Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Torture and mutilation of Ukrainian soldiers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you think that "both sources are about same issue so not SYNTH", @Volunteer Marek? [1]. The info added by User:Shadybabs [2] is about "torture and mutilation in the town of Borodyanka"; the intercepted call about torture and mutilation was allegedly made by a Russian solider in Kharkiv Region (so says Ukrayinska Pravda), which is 500 km away. The very fact that we are discussing about this proves it's a case of WP:SYNTH.
I think there might be a rough consensus on retaining the info published (but not verified) by NPR, provided that the heading of the section complies with our guidelines (e.g. "Intercepted conversation about war crimes"), but there's no consensus on adding info about mummy getting excited over torture and mutilation of heroic Ukrainian soldiers. That's too fishy and was published only by unreliable/deprecated British tabloids (Daily Mail, Metro UK and Daily Mirror) plus Ukrayinska Pravda ([3]). Note that Ukrayinska Pravda has a link to the Facebook page where the Ukrainian military intelligence service first published the interception: that post, which should be here, has been removed and is no longer available. So I'd say no: this utterly fails WP:V and should not be published. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

@Volunteer Marek, how do you know they were soldiers? The people who were found killed and mutilated in Borodianka were likely to be civilians, not soldiers. The RS we quote (actually not so "R" really: the Mirror...) doesn't say they were soldiers, and all the account we have from Borodianka (e.g. [4][5] [6]) talk about mass killings of civilians, not soldiers. So now the subsection is not only WP:OR; it is also bad original research. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bilohorivka school bombing and Kremmina stuff

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

Bilohorivka school bombing

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

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

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

References

move some things and add more

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

Bombing of Chernihiv:

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Rape of infants and children

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

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

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

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

Speaking on the first diff under discussion [7], the claim is clearly attributed to well known Ukrainian official (ombudswomen Denisova) and the source seems to be reliable enough to document that see said it. This is not Facebook, but Daily Beast (however, if there is such her post in Facebook, this is another confirmation she said it). So I do bot see a huge problem with this.My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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

So, mainstream RS (CNN and CBS) say that "there were credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops". The Ukrainian official responsible for documenting such claims, Lyudmyla Denisova provides some details. Was she ever found to lie about something? Not to my knowledge. So, I would consider her claims very much credible. And this is not an extraordinary claim, given what we know about Bucha and other places. Besides, Zelensky said the same: [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, here is an additional, newer ref [9] (by official Ukrainian news agency Ukrinform, attributed to the same Lyudmyla Denisova). I do not insist all such atrocious details should be included to the page, but a summary should. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Human Shields 2

Brief recap. The section "Human shields" has always been very controversial among editors. At the end of April/early May we had extensive discussions/edit wars, which can be read here in the thread Human shields. Those discussions had left the section in this miserable state until on 7 May I made an "inclusionist" proposal so as to unblock the situation: here the edit and here the explanation in the talk page. Nobody objected and the discussion was closed and the issue settled. But consensus can change, so instead of dismantling the section piece by piece ([10], [11]) with edits that enjoy no consensus, we'd better have a meaningful discussion. But first a point of order: shall we first restore the text that we had before my 7 May edit or rather the text after that edit? Because the text that is now online doesn't reflect a consensus and cannot be imposed through edit war ([12], [13], [14], [15]). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Disrupting humanitarian corridors>Preventing civilian evacuations

@My very best wishes changed the heading of the section "Disrupting humanitarian corridors" to "Killing civilians during their attempted evacuation" because "Here is a typical illustration to the discussion at talk page. Of course "disruption" would not be a war crime, but this is not the issue" [16]. Then they probably noted (my hypothesis) that there was no RS supporting the new heading and that Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol was already covered in the article, and changed the heading again to "Preventing civilian evacuations" (edit summary: "or at least that") [17]. But the problem remains: "preventing civilian evacuation" is not a war crime, or at least we don't have a RS unequivocally stating that it's a war crime. So I'm asking to MVBW: do you agree that, based on the criterion you are defending here above in the thread Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#On_the_subject_of_this_article,_and_ill-treatment_of_pro-Russian_supporters_and_other_individuals, we should drop the whole section? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well, according to an explanation by PBS,

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

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

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

Look, you asked for sources, and here is it. It says specifically about this Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it lists specific types of alleged war crimes committed by Russian military forces. Mission accomplished. Speaking about another disputable section [19], do you have any RS which say the same about migrants? Meaning that the lawful imprisonment of migrants by civilian Ukrainian authorities during this war constitutes a probable/alleged was crime by Ukrainian military forces? That even sounds strange. No? I guess so because no one provided such RS in the corresponding section. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I understand that denying free passage by the occupying military authorities is either a war crime or a violation of international conventions [20],[21]. But this issue can be framed as "firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors" [per citation above] for inclusion, unless this is already included. That is what had happen on a number of occasions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Shields 2

Brief recap. The section "Human shields" has always been very controversial among editors. At the end of April/early May we had extensive discussions/edit wars, which can be read here in the thread Human shields. Those discussions had left the section in this miserable state until on 7 May I made an "inclusionist" proposal so as to unblock the situation: here the edit and here the explanation in the talk page. Nobody objected and the discussion was closed and the issue settled. But consensus can change, so instead of dismantling the section piece by piece ([22], [23]) with edits that enjoy no consensus, we'd better have a meaningful discussion. But first a point of order: shall we first restore the text that we had before my 7 May edit or rather the text after that edit? Because the text that is now online doesn't reflect a consensus and cannot be imposed through edit war ([24], [25], [26], [27]). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Disrupting humanitarian corridors>Preventing civilian evacuations

@My very best wishes changed the heading of the section "Disrupting humanitarian corridors" to "Killing civilians during their attempted evacuation" because "Here is a typical illustration to the discussion at talk page. Of course "disruption" would not be a war crime, but this is not the issue" [28]. Then they probably noted (my hypothesis) that there was no RS supporting the new heading and that Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol was already covered in the article, and changed the heading again to "Preventing civilian evacuations" (edit summary: "or at least that") [29]. But the problem remains: "preventing civilian evacuation" is not a war crime, or at least we don't have a RS unequivocally stating that it's a war crime. So I'm asking to MVBW: do you agree that, based on the criterion you are defending here above in the thread Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#On_the_subject_of_this_article,_and_ill-treatment_of_pro-Russian_supporters_and_other_individuals, we should drop the whole section? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I fixed per cited sources like that one [30]. It say: "Russian forces continued to shell the Ukrainian city of Mariupol on Saturday, despite agreeing to a ceasefire just hours earlier - throwing an attempted mass evacuation of civilians into chaos.". So that was the issue which clearly qualify as a war crime. This is shelling which prevented the evacuations.My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Well, according to an explanation by PBS,

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

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

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

Look, you asked for sources, and here is it. It says specifically about this Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it lists specific types of alleged war crimes committed by Russian military forces. Mission accomplished. Speaking about another disputable section [31], do you have any RS which say the same about migrants? Meaning that the lawful imprisonment of migrants by civilian Ukrainian authorities during this war constitutes a probable/alleged was crime by Ukrainian military forces? That even sounds strange. No? I guess so because no one provided such RS in the corresponding section. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I understand that denying free passage by the occupying military authorities is either a war crime or a violation of international conventions [32],[33]. But this issue can be framed as "firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors" [per citation above] for inclusion, unless this is already included. That is what had happen on a number of occasions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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