Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Lead is clearly POV

The lead is POV and doesn't adequately summarize the article, as the lead exclusively discusses Russian war crimes whereas the body, while mostly focused on Russian war crimes, also in several instances discusses allegations against Ukrainians.

A more fair wording would be something like (roughly) "war crimes happened, the vast majority of allegations against Russians although some against Ukrainians as well..." JDiala (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Going to need to carefully balance "allegations" there if we want to stick to WP:NPOV, whereas war crimes committed against Ukrainians have wide data and references, a lot of the allegations against Ukraine in terms of war crimes are by Russia itself. The Russian state doesn't qualify as WP:RS. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt we have sources saying Both Russia and Ukraine have been accused of war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the overwhelming majority of both alleged and verified war crimes being perpetrated by Russia or the like [1] .

If we don't, saying that in the lead is the violation of WP:BALANCE.

Quite the contrary, every source says
Moscow’s Disregard of International Humanitarian Law
Historical Soviet and Contemporary Russian Criminal Acts Against Ukrainians Under the UN Genocide Convention
Engaging Post-Truth in Shadowing Russian War Crimes
Russia’s War Crimes in Ukraine as a Tool of War

and so on The Russian-Ukrainian Conflict and War Crimes: Challenges for Document (routledge.com) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, where's "deliberately operating in highly populated areas" characterized as a war crime in your source [2] ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article body. See WP:LEAD. The article body describes a variety of war crimes the overwhelming majority of which are Russian, but also includes some by Ukrainians too. A lead paragraph exclusively describing Russian war crimes is propagandistic. As to your other question, Ukrainian fighting tactics were explicitly described as IHL violations by Amnesty International in the cited source: "Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure." JDiala (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

A lede paragraph which says “both Ukraine and Russia have been accused of war crimes” when the article itself, as well as all the sources pretty much say “almost ALL of the war crimes that have occurred have been perpetrated by Russia” is “propagandistic” and violates WP:LEDE. It’s simple false equivalence which violates NPOV. Volunteer Marek 07:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a false equivalence if the sentence I wrote expressly refutes the premise that there is an equivalence by using the qualifier "overwhelming majority" for Russian war crimes. One being an overwhelming majority compared to another, does not indicate an equivalence. You also concede your own argument by using the word "almost": the current version of the first paragraph of the lead doesn't suggest to the reader "almost"; it suggests "all." JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

About operating in populated areas: Not every violation of IHL is a war crime. In that same source Amnesty says that Russia committed war crimes so it is not that Amnesty chose to avoid that phrase in the report. Instead, they chose to write that Ukraine violated IHL, which shows that they did not view Ukraine's actions as war crimes. Sjö (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how your inference that this "shows that they did not view Ukraine's actions as war crimes" follows. Not stating something explicitly does not imply that they reject said thing. In any case, I'd be fine re-wording it to indicate that an IHL violation rather than a war crime per se. This is pedantry. JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic and you should not restore the reverted version until objections raised above have been addressed.
As to your other question, Ukrainian fighting tactics were explicitly described as IHL violations
So, why you added it to "War crimes" article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, this is pedantry. The term "war crime" colloquially refers to violations of the laws of war. This purpose of this article is to document violations of the laws of war over the course of this conflict. IHL violations fall within the scope of this, even if AI doesn't explicitly use the word "war crime." That there is a tighter, more specific legal description of the term "war crime" is besides the point. You are trying to exclude quality sourced material on the basis of what amounts to a technicality. This standard is not used for other articles on war crimes in other wars or even for Russian alleged war crimes enumerated in this article. JDiala (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: For now, I'll keep the first paragraph of the lead as is (your version). However, I've reverted your removal of the Amnesty source. You need consensus for this as the Amnesty report has been discussed extensively in the past and we've decided to keep it. I've also corrected your grammar much of which was very incorrect. JDiala (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read through the talk page archives. This has been discussed a few dozen times before. Volunteer Marek 07:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that matters. It's certainly not uncommon to restart discussions that have been had previously on Wikipedia. JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: @Sjö: I'm going to kindly ask that the two of you follow BRD. I have been cooperative and have chosen not to revert the first paragraph even though I disagree with it, per BRD. However, for the removal of the Amnesty report, it is long-established consensus that it deserves to stay in the current article. In light of that I'd ask you not remove the source without further discussion. JDiala (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The consensus version is here [3] (diff [4] ) and your newly added sentence "Allegations against the Armed Forces of Ukraine include deliberately operating in highly populated areas[13] and the torture and execution of Russian POWs.[14][15]" is not there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The objection you're bringing up is on the validity of the Amnesty report to the article itself. This is established consensus. Contesting the inclusion of the Amnesty report requires consensus. JDiala (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, in the message above it was pointed out that it's your addition that is contested. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You said earlier "So, why you added it to "War crimes" article?" indicating that you don't want the AI report in the article because it "merely" describes an IHL violation. JDiala (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

in the message above it was pointed out that it's your addition that is contested. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your objection is to the inclusion of the AI report. JDiala (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ask me about what my objection is. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The logic that you've articulated is clearly against the AI report itself, because you're objecting to the AI report's mention of IHL violations as opposed to war crimes. JDiala (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The logic is The consensus version is here [5] (diff [6] ) and your newly added sentence "Allegations against the Armed Forces of Ukraine include deliberately operating in highly populated areas[13] and the torture and execution of Russian POWs.[14][15]" is not there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the basis for your objection to the AI report, which I quoted above and you haven't engaged with. That was an attempt to change established consensus on that report. JDiala (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jdala. Last paragraph is not ideal, but you need WP:Consensus for your change [7]. I would say we should not include any disputed allegations in the lead. Let's focus on the facts that were proven, the most important ones, those that are repeatedly happening during the war and covered widely in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"the vast majority of allegations against...". No, these are not just allegations, that's the point. And we should not talk about merely allegations in the lead. Such wording is OK in official legal context (i.e. they investigate allegations), but speaking on the essence of this and based on the coverage in sources, there is no any doubt that actual war crimes have been committed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for not including disputed allegations in the lead. In fact, MOS:LEAD encourages us to "include prominent controversies"; the debate on the AI report is perhaps the most controversial thing in this topic. Even putting that aside, there is ample documented evidence of the torture and execution of Russian POWs in captivity, in multiple instances, documented by the OHCHR. These are beyond "alleged" for all intents and purposes. JDiala (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You say: These are beyond "alleged". Great. So you do agree with my point. But if they are actually beyond alleged should be established by RS. This maybe so in some examples, but not so in some others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that allegations should not be included in the body of the page. They should if they were notable and widely reported. I am only saying we should focus on the most important facts in the lead. I also agree that a paragraph about it can be added to the lead. I just do not think it was a good summary to reflect the general situation during the war. The Ukrainian side actually makes a huge effort to evacuate their own civilian population. But many people, especially elderly and sick, refuse to leave and became victims of the shelling by Russian forces. This is hardly "human shields" or intentional endangering of civilians by the Ukrainian side. By Russian side - yes, absolutely - if we are talking about general trends during the war (that is what the summary should describe). My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current version of the lead if you are. We can consider this discussion concluded if so. It's a good compromise: brief one sentence discussion of Ukrainian POW mistreatment in lead, but not the human shields stuff which is more contested. JDiala (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion everyone. It's obvious we have not come to an agreement here. I am strongly considering an RfC on this matter as I simply do not believe that the wholesale whitewashing of Ukrainian war crimes, documented by the article body, in the lead is consistent with the principles of neutrality and the purpose of a lead. I'd like to get the opinion of a wide variety of editors in this topic area to establish consensus. Does anyone have objections to this before I start it? JDiala (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

JDiala, you made 4 or 5 reverts (I don’t feel like counting exact time stamps) in last 24 hours. Volunteer Marek 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't consider this edit a revert, rather a normal copy-edit, but I'll admit this is probably an edge case, see this recent discussion involving many prolific editors and administrators on revert edge cases. In my judgement, adding in a clarifying adjective ("reportedly") to better reflect the source, and correcting grammar, without substantively undoing and reversing existing work, does not constitute a revert, but is rather just a normal edit. This and this edit count as a single revert since they're consecutive. Taking all of the above into account, 3RR was not violated.

At the same time, I do understand your concern on edit warring, even putting aside the technicalities associated with the definition of a revert. My goal is to be diplomatic, and I apologize if my conduct was not perceived as such. In the interests of diplomacy I will not make further reversions on the lead until we have a clear consensus for that (this might mean an RfC). JDiala (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine accusations

I started to check some pieces of the article.

For example, it says
On 4 August 2022, Amnesty International expressed concern that "Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians".[8], suggesting it somehow related to the article subject. While what the source says is -
Not every Russian attack documented by Amnesty International followed this pattern, however. In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, the organization did not find evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas unlawfully targeted by the Russian military. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So I checked the report [9] which is used as a source for On 7 March 2022, the Ukrainian armed forces reportedly occupied a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka ... paragraph and it does not characterize it as a war crime. What is the reason to have that paragraph in the article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. More generally, this article is too big, and some less significant content can be removed to make it more readable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is too big, so conveniently we'll remove one of the very few allegations against Ukraine to deal with article size, not the myriad allegations against Russia which is why the article is so large in the first place. (sarcasm). This has nothing to do with article size. JDiala (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is: this is not a well established case of human shields. Hence I removed it. What else? My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a couple of points. First, if we are going remove any and all sources that do not use the word "war crime" explicitly, then that means removing a number of the allegations against Russia too. Second, the AI report explicitly frames Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation. There is past consensus that the AI report stays; you need consensus to remove it. JDiala (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

frames Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation
That's not what our article about is.

Your first point is fair. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed this point in the previous thread. I don't think it's good faith conduct to dismiss allegations of IHL violations merely on the basis of them not being explicitly described as "war crimes." This is a pedantic distinction. People look at this article for violations of the laws of war in the conflict broadly, not some specific technical minutiae distinctions between "war crime" and "IHL violation." If not this article, then where would the AI report be best placed in Wikipedia? Should we create a separate article for IHL violations? This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation. JDiala (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation.
You are again violating the No Personal Attacks policy. Please stop.

We don't dismiss the report, it can be used where appropriate. We can be pedantic here. And we should be when asked. People may read the article and be mislead that Ukraine is committing war crimes with those actions, which is not what the source says. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider that a PA. At some point we have to call a spade a spade, and I think the logic you are using is highly tendentious. I'd suggest engaging with my argument. Please answer the question. If not this article, which Russia-Ukraine related article do you think the AI report should be located in? It's a very simple question. The AI report is well-known and highly debated by numerous reliable sources. The Ukrainian government itself made a point of responding to it, and in fact they themselves thought they were being accused of war crimes. It caused a major controversy at the time. Should readers of Wikipedia be completely ignorant of it on the basis of what is a pedantic technicality? To your other question on being "misled", that has a very easy solution. Just state in plain writing that it was an IHL violation which is not necessarily a war crime. JDiala (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The report talks about war crimes and very well can be used here. It's just that the sentence in question in both our article and within the report it refers to that is not about the war crimes. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It briefly discusses Russian war crimes, but that was not the reason the report attracted widespread attention from reliable sources. The reason the report attracted widespread attention from reliable sources (and governments) was the IHL violation allegation against Ukraine. JDiala (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The nursing home issue was discussed extensively back in July 2022, August 2022 and there was an RfC about it [10], which was disrupted by extensive sock puppetry by accounts which demanded it be included. IIRC a couple accounts/users gots blocked for trying to edit war it in. And now we are back with the exact same issue being dragged out again. The sources do not call it a war crime. It is fairly obscure by now. Putting it in same league as murdering POWs, raping children, carrying out massacres is just…wrong. Volunteer Marek 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Moralizing, as you are in the end, isn't a policy-based argument. There are gradations to these things, obviously. Also the OHCHR paper clearly specifies that fighting from civilian areas is an IHL violation, and from the context it is clear that they think it could be a human shields case which is just a flat out war crime. Since this was established by a past RfC I would say overturning the decision especially requires clear consensus. JDiala (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware that pointing out the difference between murdering civilians and raping children on one hand, and stationing your troops too close to civilian buildings on the other is just “moralizing”. The OHCHR paper does not refer to this as a war crime, which had been pointed out a dozen times. Two years ago. Year ago. Now. “From the context it is clear… is just a flat out war crime” is not in the source, it is not at all “clear” and it’s just WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Likewise it is absolutely not true that “this was established by a past RfC”. Where did you get that from? The RfC says the following:

Q: Should we have a subsection on Stara Krasnianka? A: No. The consensus is that we might have one or two sentences on it at most.

So no subsection. ONE or TWO sentences AT MOST. And there’s clear opposition to even including those one or two sentences. But of course you added even more than that. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 19:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH and OR don't apply to talk page discussions. It would only be a SYNTH/OR violation if I wrote (or proposed to write) on the main article that "AI accused Ukraine of war crimes" or something, which I am not doing. If you want the discussion on Stara Krasnianka to be one or two sentences you are free to reduce the length of that discussion. I would not be opposed to that. However, a wholesale removal of any and all discussion — which is what seems to be the intention — will be reverted by me, as I object to that. I feel it's imperative to get a strong consensus, possibly another RfC, for such a wholesale removal. JDiala (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

If you’re using SYNTH and OR on talk page to justify inclusion of some material in the article itself, then of course they apply.

And one more time. There already was an RfC. The result was “at most one or two sentences” if at all. Including a substantial chunk of text about it then is a clear violation of that RfC, hence of current consensus. It is up to you to obey consensus and fix the problem you yourself created by violating it in the first place. Volunteer Marek 01:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking about your revert [11], this is very simple. The section is specifically about human shields but the cited sources do not call it "human shields" (this term has a very specific meaning). "It is clear [to you] that" is WP:SYN. Hence, does not belong there. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Then make another section with a different name, "colocation of military facilities and civilian areas" or something. You cannot wholesale remove sourced material based on such a technicality. Or just make the current section name something like "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields" .... this is what the OHCHR does. JDiala (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It still doesn't fit into "War crimes". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This just takes us back to our original discussion above, which you haven't replied to. JDiala (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No viable arguments were presented against the main argument to refute. The press attention is not a valid argument to talk about it here. I agreed with your point to remove offtopic elsewhere. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A viable argument was presented. You just didn't respond to it. As I've mentioned, you're appealing to a technicality to get a widely discussed report removed entirely from the page it's most naturally suited for. I think the fundamental issue is that the article's title, when referring to "war crimes", isn't obliging itself to discuss exclusively crimes or alleged crimes which fall into the legal technical ICRC definition of "war crime" per se, but rather violations of the laws of war broadly, including IHL violations which could be war crimes. JDiala (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Human shields clearly belong to this page. However, just not being able to evacuate civilians by Ukrainian forces (as in this case) is not a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not engaging with the argument presented, just reiterating your own views. JDiala (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I forget about this. Yeh, that definitely belongs to page Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and might (or might not) be briefly mentioned on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So, I just made a shorter summary and moved it to another section per the old RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You really need another RfC, especially if you're trying to get rid of the AI report or the Stara Krasnyanka incident which have been points of contention for years. JDiala (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearly has been a contentious issue (been removed multiple times by multiple editors) since it was originally added by a now banned user ...... should be removed and you (JDiala) should move forward with an RFC. Simple courtesy advice.... don't get banned before you can justify your points of view. Moxy🍁 00:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That AI report does not appear directly in the RfC. Should the controversy about that old AI report be included to this page? I would say no. I doubt it even belongs to page Amnesty International. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Per administrator ScottishFinnishRadish you need to consensus to remove not keep established long-standing material. If you insist on making a radical contentious change to the established article you can start an RfC. This is the appropriate dispute resolution process in this case. Please do not continue to revert, the default standard is always to keep the status quo. Contentious changes in articles are made through the discussion process not edit-warring, thank you. JDiala (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, here is the edit, and it was completely consistent with the old RfC. To be clear, I did not remove this content, but moved it to another section and slightly modified. If you want to start another RfC (I am not sure about what), you are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The old RfC isn't even relevant (honestly having read over the old closer's decision it left more questions open than answered --- this is just another reason to have a new RfC). All that matters is that the material you removed was long-standing. This puts the onus on you to establish consensus to remove the established material, according to the administrator thread I linked. Since you're the one interested in making this edit, I would say it's your responsibility to create and advertise the RfC.

You are claiming you never removed content but this does not seem to be true. Here is the version prior to my reversion. I did a CTRL-F for "Amnesty International" or "nursing home" and failed to find the relevant allegations against the Ukrainian Armed Forces. JDiala (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, here is the diff [12]. The content was moved, not removed. Please do not make content forks. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are claiming you never removed content but this does not seem to be true. Here is the version prior to my reversion
On 7 March 2022, the Ukrainian armed forces reportedly took positions at a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka, near Kreminna, Luhansk Oblast, due to house's strategic location, with the evacuation reportedly impossible due to mining ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The Amnesty report was clearly removed, as were allegations that Ukraine violated IHL. You further tried to reword it to suggest Ukraine did nothing wrong, and the decision to move it to another section is suspicious because the implication with your move is that the only plausible war crime category the incident falls under is the targeting of civilian infrastructure, not the misuse of civilian infrastructure by Ukraine. Once again, please start an RfC for this rather than edit war. This is a long-standing matter of dispute. JDiala (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The Amnesty report was clearly removed
It's there under the ref #115 - "The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24 February to 15 May 2022". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: That's the OHCHR report, not the Amnesty report. JDiala (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala, regarding your edit [13] . As it was shown with sources [14] , the report didn't say that Ukraine used human shields but the report expressed concern about allegations of this occurring . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: If your concern is the section category name not properly reflecting the allegation, I agree with you, and there is an easy solution to this. Rename it to something like "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields." This is what the OHCHR report does. JDiala (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've BOLD-ly done this myself. JDiala (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an exact duplication, but nevertheless an obvious content fork you just have re-created again [15] (here is same text in another section for comparison: [16]). If you insists on using WP:BRD here, this your edit [17] was "bold" and can be reverted as such and as an obvious content fork within the same page. It was reverted already: [18]. Now, based on your edit summary, you are trying to "enforce" WP:BRD through edit war. This is exactly what I warned you against on your talk page [19]. If anything, you are making a WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And as I told you on the talk page, what's worse than trying to enforce BRD is the person actually violating BRD, which is you. I note that uninvolved editors took my side in the ANI discussion on that issue. On content fork issue, the solution is quite simple: remove the Stara Krasnianka incident from the "Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property" section altogether. The OHCHR report says Russia didn't commit war crimes, so I don't even know why this incident is here. I will take this step soon but I'll first give you a chance to respond. JDiala (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

When you say that the old RFC is not relevant, it appears you are the only one with that opinion. I believe that the RFC is still relevant, that there should be a new RFC if you want to change the consensus, and the inclusion of two lengthy sections clearly goes against the results of the RFC. It is not enough to remove one section, but what remains should be at most one or two sentences. I have no objection to adding several references to those sentences, including the Amnesty report. Sjö (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify that I don't mean the old RfC is entirely irrelevant. What I'm saying is that the old RfC cannot be used as an argument to, for instance, remove the Amnesty report or remove allegations the UAF violated IHL together. This is what the other user was doing with his edit. But old RfC made no such decision.

The only decision the prior RfC made on issues of length was that there should be at most one or two sentences on Stara Krasnianka. This does not have anything to do with the Amnesty report as the Amnesty report was not about Stara Krasnianka. If you'd like to shorten the discussion on Stara Krasnianka to be consistent with the RfC, I am open to this.

I ultimately believe the best path forward is another RfC. This has been a recurring issue for years and it's best to get it resolved hopefully once and for all. JDiala (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what "recurring issue" you are talking about or what an RfC might be about, but there are several participants who disagreed with you in discussions on this talk page, and no one agreed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The "recurring issue" is the extent and scope of content surrounding allegations that Ukrainians violated IHL by utilizing civilian infrastructure within the article, broadly construed, which has been discussed here ad nauseam since mid-2022. You are correct that within the context of the current discussion, I am the lone person arguing for my perspective. However, if you look at the history of the talk page, this has clearly not always been the case, and many others shared the perspective I have that even-handed inclusion of such allegations is generally a good idea per WP:NPOV, which is precisely why there were RfCs in the past. This historical context is important, and why I feel getting a complete community consensus (rather than just views of ~4 editors in the current discussion) is crucial here. Hence why an RfC may be a good idea. JDiala (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see what you are talking about. That was discussed on this page 2 years ago [20]. If anything, this story is hugely outdated. Do you have any new sources to support the inclusion? My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "outdated." There is no reason to exclude material from 2022. I also don't need "new sources to support inclusion." JDiala (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is why. The inclusion was disputed because this is not a war crime. Now, it appears this inclusion also has a WP:RECENTISM problem. If it has no long-lasting significance, the inclusion is even less "due". You will have a problem convincing anyone this should be on the page. And no, there is no any "recurring issue" with including or not including this material. My very best wishes (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not what WP:RECENTISM means. A given incident doesn't require constant ongoing discussion in reliable sources for it to be included in an article. Indeed, if that's the standard to be used, then the overwhelming majority of allegations against Russians would have recentism issues too. Furthermore, that is an essay, not a policy. This matter is clearly a recurring issue by definition as there have been numerous discussions about this. JDiala (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

How come? It says: "Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens." Yes, it is exactly what had happen 2 years ago. If there was nothing since then, this is arguably a low-significance info, a candidate for removal from a very large page, such as that one. And yes, there is a lot of other low-significance content that needs to be summarized more briefly or removed from the page, but it does not matter which "side". I have no time to fix it now, probably will be back later. My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an incorrect interpretation of the essay. The essay does not claim that all sourced claims require lasting impact to merit inclusion. The point is that the article shouldn't be overburdened by recent-but-ultimately-insignificant incidents. This may include, for instance, minor events in the war. But this was not a minor event; it was something reported on widely and even Zelensky commented on it. Unilateral attempts to change the status-quo will be reverted. I am going to reiterate to all reading that I am holding an eminently reasonable position here, namely that long-standing (several years) contentious issues such as this one should ideally be resolved by a proper dispute resolution process (e.g., an RfC). JDiala (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, Leaked Amnesty review finds own Ukraine report ‘legally questionable’. This is a controversy belonging to page AI. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

While this leaked review found "some" apparent shortcomings, the reality is that the report wasn't retracted, which is the clearest signal that the organization fundamentally stands behind the work. There is some criticism, true, but we can briefly touch on criticism too if you desire. This will be just 1-2 sentences. It won't take long. JDiala (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So, it appears that we all agree that the text about Stara Krasnianka should be at most one or two sentences, right? Sjö (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No objections, but we should be careful here. The Stara Krasnianka incident has nothing to do with the Amnesty report, which does not talk about Stara Krasnianka. Stara Krasnianka is rather mentioned in the OHCHR report. With this in mind, I have no objection to the Stara Krasnianka incident being at most one or two sentences long. However, within those 1-2 sentences, I believe there should still be a brief mention that the OHCHR indicated concern that the UAF violated IHL in their conduct.

To summarize in the clearest terms, my full position is that there should be 1-2 sentences on the AI report, and separately 1-2 sentences on the Stara Krasnianka incident, each of which discuss allegations that Ukraine may have violated IHL in their conduct. I also have no objection to discussing criticism of these claims from the pro-Ukraine side, assuming the criticism can be fit within the 1-2 sentences. JDiala (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So, everyone, including the Amnesty itself [21] admitted that the report was wrong or at least questionable, but you still insist on including it in this page, two years after the report. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is addressed in the comment above. It is a leaked review commissioned by Amnesty, not a formal retraction. The standard for inclusion here is notability, not that a given allegation is entirely uncontentious. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The widely criticized report by AI implied that on a systemic or general level, Ukrainian forces were primarily or equally to blame for the death of civilians resulting from attacks by Russia. (see the link to article by Guardian above) Now, AI itself employed a panel of experts who said that no, it was wrong/misleading. And you still insist on including it on this page, two years after the report... My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

not a formal retraction
What do you mean? Report of the legal review panel on the Amnesty International press release concerning Ukrainian fighting tactics of 4 August 2022 - Amnesty International
For allthese reasons , the Panel finds that the PR's insistence that Ukraine had violated its obligations to take passive precautions was too emphatic. Without input and insight from the Ukrainian military concerning whether its troops assessed the feasibility oflocating elsewhere and if so, what its feasibility assessments were, legal conclusions should have been caveated appropriately a conclusion echoed by some AI staffprior to the publication ofthe PR. Atthe very least, given the lack of input from the Ukrainian military, AIshould have used more cautious language in the PR, such as noting that Ukraine could or mighthave violated its obligations under Article 58 AP I and calling for greater scrutiny ofthe Ukrainian military’s decisions concerning where to locate its forces. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that both of you are again really refusing to engage with the point. I will just repeat myself. The report wasn't a formal retraction, and the quote you cited doesn't address that point. Furthermore, the standard for inclusion here is notability, not that a given allegation is entirely uncontentious. JDiala (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

both of you are again really refusing to engage with the point. I will just repeat myself. The report wasn't a formal retraction, and the quote you cited doesn't address that point.
No. This is a false point. We don't need a formal retraction. The point is - the Panel finds that the PR's insistence that Ukraine had violated its obligations to take passive precautions was too emphatic. Without input and insight from the Ukrainian military concerning whether its troops assessed the feasibility oflocating elsewhere and if so, what its feasibility assessments were, legal conclusions should have been caveated appropriately a conclusion echoed by some AI staffprior to the publication ofthe PR. Atthe very least, given the lack of input from the Ukrainian military, AIshould have used more cautious language in the PR, such as noting that Ukraine could or mighthave violated its obligations under Article 58 AP I and calling for greater scrutiny ofthe Ukrainian military’s decisions concerning where to locate its forces. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We do in fact need a formal retraction. Without a formal retraction, this is an indication that Amnesty still has confidence in the work notwithstanding the views of the inquiry they commissioned. Furthermore, the standard for inclusion here is notability, not that a given allegation is entirely uncontentious. JDiala (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

NYT report on Ukraine killing surrendered Russian troops

There is an NYT report on Ukraine killing surrendered Russian troops, see here. I think this should be included in the article. However to avoid another edit war scenario I thought I'd discuss here first. JDiala (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you already added recent Russian attack on Kyiv child hospital?
Russia’s July 8 Attack on a Children’s Hospital in Ukraine | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)
Russian Federation’s Attack on Ukrainian Children’s Hospital ‘Not Only a War Crime’ but ‘Far Beyond the Limits of Humanity’, Medical Director Tells Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
Attacking hospitals is part of Putin’s plan – POLITICO
Kremlin tries to cover its tracks in Kyiv children's hospital bombing (voanews.com)
Кремль запустил кампанию по дезинформации об ударе по детской больнице в Киеве с участием федеральных телеканалов • «Агентство» (agents.media) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone else has added that. JDiala (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

... and that is because sources clearly relate the event to the article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend staying on topic and being clear with what you want to say. The NYT report clearly indicates that the killing of surrendered soldiers is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. JDiala (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The NYT report
Why you say it's a report? If you try to give the article more weight then it is, other editors may think you are POV-pushing.

clearly indicates that the killing of surrendered soldiers is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, it does. But

• our article subject is different
• the article said that, but didn't went that far as to accuse Ukraine, but Russia: Killing prisoners of war is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Once soldiers clearly indicate an intention to surrender, they cannot be attacked and must be safely taken into custody. The Ukrainian government has repeatedly pointed at Russian troops killing unarmed and surrendering soldiers as proof of Moscow’s lawlessness.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The only POV pushing happening here is your usage of exceedingly tendentious reasoning to dismiss anything remotely critical of Ukraine on this and related articles, not me using the word "report." This passage you cite never accused Russia. It is stating that the Ukrainian government has accused Russia. From the context of the article as a whole, it is obvious that the allegation they are describing (the killing of surrendered soldiers) is being levelled principally at the Ukrainians and their allies. I think you are also confused as to what the standards for inclusion here are. There does not need to be a verbatim assertion "Ukraine has committed a war crime" to warrant inclusion. Demonstrably documenting criminal acts like the murder of unarmed captives and emphasizing that such conduct is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, is enough to warrant inclusion. JDiala (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Demonstrably documenting criminal acts like the murder of unarmed captives and emphasizing that such conduct is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, is enough to warrant inclusion.
Other editor may simply say No, and it would be enough to invalidate your thesis. As it has no ground, and their No is based on WP:OR This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic .

Will you please stop with discussing the editor, not the argument. This is personal attack. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not OR. It would be OR if I wrote in the article that "the NYT accused Ukraine of war crimes" but that's not what I'm doing. In talk page discussions OR doesn't apply. The question is how related the issue at hand is to the article subject which is a partly subjective judgement editors can and should make. JDiala (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

See a perfect description here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mr_rnddude-20240710192900-Manyareasexpert-20240710182500 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That's about dated and outdated sources. It's irrelevant to the current discussion (and in any case a fringe view among editors as I point out). JDiala (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't check the article (paywall), but all such individual cases belong to page Treatment of prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We just need to provide a brief summary on this page. We should not make every individual case a separate subsection on this page, excluding only most notable cases, such as Olenivka prison massacre. This page is enormous and should be shortened for readability. Fortunately, we have many sub-pages that allow doing this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've already indicated, I don't believe the length argument has merit. There were no complaints about this when adding dozens and dozens of alleged Russian atrocities but now conveniently it becomes a problem for the one or two Ukrainian allegations. I consider POV concerns to be of far greater significance than article length. JDiala (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not say anything about any specific "side". This needs to be summarized much shorter on the both "sides". As about "no complaints", you are wrong. Someone placed a template "This section should include only a brief summary" already, and it is present for a year. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If so, why is there not even a dedicated top-level section for Ukrainian war crimes? Every analogous article where 95% of the war crimes were committed by one side, that I’ve seen, has a big fat section about the bigger offender with lots of main links and a 500-1000 word section for the lesser offender

Does anyone really believe that a grouping of a couple hundred thousand males, many underprivileged, under stressful conditions, who often aren’t aware of the details of their IHL obligations, never ever committed a single war crime? Any human male who has ever been in a fight understands the nin-triviality of switching off aggression, whether it’s deciding when to stop throwing more punches or taking your finger off the trigger when someone surrenders.

This particular allegation, apart from being from the Gray Lady and subject to its fact-checking standards, wasn’t about Ukrainian nationals at all. It was about foreign volunteers who may or may not be subject to the definition of mercenaries. And with the exception of nationalities with a direct reason to hate Moskals (Georgians, Poles, etc.), the kind of person who is interested in going to Ukraine is not the sort of person I would trust around my wallet or my sister, put it that way.

Also, until very recently a number of Ukrainian volunteer units were banned by USG from receiving American-made weapons due to suspicions of systematic human rights violations. I myself lurk frequently on Ukrainian-language Telegram and have seen both things like “we suggest you think twice before taking prisoners from XYZ brigade” as well as interesting things like Tyr runes.

There’s no need to, as Cinderella157 once put it, gild the lily. S**t happens. In the larger picture, Russia is overall the bad guy. That shouldn’t prevent us here at the world’s greatest compendium of knowledge from documenting what we find in RS.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. While the Russian army has committed more war crimes, it doesn't mean we should ignore the ones committed by the other side. Alaexis_¿question? 19:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, virtually all newspaper paywalls can be bypassed via Archive.today. I find the .ph mirror to be the best.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)