of a better one? Although the title of the article is pretty much self explanatory. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  This article has one section on the ICC investigation, but the article scope is wider than that. I replaced the WP:SHORTDESC Ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court without waiting, since that was obviously wrong. I've put: individual actions during or after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that may be war crimes, but I'm sure that further improvement is possible. I also extended the hatnote to include the ICC investigation as the first alternative article, since the ICC investigation of the crimes is closer to the "description/list/overview of the crimes" than the other related articles. I hope I didn't interfere too much in the consensus building up in this discussion section... Boud (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Having an article on War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian War

By the way, I think we are missing a more general article War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Both sides committed plenty of those before 2022 and now there is no place to write about it. Alaexis_¿question? 10:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis: "By the way, I think we are missing a more general article War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian War." We sort of have that with Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas#War crimes, but as explained at Talk:Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas#More recent OHCHR report, that mostly focuses only on 2014; there's a big gap in the Wikipedia text especially 2016–2021. Tgr gave some talk page OHCHR quotes to help anyone interesting in filling the gap, and I suggested making some minimal chronological divisions in order to work within the structure of that article first. I don't think a WP:SPLIT would be justified from the 2014 material alone, but if someone is willing to do the work by adding in 2015/2016–2021 material, then a split with a name like War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian War (and a brief summary back to this page for 2022) would seem reasonable. Anyway, I recommend that discussion on the war-crimes-since-2014 question take place at Talk:Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas#More recent OHCHR report, or even better, jump in with editing content at Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas#War crimes. Boud (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the links, generally I agree with your thoughts. Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas has been written during the conflict and so has a lot of coverage of individual accidents in 2014 when the media's attention was focused on the conflict. I started with adding a brief summary of the situation with human rights prior to 2022 to the main article about the war [14]. Alaexis_¿question? 12:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

add more information about the mykolaiv cluster bombing and add the mykolaiv government building bombing.

all information can be found in the respective pages. 2804:14D:4489:13DF:3004:C178:FB76:FEAA (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

can someone also add more information on the Bucha Massacre? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Whether the attack on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant was a war crime

Following on from the comments above in "What amounts to a war crime? Lack of mention in sources and WP:OR" I have done some further research into the Attack on the Nuclear power plant and note that the "war crime" quote was a Twitter tweet by the US embassy in Kyiv. Also note that:

• The US State Department is now saying it is "...assessing the circumstances of this operation" with this article describing is as a "possible" warcrime and this article saying the state department tried to "walk back" the claim. Note how the second article also describes how the state department urgently advised all European embassys not to spread the message further.
• The Pentagon is not calling the attack a war crime, with their spokeperson stating "There’s an investigation going on right now into Russia for potential war crimes; we’ll let that process play out.” The article I found is entitled "Pentagon won’t call attack at nuclear plant a war crime, yet"

At the moment the reference we have in the article that supports the claim (which cannot be accessed) is entitled US calls Russian attack on Ukraine nuclear power plant a "War Crime". From the above it is unclear what the US position is. Only the US embassy in Kiev made this claim (via a Twitter tweet) with the US State Department and Pentagon not supporting the claim.

I also note that the last sentence of this section is the international law scholar Tom Dannenbaum stating that the attack "...almost certainly breached international law but probably did not constitute a war crime".

Would suggest a single twitter tweet is insufficent for calling the attack a war crime and unless we can find RS backing up this claim the section should be reworded / removed. Comments? Ilenart626 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This article deals with allegations (recently Washington Post noted that the positioning of Ukrainians military targets within civilian areas may weaken claims of Russian war crimes related to bombing of civilian areas), so probably it should be included with all the info you found (backtracking, change of course, etc).Anonimu (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Anonimu that, if we keep the subsection, then it should be improved with the sources that Ilenart626 found. We could also add this one to support the claim that Zelenskyy has spoken of "nuclear terror" (no need of the primary source, this one). All the available RS, however, don't qualify the attacks as a "war crime" directly ; they report war crimes accusations by non-RS (Ukrainian President, US Ambassy). In the scheme I have already shared, here, they fall under N. 3, while the thermobaric weapons issue fell under N. 4. Is the subsection worth keeping? I'd be inclined to say yes because, first of all, attack on nuclear plants is probably new in the history of mankind and thus notable for an encyclopedia; second, because even if it doesn't qualify as war crime, RS claim that it is unlawful - not only Dannenbaum, here, that we already quote, but also the OHCHR Monitoring Mission, here, that says "international humanitarian law provides special protections for nuclear electrical generating stations, and this aspect will be considered in OHCHR’s next report". We could also add this RS and maybe the quotation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, happy to keep the section with updates, I have time this afternoon to work on it. Note that, unfortunately this is not the first attack on a nuclear power plant, this article highlighted that Israel attacked a plant in Iraq and Syria and the United States attacked two Iraqi research reactors during the Gulf War. Will also include this article as a reference, however unfortunately the author is not clear on whether he considered the Ukrane attack a war crime Ilenart626 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Just completed the update, note the following:

1. have removed the Ukraine claims and references that state the Russian forces bombarded he plant with artilllary, this video analysis shows that the attack was via 10 armored vehicles as well as two tanks and personnel.
2. The above video analysis highlights that Ukraine forces started the firefight when they disabled a tank with a missile. The review by Tom Dannenbaum highlighted that this would be a potential breach of article 56 of the Geneva Convention, so I have mentioned this towards the end of the article.

Feel free to comment / edit the changes Ilenart626 (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Ilenart626 for this. Just a doubt about point 1, i.e. removing "carried out artillery strikes". The source you provide says "Russian forces repeatedly fired heavy weapons ... haphazardly firing rocket-propelled grenades". I'm not a military expert at all, but isn't that "artillery"? I see artillery is defined as "heavy military ranged weapons built to launch munitions far beyond the range and power of infantry firearms", so the claim by the Ukrainians seem correct - the Russian didn't use just rifles, automatic firearms, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is artillery would not include rocket propelled grenades. Artillery is normally fired from a distance and thats not how the attack unfolded. There is a video on utube where everything was live streamed and the video analysis I highlighted above analysed the whole attack. The Russian went in and responded to an initial missile attack from Ukraine forces. No where does it mention artillery strikes. This is an important point as using artillery can be inaccurate and Russia has been criticised for firing inaccurate artillery near a nuclear plant, which would of breached the Geneva Convention. Tom Dannenbaum’s analysis discusses this point. My understanding is all the weapons Russia used could be targeted fairly well so they could avoid damaging the critical sections of the plant. If you like I can go back and cite the appropriate source that describes the weapons used. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

thank you, I understand the point and agree with you. As there is consensus that NPR is generally reliable, we can use this and provide a little bit more information. I'm now adding "On 3 March 2022, Russian forces attacked the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe's largest, firing rocket-propelled grenades". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries, note that the video analysis also highlights that the Ukraine forces fired anti tank missiles at the Russians, which potentially breaches the passive precautions part (section 5) of the Geneva Convention (Article 56 – Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces). I’ve already mentioned this at the end, but will be a bit more specific. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, have updated the section. Is pretty clear what happened based on the 4 hour video and subsequent analysis, (first time I have watched a battle on utube, welcome to the 21st century!) so have included these details at the start. Have then followed with the various statements, claims and counterclaims. Have finalised with a detailed reference to Article 56 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and the international scholars’ interpretations. @Gitz6666 let me know if you have any comments or questions. Ilenart626 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider creating a self-standing article on that battle, like Battle of Chernobyl, or adding some contents to this draft and/or to this article here. I personally feel that the detailed description of the battle is valuable, but belongs more to those pages that to this article. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think a two hour battle warrants a separate article. I have copied the details of the battle to both the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and Siege of Enerhodar articles. Will go and trim some of the details from this article, but note that some of the details are important for determining compliance with Article 56, particularly who fired first. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

to me the section is perfect as it is and doesn't need any more care. Please have a look at the lead when you have time and see if it's possible to improve. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

ok, went thru the Lead yesterday and made a few changes, will have another look Ilenart626 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible new section - Issues with conviction of war crimes?

I have come accross this article that states "The mass mobilization of Ukrainian citizens to fight off Russian invaders may complicate the case against Putin. Russia could try to use the blurred distinction between civilian and combatant as a justification for attacks on civilian areas." I also noted the comments from @Anonimu above where a Washington Post article noted that the positioning of Ukrainians military targets within civilian areas may weaken claims of Russian war crimes related to bombing of civilian areass. Should we have a new section where these issues could be included?

We could also included the jurisdiction issues which are detailed in lots of articles (for example) as Russia is not party to the ICC, though this is already included in the "International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine" article.

Comments? Ilenart626 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Just read a very interesting statement in the Washigton Post article cited above. Alexei Arestovich, adviser to the head of the Office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said that international humanitarian laws or the laws of war don't apply in this conflict because "the main task of Putin's military campaign is the destruction of the Ukrainian nation." So are Ukraine saying this is a Total war situation? Ilenart626 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The one-off comment by Arestovich does not imply total war, it only implies consistency with the comment above of "blurring", i.e. about some of the cases of attacks on civilian buildings being unclear as to whether they will count as war crimes or militarily justified attacks. The question of proportionality will depend on the evidence presented in the courts. Amnesty International and HRW have been quite careful to check for any sign of possible military justifications for the specific cases they've published. The overall theme of the Wash Post article is fully consistent with the invasion being covered by international humanitarian law; but it says that Ukrainian defenders have to judge the risk of themselves violating humanitarian law (if weapons out of proportion to what is justified in densely populated places are located there) and the risk of reducing the chance of successful war crimes prosecutions against Russian attackers. Law doesn't dissolve when some people decide to ignore it; law exists when the institutions related to the law function effectively. And currently a lot more is being done for war crimes prosecutions for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine compared to war crimes in the Tigray War, which almost certainly count as crimes against humanity, and quite likely count as genocide (which is ongoing in the form of the deliberately induced famine in the Tigray War). Boud (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I've also heard at an academic workshop that mass mobilization of civilian population may have consequences on the way war crimes against civilians are assessed and sentenced. That, however, is purely speculative (as the international lawyer explaining the point made clear), so for the time being I would refrain from what might turn out to be WP:OR. I also don't see how this relates to the positioning of the Ukrainian artillery. It's for the judges to decide on the matter. In abstracto is always difficult to tell: we will publish when we have WP:RS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, no worries lets leave out, plenty of other items to work on Ilenart626 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit War between User:Anonimu and User: Volunteer_Marek

There seem to be an edit war going on right now between User:Anonimu and User: Volunteer_Marek. Edit Warring is explicitly banned by Wikipedia:Edit warring, and may result in a ban or a block. According to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Edit warring, disputes on the content of a wiki should be settled via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in the talk page.

The current dispute between User:Anonimu and User: Volunteer_Marek is on the content of the first sentence.

• User:Anonimu wanted it to say "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian and Ukrainian authorities were both accused of carrying out wartime actions in violation of international law."

• User: Volunteer_Marek wanted it to say "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities were accused of carrying out wartime actions in violation of international law."

My personal opinion is that neither of the two sentence satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. User: Volunteer_Marek version intentionally misrepresents the content of the wiki and ignores the heavy content that features Ukrainian War Crimes in Treatment of prisoners of war and Ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of civilians. User:Anonimu includes Ukrainian War Crimes but failed to differentiate the difference of scale and nature between Russian and Ukrainian War Crimes. It seems to me that a compromise should be reached between the two versions that include both the fact that Russia and Ukraine are both engaging in War Crimes, and the fact that Russia is committing War Crimes on a greater scale and more aggressive nature.

The following section would be open for discussion until a consensus is reached.

-- TsunTsky (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just basic bothsideism. The overwhelming majority of war crimes and the most vile ones have been perpetrated by one side only. This is an attempt to suggest otherwise in the lede. There's no problem with saying that Russia was accused of most war crimes and then noting that there's also been accusations against Ukraine. Volunteer Marek 00:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The version from anonimu isn't even substantiated by reliable source; while possible war crimes by defense forces are being alleged, there's nothing indicating that it was done from a position of official authority. At most there should be a sentence at the end of the lead regarding actions by Ukrainian soldiers, to give it proportionate emphasis to the rest of the article. Shadybabs (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the OT, and I think that the issue can be easily solved, hopefully with everybody's agreement, by simply restoring the original text: "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Russian authorities have been accused of carrying out indiscriminate attacks...". We don't need the opening statement "[Russian and/or Ukrainians were] accused of carrying out wartime actions in violation of international law": it is tautological. We can immediately convey the content of the main allegations without first stating the obvious. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This new OP by @Volunteer Marek is very disruptive and unacceptable. This is a collaborative project. I strongly suggest a nice cup of tea, a walk in the park and WP:DISENGAGE immediately. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, aside from some old edits, your account has been active only since 2021. I've been here since 2005. Please don't lecture me. There's nothing wrong with my post. It specifically discusses content. You are welcome to walk in park or have tea yourself if you'd like though. Volunteer Marek 01:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars specifically references Wikipedia:MOREX. No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experiences.

TsunTsky (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with this too. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Russian War Crimes should be emphasized; I just think Ukrainian War Crimes should also be covered in Top as there's a decent amount of coverage of it in the article.

TsunTsky (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Less than 10% of the article covers accusations against Ukraine, and I think there might be an undue emphasis on those accusations in the War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Treatment of prisoners of war. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think that version by Anonimu has a typical WP:GEVAL problem. A compromise version? That was well said by one of Soviet dissidents: "The middle ground between Big Lie and Truth is ... the lie". My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I personally disagree with allegation Wikipedia:GEVAL. The fact that Ukraine is committing war crimes is no fringe or conspiracy theory. It is backed up by reputable and mainstream sources like the Human Rights Watch.

  TsunTsky (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• The locus of dispute is not correct: Volunteer Marek has indiscriminately reverted the work of several editors who had edited the article in the previous 13 hours and restored a version that was severely misrepresenting reliable sources (see section above). I do agree that the specific phrase in the version I had reverted was not perfect, as most allegations deal with Russia, but, considering the Volunteer Marek's edit warring, I did not have time to go by hand through all the changes. Regarding the specific phrase, I don't think it brings any value to the article. The reader is expected to at least read the LEDE, and he can read there the many allegations regarding Russia and the fewer ones regarding Ukraine. Therefore, the LEDE doesn't require a lead for itself.Anonimu (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We REALLY need to clean this article up and use some reliable sources.

The Ukrainian Government is not a reliable source. There is a clear information war right now between Russia and Ukraine, we can't just put everything the Ukrainian Government says here without any kind of verification. We have a section about children being used as human shields, which is something quite notable, and I would expect to be able to find at least one single picture depicting that, yet after perhaps a hundred of different seen images with different Google searches, I found a total of zero. The source we have right now is "Ukrainian government says that witness say that Russians have done X".

And I don't want this post to be seen as an anti-Ukrainian or pro-Russian stand, which I know that some users will. It is just that we don't use Russian statements without verifying them for an obvious reason. Those reasons are also valid for Ukraine. And I am not saying Ukraine is doing bad by using information warfare, it is a war after all and they are defending their country. But we should know better and not let it affect the Wikipedia. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Anonimu for fixing the part about children as human shields, (even faster than I was able to comment here!). Still begs the question, should everything Ukraine is claiming be reflected here? I find it dilutes actual confirmed war crimes committed during the war. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No, that’s not how this works. And this stuff isn’t sourced to “Ukrainian government”. It’s from independent reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 21:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It's sourced to Ukrainian authorities, who report to RS regarding what they claim witnesses stated.Anonimu (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If a source reports something as credible it doesn't matter where the first claim was made. Yes, initially Ukrainian government said it. Then journalists and independent observers verified it. Trying to sprinkle "according to Ukrainian authorities" throughout the article to downplay actual mass murder is both indecent and in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Volunteer Marek 22:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There are some things stated as facts in this article, like this one I removed, where the actual source is

“They are mining homes, mining equipment, even the bodies of people who were killed,” he said. The Post could not verify those claims.

So, @Volunteer Marek, I would appreciate if you get your facts in order before you start making unfounded accusations. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If you removed the text (about mining bodies), why did you insert a "verify" tag anyway? Volunteer Marek 00:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I inserted a "verify" tag for the first source for the first part of the section, as I had no access and can't verify it myself. AdrianHObradors (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not other editor's problem. You can request quote on talk. Don't tag the article. And one more time - if you removed the text you thought was unverified, why did you ADD the verify tag afterwards? Volunteer Marek 01:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Volunteer Marek, I will explain again. That section had two sources. The text I removed that I thought that was unverified (again, because the source said "The Post could not verify those claims") was not the one I tagged. I tagged the other source, that was behind a paywall, which referred to the rest of the section, which I did not remove. My apologies if I wasn't clear before. AdrianHObradors (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, the source was The Guardian; this is an excellent RS. But even if it were a publication by Ukrainian government, we could still use it, with proper attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes, I agree we can use claims by the Ukrainian Government taken from RS, but as claims, not as facts. If a reliable source says "Reports by Ukraine said that X and Y happened", we can't put on the article "X and Y happened"-RS. Claims need to be verified. You can see an actual example above with the Washington Post. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)