Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Lead section and article. Informal request for comments

I'm trying to involve other editors in our recent discussions: [1]. POV pushing, disregard for consensus and disruptive editing have brought us on the brink of an edit war and have seriously affected the balance of the lead and the integrity of the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I responded there, and corrected this page accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Marauders etc

To include the info on marauders and looters being abused, please provide a source which actually refers to this as a "war crime", which is the actual subject of this article. These actions may very well be criminal, and they do constitute human rights abuses but they are not "war crimes". For comparison, the shooting of student protestors at Kent State in 1970 was horrible and basically a crime but it was not a "war crime" even if it occurred during the Vietnam war. This is a basic category error here. "One thing is bad and then another thing is bad and they happened during same event so they both the same thing". Nope. Volunteer Marek 14:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ilenart626: please provide sources which actually call these "war crimes" or stop adding it to the article. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, while some stories here refer to the individuals being tied to lampposts as "marauders" I think that's basically a mistranslation since I haven't seen a single instance of it being done to a captured Russian soldier. It also makes no sense that such would be done. Volunteer Marek 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

And also, I'm not sure if the detention of journalists etc also counts as a "war crime" either. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Any serious violation of IHL committed in the context of a war qualifies as a "war crime" according to legal scholarship and, as far as I remember, also according to the editors who have discussed the issue on this talk page. That's the reason why we have a section on genocide, which is not a war crime stricto sensu, but for our purposes qualifies as such. Based on your argument, we should get rid of the whole section on genocide - would you accept that consequence of your reasoning? With regard to the section you would like to remove, the prohibition of "humiliating and degrading treatment" is relevant (see Rule 90 ICRC Customary IHL Database). I'm not an expert, I think that prohibition also applies to marauders and looters and I'm pretty sure it applies to Russian supporters. Anyway, for me it is sufficient that these incidents are reported by this RS: to be honest, I wouldn't enquire further. So unless you provide an equally reliable source proving that these incidents are not relevant for this article, I think we shouldn't remove the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no sources provided that these are violations of IHL either (in particular, abusing domestic looters is not an international crime). I genuinely don't get your logic wrt to genocide. The source you quote does not refer to these as war crimes violations either. It's actually NOT up to me to provide a source which says they are not war crimes, it is up to those trying to add it to provide sources which say they are, per WP:ONUS. Volunteer Marek 16:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've already provided the sources. IHL violations and human rights violation committed in the context of war, if closely related to war, amount to war crimes for the purposes of this article - I'm arguing; other editors are free to express their views on the point. We are not strictly bound by the legal jargon, but in this case current IHL supports the choice for inclusion. Let me just briefly make the legal point, which might be useful also for future discussions.

• IHL applies as soon as an armed conflict exists between states and it is applicable throughout the entire territory of the parties to the conflict.
• There needs to be a nexus between the prohibited act and the war ("nexus requirement"). Pursuant to the ICTY jurisprudence, the prohibited act needs neither be committed in the course of fighting nor inside the area of actual combat, as long as the "crimes were closely related to the hostilities". ICC Statute: "the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an (international) armed conflict".
• Under the ICC and other IHL instruments, war crimes can be committed by both members of armed forces and civilians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've already provided the sources.

  No, no you haven't. You provided a source for something else entirely. Please provide a source which says these are war crimes. And now you're trying to substitute your own original research rather than providing sources. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure why Volunteer Marek pinged me here, however have read the above discussuon and Gitz Inagree and support your view. Ilenart626 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I pinged you for the very obvious reason that you are the one trying to add this to the article, despite the fact that there is no sources which call this "war crimes". Volunteer Marek 19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please show me the edit where I added information about “Marauders” to this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  here and pretty much here Volunteer Marek 23:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  note the comments to the edits both carried out yesterday, Volunteer Marek please seek consensus on the Talk page before you carry out wholesale changes to this article. Only reason I added them back was in response to your recent edits. I believe the information was added several weeks ago be other editors. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  You still restored content which misrepresented sources (none of the sources refer to this as “war crimes”). When you restore someone else’s edit you take responsibility for it. Volunteer Marek 02:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I also see that you reverted both of my edits 1minute after I made them. So your whole conversation is pointless and I will no longer participate in this discussion Ilenart626 (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are of course free to do that, but please keep in mind that reverting others while refusing to engage in discussion on talk is edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Volunteer Marek 14:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I have engaged in a discussion with you, I've given you my reasons and Ilenart626 has agreed with me. It will be easier for other editors to join the discussion if we keep it focused and avoid repeating our posts. So far there's no consensus for removing the section and modifying the lead, so now I'm manually reverting your removal. Please refrain from removing these contents again until a different consensus is reached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  My comment was obviously directed at Illenart626. Since you've replied though, can you provide a source which actually calls the treatment of marauders and looters a "war crime"? An actual source, not your own personal WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 03:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The level of detail given to these reports, relative to the scale of the allegations, is not worthy of inclusion in the lead regardless of its suitability for the article as a whole. Furthermore, these reports should only be included for allegations against those acting in a military capacity; not for civilians tying up other civilians in defense of their property. Shadybabs (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Shadybabs, I suggest we discuss the point on the lead in the thread you just opened here below. With regard to "civilians tying up other civilians in defense of their property": HRMMU March report, quoted, says "... by civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence", and also the fact that some of the victims were targetted as "Russian supporters" is relevant here. @Volunteer Marek, this article doesn't deal exclusively with war crimes stricto sensu, implying individual responsibility of the perpetrators, but with any violation of IHL and HR violations if the criminal conduct is "closely related to the hostilities". The overwhelming majority of the crimes we are reporting were not explicitly qualified as such by the sources: basically all the incidents you can find in "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks", for example. You yourself have recently added a section on "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children": do the sources there use the label "war crime"? They don't, and that's not important. With regard to marauders, Russian-supporters etc. we have HRMMU reporting at least 45 cases of mistreatment, which is suggestive of official state policy, and we have the Head of the HRMMU stating that they have received "two allegations of killing in Government controlled territory of civilians due to their alleged affiliation with Russian forces or support of pro-Russian views". So this may well be a case of war crime stricto sensu, and anyway it clearly belongs to the subject matter of this article, as a series of cases of inhumane and degrading treatment (and at least two wilful killings) of civilians in strict connection with the war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Should this article include all instances of Russian abuses against anti-war Russians in Russia; the disappearing of oligarchs who oppose the war, beating and imprisonment of protestors, etc.? When do civil rights abuses cross that threshold, and why are only internal civil rights abuses committed by Ukrainians being included here? If we want to give fair and proportional weight to both sides here, there's a TON that needs to be added about Russia's abuses. Shadybabs (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to having a section on Russian repression on dissent against the invasion provided that it deals with serious human rights violations (like inhumane and degrading treatment, and arbitrary detention, not just censorship) which are related to the war (e.g. targetting activists, journalists and politicians who oppose the invasion). War crimes can be committed also against one's own citizens, and the connection to the war can be functional (so there's no need for the crime to be committed in the course of fighting nor inside the area of combat). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It should have neither since neither is a war crime. Still waiting on the sources here. Volunteer Marek 15:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

HRMMU says "credible allegations of more than 45 such cases of torture and ill-treatment" and says that "binding partially or fully stripped persons to poles or trees and beating them in public could also amount to CRSV" (Conflict-related sexual violence). That's enough. The sources of the "Ukrainian prisoners of war" section do not use the magic words "war crime" either. You added a section on "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children": is there a RS using "war crimes" there? And what about the "Chemical weapons" section? And the series of bombing with civilian casualties? The thing is: there's no need for our RS to use the expression "war crime" if they describe war crimes, and when we see an an apple, we can call it an apple. We need reliable sources only for challenged claims, or for claims likely to be challenged. I know that yesterday you even challenged the claim that shooting someone in the legs amounts to torture (seriously). But I insist that, Volunteer Marek notwithstanding, the claim that binding marauders and pro-Russian activists to trees and beating them in public amounts to a war crime is not likely to be challenged. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No, no it's not. You need a source which says "war crimes" here because it's being challenged. If you want to challenge any other issue please start a separate section for that issue. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Volunteer Marek 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Quote: "I know that yesterday you even challenged the claim that shooting someone in the legs amounts to torture" No I fucking didn't. What I said is that the source being used "does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured". Which is 100% true. Don't willfully falsify what I (or anyone else for that matter) have said. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not falsifying anything: the section is there for everybody to read. You were claiming that we cannot call the kneecapping of Russian POW "torture" unless reliable sources do so explicitly as well - which they do, actually, and several times. And now you're claiming that ill-treatment and torture of marauders and Russian-supporters fall outside the scope of this article unless a reliable source qualifies them as "war crimes". If I understand your point, human rights violations committed in the context of war and associated with war don't qualify as "war crimes" for the purposes of this article, unless a RS says so. Is that correct? Are you sure this is the position you'd like to defend? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes you are and I really need you to stop. I was NOT "claiming that we cannot call the kneecapping of Russian POW "torture"". What I said was: I'm sorry but the source [43] does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured. Which is 100% correct. And what I'm saying with respect to ill treatment of marauders and "Russian supports" (sic) - before it was "bootleggers and looters" but now I see it got changed to "Russian supporters" - is that yes, you need a source which calls it a war crime since unlike most other things in this article (like mass rapes and murder of civilians) it's not immediately obvious that it is a war crime. Volunteer Marek 07:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

So when you were saying I'm sorry but the source [43] does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured your point was purely theoretical and you were not at all implying that we could not say that the Russian POWs had been tortured due to lack of source. However, you are now claiming that we cannot say that ill-treatment of marauders and Russian supporters is a war crime unless we have a source that calls it a war crime. I don't agree: if we were to apply that criterion, we would need to delate 2/3 of the article; the vast majority of incidents we are reporting in the article have never been explicitly called "war crime" by the sources. The sources quoted in the section you recently added, "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children", do not speak of "war crimes"; but we know that forced deportation of civilians is a war crime, so we don't need a source. And what about arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of journalists, activists and public officials in Russian controlled territories? Why would that be relevant, if torture of Russian supporters in government controlled territory is not a war crime? This is cherry picking and is NPOV. The point is: any serious violation of human rights, if closely related to the war, qualifies as war crime for the purposes of this article, irrespective on whether the sources explicitly speak of "war crimes" or not. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I was simply pointing out that the source didn't actually support the text that was being added. It's as simply as that and you trying to pretend I was saying something else - something quite odious in fact - is disingenuous and insulting. That's why you need to stop because at that point it becomes a matter of a personal attack. As far as kidnapping of children by invading armed forces, yes, that's clearly a war crime. Tying looters and bootleggers to lampposts is bad, and it's vigilante justice (at best) but it is not a war crime (for one thing, it's something that private citizens are doing to their fellow citizens). The difference is not that hard to understand unless someone is trying really hard not to understand it. Volunteer Marek 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

re torture: "if you think that there is "torture" of Russian POWs then you should have absolutely no problem providing a source which actually says so." No further comment is needed. Re marauders and Russian supporters, you're constantly comparing crimes that are different and making the point that some are worst then others. I'm not denying this, but I don't see how's this relevant to us. The point is: do they belong to the subject of this article?Let me ask you again one question: do arbitrary detention and Ill-treatment of journalists, activists and public servants in Russian controlled territories belong to this article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead should not include detail on individual or small scale events

The lead is for summary of an article, not to give details on specific events. There should at most be one line regarding prisoners of war that summarizes well documented actions that constitute war crimes. One video of POWs getting shot in the knee is worthy for inclusion in the body of the article, but not in the lead. Furthermore, my attempts to remedy this issue in the past has led to partial reversions to only sections of the lead for accusations against Ukraine, giving a distorted balance that is not in line with neutral point of view.Shadybabs (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not what WP:NPOV means. Please read the page I just linked. It doesn't mean that we create false balance. The preponderance of sources opine on Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity, and not the vague accusations leveled against Ukraine by Russia. However, if multiple reliable sources do comment on that at some point, it should absolutely go in the article. As far as "individual" and "small scale" events, we regularly include such things in article leads across Wikipedia if they're inherently notable, and obviously encyclopedic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should go in the article, but I don't believe it belongs in the lede per WP:DUE. However, I don't currently see it in the lede? BilledMammal (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The lines in question keep being removed by editors trying to give proportionate balance then reinserted. Here's the content that I object to (in bold)

The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have allegedly been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence, and Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured and subjected to summary execution.

The first line is a good enough summary for the lead, the bolded section is unnecessary detail for the lead that gives disproportionate detail for accusations against Ukraine relative to the rest of the article. Shadybabs (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: while the consensus is leaning towards more detail in the lead and not less; I'll be adding more description on important aspects of the article such as sexual violence/rape as a weapon of war. I have previously trimmed such excess detail from both the Russian and Ukrainian side, but restoring detail for one side and not the other creates false balance. Shadybabs (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the most important points. How to identify them? "Not include detail on individual or small scale events" is a reasonable criterion: let's call it SCALE. Another one could be "include according to coverage by reliable source" (actually this would be closer to MOS:LEADREL, "relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources"): let's call it SOURCE.

If we adopt SCALE, then mistreatment of marauders and Russian-supporters qualifies for the lead, because RS reported (one month ago) at least 45 cases of mistreatment, which is suggestive of official state policy, plus two killings. Torture and killing of Russian POWs, however, doesn't qualify for the lead (three reported episodes) unless the Russian authorities claim it's been widespread (I haven't checked). But note that also use of phosphorus bombs by the Russians and wilful killing of Ukrainian children shouldn't belong to the lead according to SCALE.

If we adopt SOURCE, then public humiliation, torture and killing of Russian POWs belong to the lead (they've been wildly reported); mistreatment of marauders and Russian-supporters, however, wouldn't; and also arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists, etc., wouldn't qualify for the lead according to SCALE.

There's a third option: balancing SOURCE and SCALE according to common sense and discussion. That, however, requires a certain degree of mutual confidence and respect among editors, which I feel might be lacking here – and that's quite disappointing, considering the amount of time that most of us have dedicated to this work. How could anyone possibly read the lead (or the article) and think that our job here has been that of downplaying the Russians' responsibilities?!? I think that the lead as it is now, is actually quite balanced: the enormous scale of the crimes committed by the Russian army clearly emerges.

Maybe we could shorten it a bit: The Monitoring Mission and human rights organisations have also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment, public humiliation, torture and summary execution of pro-Russian supporters and Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine. That would mean getting read of marauders, bootleggers ... publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence ... abused, exposed to public curiosity. Do you like it more? But then I think we should also eliminate the reference to "phosphorus bombs" (as per SCALE and per SOURCE) as well as the sentence (recently added) Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war", possibly with tacit approval from their superiors: we already had a reference to "sexual assaults and rapes" in the lead and the "tacit approval from their superiors" is purely speculative and not supported by RS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, you need an actual source which calls mistreatment of "bootleggers, looters and marauders" a war crime. Not your own original research. A source.

With regard to the "public humiliation, torture and killing of Russian POWs" in the lede, there's a different problem. Aside from posting of videos of Russian POWs calling their moms and what not, these incidents of "humiliation, torture and killings" are isolated. In fact, it's basically... one (unless you count sketchy as fuck twitter/telegram claims not present in any reliable sources). The wording you insist on and even your revised wording gives the very very very false impression that these things are widespread however. That right there is the false balance and POV. Volunteer Marek 15:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly misinformed. Please check the sources. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Am I? If so can you link the specific source which calls the treatment of marauders, bootleggers and looters a war crime right here? Volunteer Marek 16:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

With regard to the discussion of rape in the lede. Yeah, I guess the "tacit approval" can be removed. However, rape occurring during a war and rape being used as a weapon to terrorize the local population are actually distinct though related phenomenon and as such BOTH need to be mentioned. Volunteer Marek 15:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

After Volenteer Marek's recent edits, in relation to Ruusian POWs the lead now states "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine". However the article includes:

• Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers (probably covered by above)
• Kneecapping of Russian soldiers (not covered by above)
• Execution of captured Russian soldiers (not covered by the above).

The lead clearly needs to include more details on the treatment of Russian POws.

In contrast, with regard to Ukraine Prisoners of War the lead states "Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution." Yet the article gives ONE reference of execution of Ukraine prisoners of war, which on a review is incorrect as it refers to "combatants" with no clear indication that it is referring to Ukraine prisoners of war! (NB: will delete this section). The Ukraine POW torture details in the article also appear flimsy. Ilenart626 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong and reverted. Shadybabs (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This way of storming the lead by repeatedly adding or removing contents without any agreement among editors (we were 2 against 2) is contrary to WP:BRD and to the way we've always proceeded so far: we've had extensive discussions on the lead and none has ever taken it upon themselves to massively change the lead without consensus. Besides, I strongly resent the highly polemical tone and the accusations of POV-pushing to me and fellow editors by @Volunteer Marek. We've spent dozen of hours meticulously documenting and describing innumerable war crimes committed by the Russian troops. Some of the comments here above (especially in the threads "Marauders etc" and "torture of Russian POWs") fall short of civility. Talk pages shouldn't be a battleground. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You just falsely accused me of claiming that shooting prisoners in knees wasn’t torture, when I never said anything like that. I don’t think you get to lecture others about civility or battleground after that. Volunteer Marek 16:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as POW issue in the lead, it may be useful to read what UN report wrote about both sides [2] (page 9)

In the power of Ukraine:

48. OHCHR notes with concern the abundance of videos publicly available online depicting interrogations of POWs by Ukrainian forces following their capture. In the videos, POWs are made to apologise to the Ukrainian people, disparage their command, glorify Ukrainian armed forces, or call on relatives to put a stop to the war.

In the power of the Russian Federation:

51. Of concern, HRMMU notes a large number of videos with intimidation and insults of Ukrainian POWs following their capture. HRMMU has collected videos from media and open sources depicting interrogations of POWs immediately after their capture – some conducted by Russian armed forces and others by members of affiliated armed groups of self-proclaimed ‘republics’. In the videos, members of the Ukrainian armed forces and territorial defence were compelled to disparage their command and comrades, shout glorifying chants to Russian armed forces, and call on the Government of Ukraine to enter into peace talks with the Russian Federation or for Ukrainian soldiers to lay down their weapons. HRMMU notes that some POWs had visible signs of bruises.

This could be a good basis for a single sentence solution to the lede, as all other prisoner issues are single incidents and/or poorly verified.--Staberinde (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The HRMMU focuses on the videos of Russian POWs being questioned. Anything more than that is UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 17:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I understand, are you saying that the issue of publicising videos with PoW should be mentioned while kneecapping and execution should not? Alaexis_¿question? 19:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Videos of POWs are quite large scale phenomena, so a mention of it in lead is okay. If kneecapping starts happening repeatedly, then it would also deserve mention, but currently it is just a single incident. If we start listing various ugly single incidents in the lead, like Mariupol Children Hospital bombing, Chernihiv breadline bombing, E40 highway shooting, Yahidne human shields etc. then it is going to get very long very fast.--Staberinde (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't apply the SCALE criterion in such a mechanical way ("If kneecapping starts happening repeatedly, then it would also deserve mention"). First of all the guideline rather suggests SOURCE, and the kneecapping of Russian POW was widely reported. Secondly, what is "small scale" and exceptional here? Apart from the fact that the POW who got shot in the legs where 3 in that video, plus 4 or 5 already bleeding with similar wounds, which looks quite a systematic and large-scale way of proceeding to me; apart from that, we know that torture has been endemic in the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014-2021 (OHCHR estimates 1,500 people subjected to torture in Government-controlled territory and 2,500 in the self-proclaimed republics). Sure, they could have all stopped torturing POW at the onset of the 2022 invasion... we don't know, we don't engage in WP:RO. But SCALE and SOURCE suggest that when confronted with videos of torture and killings of Russian POW, we can put it in the lead that the HRMMU has expressed concern about them: it's quite relevant and well-covered in the article. Maybe the only exceptional thing here is that these videos have reached and shocked the Western public opinion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

If we go by how widely something was reported then Mariupol Children's Hospital airstrike, Chernihiv breadline attack, Kramatorsk missile strike all got lots of attention. Or if we are talking about scale of event then 50+ dead at Kramatorsk, 300+ human shields of whom 12 died at Yahidne etc. etc. And that's before we get to Bucha which easily beats every other single event by huge margin in publicity or fatalities, so if we start adding single events to the lead, then Bucha obviously should be expanded to full paragraph there. All in all, looking at the big picture, kneecapping is just one of the so many extremely tragic events that have taken place in this war. Btw, that OHCHR report notes that majority of detention issues happened 2014-2015, so actually claiming that it is all continuing same as it once used to would be WP:OR.--Staberinde (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously indiscriminate attacks are the most relevant (SCALE) and well covered (SOURCE) war crime since the invasion and they will always have the lion's share in the lead. Since the lead section was expanded on 3 April ([3]) we had a relatively long and informative first paragraph on the indiscriminate attack and cluster bombs, a second paragraph for all other crimes (deportations, sexual violence, deliberate killings, arbitrary detention, ill-treatment of POW), and a third and final paragraph on the legal proceedings. Many editors have modified the lead section many times, we've always found a way of reaching an agreement based on discussion and consensus. Bucha is obviously mentioned and briefly described. I'm not arguing that we should have a whole sentence on kneecapping, but I don't see why we shouldn't have that synthetic description that has always belonged to the lead, "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine, committed by police officers and members of the territorial defense". That sentence matches "The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine documented in the first month of the invasion the arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists, public officials and civil servants", which also belongs to the lead pretty naturally IMHO. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The obvious issue with that sentence is that Monitoring Mission did not mention "torture" in relation to prisoners of war, so there is no basis for us to imply that they did.--Staberinde (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the "Update on the human rights situation in Ukraine. Reporting period: 24 February – 26 March", you're right - they only mention "torture" in relation to marauders, bootleggers and pro-Russian supporters; with regard to POWs they note "with concern the abundance of videos publicly available online depicting interrogations of POWs by Ukrainian forces following their capture" (also here). However, when the video showing Russian POWs being shot circulated, the Head of the Monitoring Mission, Matilda Bogner, said she was "very concerned" and spoke of "ill-treatment or possibly torture" (here and here). So I don't think that the formulation we used (The HRMMU expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war) was an overstretch; anyway, it was just chosen for its brevity and it can be improved. If there's no objection in principle to having contents on ill-treatment and torture of POWs in the lead, then we can modify it, if you think it's best: there's no short of sources, different from the HRMMU, that expressed concern about this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The BBC article just states "very concerned". The CNN interview video at twitter mentions "ill-treatment" and "possibly torture", but also very clearly talks about such issues being "on both sides".--Staberinde (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong article name

The first sentence says: "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, in violation of international law. The Russian military carried out indiscriminate attacks in densely populated areas exposing the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm.[1][2][3]" None of the three sources confirm what the sentence says. The title should be changed and we should try not to get caught up in all the emotion of the situation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Rather wrong sources than wrong name. Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources are good. What shall we rename this article? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

":I would be careful using Western sources desribing an Asian conflict. The same I am careful about your non-European sources. Xx236 (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The first source literally says "Amnesty International’s verification of the use of indiscriminate attacks by the Russian forces in their military operations in Ukraine, provides irrefutable evidence of violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law." Shadybabs (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say war crime have been committed? I cannot see it. All I can see is a whole swathe of editors misreading sources and creating wiki articles based on their own interpretation of what is happening. Look again at what you have spent time pasting here: provides irrefutable evidence of violations of international humanitarian law Right, next step is to go to The Hague. Use that evidence to get a decision that war crimes have taken place. That is what the International Criminal Court is for, as Amnesty International knows full well, which is why they choose their words carefully. Back to the article. What shall we rename it? How about "Atrocities in the Russo-Ukraine war". That would avoid using a defined term. Within the article stick to the universal approach to reporting these sorts of things before a court ruling, insert the word 'alleged'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, @Roger 8 Roger, that we should avoid stating as fact what are, for the time being, allegations. I've changed the lead so as to make it clear: "Russian authorities and armed forces were accused of" and "The Russian military allegedly". Other things, however, are brute, unchallenged facts, e.g the use of cluster bombs and the destruction of civilian objects - we can report them as such. Besides, I don't understand your point about the title. I think that for the purposes of this article the concept of "war crime" can be broadly construed so as to include any violation of IHL and also crimes against humanity and genocide. This looks quite reasonable to me because it reflects common parlance and because there would be no point in distinguishing, say, between war crimes and crimes against humanity (the letter being also war crimes, if associated with a war). Could you provide an example where we would be misleading the reader on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Current title is fine and appropriate. Volunteer Marek 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, the title can be read in different ways so it probably doesn't need to change. Thanks for amending the text though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

add more information about bombings in kharkiv, mykolaiv and others

Changes:

-create subsections for the Kharkiv and Mykolaiv cluster bombings in the "Use of Cluster Munitions" section, move the content below to the respective sections and move the "see also" things to these subsections (in addition, remove the parts of the section that already mention the bombings, as this version is just a improved version of that one).

Kharkiv:

On March 4, 2022, Human Rights Watch reported that on February 28, at around 10:00 AM, during the Battle of Kharkiv, Russian forces had fired Grad rockets cluster munitions into at least three different residential areas in Kharkiv, killing at least nine civilians and injuring another 27. Four people were killed when they left a shelter to get water and go shopping between curfews; a family of two parents and three children were burned alive in their car. The locations hit were residential buildings and a playground, dispersed between Industrialnyi and Shevchenkivskyi District. Explosions in the city were recorded as late as 2:23 PM. On 18 March, the number of civilians reportedly killed in Kharkiv exceeded 450 as consequence of the use of cluster munitions and explosive weapons in heavily populated areas of the city.

Human Rights Watch investigated the attack and concluded that the Russian forces used Smerch cluster munition rockets, which disperse dozens of submunitions or bomblets in the air. An international treaty bans cluster munitions because of their widespread damage and danger towards civilians. As there were no military targets within 400 meters of these strikes and due to the indiscriminate nature of these weapons used in densely populated areas, HRW described these strikes as a possible war crime.

 Done --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mykolaiv:

Cluster munitions were repeatedly used also on Mykolaiv during separate attacks on 7, 11 and 13 March, causing civilian casualties and extensive destruction of non-military objects., Nine civilians waiting in line on the street at a cash machine were killed in the attack on 13 March. The explosions also damaged houses and civilian buildings. Human Rights Watch analysed the incident and found that the Russian forces used Smerch and Uragan cluster munition on the densely populated areas.

Due to the inherently indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions, Human Rights Watch described their use in Mykolaiv as a possible Russian war crime.

2804:14D:4490:89D:ED76:7550:B27A:2D2 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Details about Mykolaiv already exist at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Mykolaiv bombing. Not sure about Kharkiv, but Battle of Kharkiv (2022) has some details that may help you. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

yeah but its suggested that the details about mykolaiv be moved to an subsection in the "use of cluster munitions" thing, or be expanded with new content. 2804:14D:4490:89D:6D85:5CE5:828:6D03 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

a lot of stuff is missing in this article, not only these bombings, important information about the Massacre of Borodianka, for a example, is missing. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't verify the following info: "Four people were killed when they left a shelter to get water and go shopping between curfews". Source (Civilian casualty report) doesn't support the statement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, i also noted that, although it was probably just a small error when using the source. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "21,000 civilians killed":

• From Siege of Mariupol: "Russia-Ukraine war: 21,000 civilians killed, Mayor of Mariupol estimates". The Jerusalem Post. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
• From Eastern Ukraine offensive: "Russia-Ukraine war: 21,000 civilians killed, Mayor of Mariupol estimates". The Jerusalem Post. 12 April 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2022.

Reference named "auto8":

• From What Russia should do with Ukraine: "Article 'What Russia should do with Ukraine' is evidence for future tribunal - Zelensky". Interfax-Ukraine. Retrieved 2022-04-05.
• From Siege of Mariupol: Patel-Carstairs, Sunita (18 March 2022). "Ukraine war: Videos show apocalyptic destruction in Mariupol as Russia says it is 'tightening its encirclement'". Sky News. Sky New. Archived from the original on 20 March 2022. Retrieved 20 March 2022.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Please correct 'Cite errors'

Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)