Jump to content

Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Rape as a "weapon of war"

I'm now undoing these changes to the lead section: [1] [2]

  • On what basis are we claiming that Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war."? In 2014-2016 rape was already massive and widespread in the Russo Ukrainian war, but OHCHR concluded that "there are no grounds to believe that sexual violence has been used for strategic or tactical ends by Government forces or the armed groups in the eastern regions of Ukraine". Things might have changed since then, but for now we haven't sufficient sources. The first source we quote has a wrong title, and the title doesn't count as source; if one reads the whole article, it's clear that the claim was made by Ukrainian officials and not independently verified by CNN. The second source mentions "rape as a weapon of war" but the claim is not substantiated; possibly the source is La Strada-Ukraine, but the point is not clear and in any case it doesn't belong to the lead: when the Monitoring Mission, a report by HRW or Amnesty, a piece of independent investigative journalism, etc., will claim that rape is being used for military ends, obviously we will publish this, but not now.
  • In March 2022 the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressed the heightened risks of sexual violence and the risk of under-reporting by victims in the country. This is not notable enough and doesn't belong to the lead.
  • After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv, according to The Guardian, there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians, including gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children. Apart from the gruesome details, there's nothing new: we were already accounting for allegations of sexual assaults and rapes in the lead, so there's no reason for duplicating the info nor for mentioning "The Guardian" in the lead section of this article. I'd rather suggest to change allegations of ... sexual assaults and rapes with widespread sexual violence ... by members of the Russian forces, so as to better clarify the massive proportions of the phenomenon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Your standards for what is notable enough for inclusion in the lead is inconsistent, as is your application of reversion policy to include systemically favor the edits made by yourself and llenart, despite the fact that they have been disputed since their inclusion.
Widespread, weaponized and systemic rape is certainly notable enough for mention in the lead in an article about war crimes. I can't believe this even needs to be argued. Shadybabs (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
1) Widespread rape is notable: naturally it belongs to the lead and it was already mentioned there (indeed I'd just added the adjective "widespread"). 2) Allegations of rape used as a war weapon are not sufficiently covered by sources: we just have an article by "The Guardian" reporting allegation by "La Strada-Ukraine", a charity that campaigns against gender-based violence; they don't belong to the lead. 3) UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressing the heightened risks of sexual violence is not notable enough and doesn't belong to the lead; 4) "gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children" doesn't belong to the lead because of Wikipedia:Too much detail and/or because of SCALE (individual event): one must not lose sight of the need for balance. The whole paragraph has been recently added with no prior discussion, so we need to check if we really want these contents in the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-rape-weapon-of-war-ukraine_n_62617db5e4b0e900dcd34011?uam= quotes Dara Kay Cohen, quoted in several 'rape' pages.Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I've notified this discussion to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@My very best wishes If "rape as a weapon of war" were merely a popular reference to "wartime sexual violence" in general, then we could replace the sentence (now in the lead section) "Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war."" with the less ambiguous sentence "Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of engaging in mass rape" (or a similar sentence). I think that the expression "rape as a weapon of war" has a precise meaning: rape is being used as a tool for reaching military goals. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
No, because we should use wording from sources, and that is "Rape as a weapon: huge scale of sexual violence inflicted in Ukraine emerges" - see above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't we just express the point about "huge scale of sexual violence" without mentioning the potentially misleading "Rape as a weapon" claim? We don't really know who said that rape was being used as a weapon - the sources we quote are not at all clear on this. And even if, let's say, a spokesperson from "La Strada" actually said that rape is being used as a weapon (i.e. strategically, to achieve military ends, being endorsed or accepted by the military hierarchy), that wouldn't be notable enough: it would be just their view. One needs evidence to substantiate a claim such as this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"Rape as a weapon of war" is not a popular reference to wartime sexual violence; it refers to it being used as a particular tactic or strategy. Sloppy use of terminology, especially in a sensitive matter like this, has no place on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
While the discussion is still going on, I've added the tags "Attribution needed" and "Ambiguous" to the sentence. The first one refers to the fact that it's not clear by whom the allegation was made: "Ukrainian officials" and psychologist Vasylisa Levchenko (CNN), "La Strada Ukraine" and/or "Feminist Workshop" (Guardian)? "Human rights organisation" here is too generic and apparently applies only to "La Strada". The second tag refers to the fact that "rape as war weapon" might be "merely a popular reference to wartime sexual violence in general", as User:My very best wishes argued, or a reference to the use of rape for tactical and strategical ends, as I argued. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I've removed these tags because this is simply what the sources to say. Keep in mind as well that the lede summarizes the article. If you want to elaborate as to what is meant by "weapon of war" then the place to do it is in the appropriate section. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Re Attribution needed. Could you please copy and paste a quotation from sources? I don't see where they say that "Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a weapon of war". Note that the title of the article by CNN doesn't count as per WP:HEADLINES. So what's left?
Re Ambiguous. I can't "elaborate" as to what is meant by "weapon of war" in the appropriate section because the appropriate section doesn't mention rape as a weapon of war. This is a substantially new content that's been added to the lead without being covered in the article (for this reason alone, it should be removed). Plus, even if it were reported in the article, one couldn't elaborate on "weapon of war" without indulging in WP:RO: the point is, we don't know what they meant when they said "rape as a weapon of war" and we can only speculate; we don't even know who "they" are: "Ukrainian officials"? "La Strada Ukraine"? "Feminist Workshop"? So please tell me, re Attribution, who are they? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • While the Guardian article is relevant and should be used, I don't think it actually specifically says that Russia is using rape as a weapon of war in the voice of the source. Certainly, the headline approaches that, but we should not be using newspaper headlines as support for a statement in wikipedia. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    While the discussion is still ongoing, I'm restoring the tags "Attribution needed" and "Ambiguous", as I see that the editor who removed them didn't reply to my questions: 1) who made the allegation of rape as war weapon - "Ukrainian officials", psychologist Vasylisa Levchenko, "La Strada Ukraine" and/or "Feminist Workshop"? and 2) what did they meant - reference to wartime sexual violence in general or rape used for military ends? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Here is the FT saying in their own words "Michel visited regions near the Ukrainian capital where evidence has mounted that Russians troops allegedly executed, tortured and raped hundreds of civilians." In this article "Human rights groups urged investigators to be brought in and steps taken to secure what they described as crime scenes. They say that Bucha — a short drive from Kyiv — is only one small window into what they believe is a pattern of unlawful killings, rapes and other crimes against civilians in swaths of eastern and southern Ukraine that were seized after the Russian invasion began on February 24" — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Here is NPR talking about rape as a weapon of war specifically: [4]. Since it's not paywalled I'll let y'all read the article in case you find useful quotes or don't see its coverage as accurate. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that this last article by NPR is the most relevant source, so far, but it still fails to support the sentence "Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a weapon of war". At most, one could replace "HR organizations" with "experts", but also that would be imprecise because most of the experts they interviewed were cautious and hypothetical ("suggests something that is at the very least being tolerated by the command", "experts say there are indications that Russian soldiers are using rape in a number of ways ... as well as with perhaps systematic, genocidal aims"). I see that in the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine one reads "Lyudmyla Denisova, Ombudsman in Ukraine and The Guardian have said that sexual violence was being used by Russian forces as a weapon of war". I think that's the most we could say: but not in the lead (their views are not sufficiently notable). So I think we should remove the sentence from the lead and 1) add to the lead a reference to reports of "systematic and massive sexual violence", 2) add at the beginning of our section on "Sexual violence" either the above quoted sentence on Denisova and The Guadian from the main article, or alternatively "experts say there are indications that sexual violence might be tolerated by the Russian command and used as in a systematic and deliberate way as a weapon of war" (sources: CNN, Guardian and NPR). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz you are making good points, but please avoid extremely long paragraphs. If you break the same words into a few paragraphs it will be much easier to read.

NOTE: Studies show that many people will not read giant paragraphs. They just skip over them.

If you break the same writing into a few paragraphs it becomes much easier to read.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Reported: Russia may have used thermobaric bombs on the Azovstal Steel plant in Mariupol yesterday

This is already in the Siege of Mariupol article and is already cited there as reported as having "possibly been" Thermobaric bombs by the British newspaper The Telegraph. This is where the final standoff in Mariupol has been occuring as the last few hundred Ukrainian forces fight in the steel plant.

If true, this could very possibly be a war crime because there were 200 civilians (including children) there with the Ukrainian soldiers.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I would leave it out, these reports appear to be based on a video from a drone of the explosions, which the reporters are assuming are thermobaric weapons and are assuming are endangering civilians. None of the souces I could find mentioned it as a possible war crime and the Washington Post and ABC (Australia) do not mention thermobaric weapons. Ukraine is now reporting that all civilians have been removed from the Azovstal steel plant, so use of thermobaric weapons would have no restrictions. Note that we previously had a section on thermobaric weapons in this article which was removed as use on military targets is not a war crime. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
In fact, the date of the alleged attack was before the final evacuation of civilians.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I would leave it out based on the "possibly been" language. There are plenty of things that definitely happened -- people definitely killed, children definitely bombed, and so on. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny -- that's why I didn't put it right into the article. But if there are any new developments on this, having it mentioned here first will help.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

POW in the lead

It's been a constant issue among editors, but apparently we haven't yet found a solution: how to summarise the section on the POWs in the lead? Here I submit a sentence on the treatment of the Russian POWs; I'd be grateful if we could come up with a similar short sentence covering the Ukrainian POWs.

Human rights organisations expressed concern about reports and videos of public humiliation,[1] ill-treatment and torture[2] of Russian prisoners of war in the power of Ukraine.

Any idea? One easy but perhaps not ideal solution could be:

According to the US government, there is evidence that also surrendering Ukrainian soldiers have been executed by the Russian army.[3][4].

But I'm sure we can do better. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No. So far it's a single case afaik. Volunteer Marek 17:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, also Bucha is "a single case" with multiple victims. The thing is: "single case" is not a criterion for exclusion. We already have a guideline on this, MOS:LEADREL, and there's no reason for departing from it. "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". Now in the case of the Russian POWs we have huge coverage. On kneecapping alone we have dozen of news outlets like CCN, BBC, etc., statemens by Human Rights Watch, Head of OHCHR, Ukr. armed forces chief and other officials, etc. And that is reflected by the relatively long section on "Russian prisoners of war" - more then 660 words. Something must be said in the lead and the problem is: what shall we say? how do we balance, if we balance it at all, with the relatively scarce coverage of torture of Ukr. POWs? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Are you genuinely going to put a widescale massacre of civilians including torture, mass rape and mutilation on the same level as a single incident in which a Ukrainian soldier supposedly shot a Russian prisoner? I'm sorry but I'm not even going to take that kind of argument seriously. The video was a "single case". Bucha was NOT a single case. It wasn't a single killing. It was hundreds. And it wasn't just Bucha. It was Hostomel, Borodyanka, Irpin and many other localities. The fact you're even trying to equivocate here raises serious questions.
And yes, it's precisely because "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" that we are NOT going to put this into the lede. Volunteer Marek 01:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hold on a second, I didn't put Bucha "on the same level" as the kneecapping of Russian POWs: I've just argued that the "one single case" criterion is not viable. You can explore the philosophical debate on Individuation and the principium individuationis to see some of the difficulties: the kneecapping of Russian POWs is as much individual (or collective) as Bucha, although it was admittedly less distructive (note, however, that on that occasion 3 POWs were shot and that more POWs were laying on the ground bleeding, so it must have been collective and horrible enough). Anyway, we're agreeing that the criterion we should follow is "coverage by sources", and we have different views on how to assess such coverage. Let's wait for other editors' views on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
With regard to this revert @Volunteer Marek, you're saying: of course i object to it - i have explained it repeatedly on talk - since this is 1) alleged 2) the thing you refer to is an isolated incident and 3) the treatment of marauders and looters is not a war crime and it doesn't really change much if you sprinkle in "Russian supporters" in there. And on top of all that, it's clearly UNDUE for the lede as MULTIPLE editors have pointed out to you.
With regard to 1) we can say that HRMMU "documented allegations", but then also with regard to arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists; re 2) it's not an isolated incident: HRMMU mentions "credible allegations of more than 45 such cases of torture and ill-treatment", plus HRW documented several cases of mistreatment of POWs; re 3) I'd left marauders and looters out of the lead and I'd mentioned mistreatment of Russian supporters only, which is most definitely a war crime.
Most importantly, MULTIPLE editors since March have pointed out TO YOU that it's important and appropriate to have info on the Russian POWs in the lead: there have been extensive discussions on this, and I'm pretty sure the majority’s been for inclusion (most recently, pro: Gitz666, Ilenart626 and Georgethedragonslayer; against: Volunteer Marek and Shadybabs). Apart from short periods, we’ve always had some content about POWs in the lead section. So please, before removing these contents let's wait for other comments and let's see where does consensus lay. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek and @Shadybabs you are removing from the article ([5] [6]) contents that have nothing to do with the current discussion on POWs in the lead section. In particular: 1) Info on the failed resolution drafted by Russia (section "Human shields") and 2) Info about a Georgian Legion's commander who justified the killing of Russian POWs (section "Execution of captured Russian soldiers"). I'm now restoring these contents. With regard to Russian POWs, let's leave them out of the lead for the time being while waiting for other editors' views on the matter. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
As explained in the edit summary, these were removed because of WP:UNDUE. Why is what some commander said notable? People say all kinds of things. Likewise the failed resolution is also UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Please open a thread if you want to discuss this. But note that we have sections about phone calls between Russian soldiers speaking about torture and other war crimes: why is what they say notable? People say all kinds of things. So please if your argument is that what people say is not notable, be as equanimous and impartial as you can possibly be and apply your arguments throughout the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Mamulashvili's statement is somewhat important because a few days later Georgian Legion members were caught killing three Russian POWs. He's not just "some commander." Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would leave out "humiliation" of POWs in the lead as I doubt that they would amount to war crimes. At the moment the reports mainly appear to be primary sources, so would include a single sentence in the lead along the lines of "Reports of torture and execution of Ukraine and Russian prisoners of war are being investigated." Would probably include after the short 2nd paragraph in the lead. Once secondary sources and / or verified reports from HRW, etc emerge it could then be expanded. Ilenart626 (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That would still be false equivocation. Volunteer Marek 06:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
you need to explain yourself better, rather than your above meaningless statement Ilenart626 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
My statement is pretty clear. Your phrasing gives the impression that both sides are equally (that’s the word “equivocation”) guilty, which is not supported at all by reliable sources (that’s the “false” part). The word “that” is a determiner. “Would” is a verb. “Still” is an adverb which indicates that this has been discussed before. “Be” is also a verb. Does that help? Volunteer Marek 07:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
nope, more meaningless statements. Suggest you provide alternative wording for consideration by other editors, rather than the rubbish you have just posted. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Annnndddd it’s obvious this conversation is pointless. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
It's pointless because you're making it pointless. You are claiming that adding "Reports of torture and execution of Ukraine and Russian prisoners of war are being investigated" to the lead, as Ilenart626 proposed, would be "false equivocation" because it would give the impression that both sides are equally guilty of torturing and killing POWs. Apart from the fact that you meant "equation", as "equivocation" has a different meaning, I don't understand which party would be more guilty of torturing and killing POWs according to you. If we let the sources answer the question, it isn't obvious that the Russian forces are doing much worse compared to the Ukrainian, as far as torturing POWs is concerned; on the contrary, so far we have extensive coverage of torture by Ukrainian forces. So when you speak of "false equation" do you mean that we'd be unfair to the Russians? I very much doubt it. I'm afraid both parties have practiced torture, and they both have a bad record in the recent past (please have a look to this report by the HRMMU); therefore it's vital that we have a few lines on torturing POWs in the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ukraine: Respect the Rights of Prisoners of War". Human Rights Watch. 2022-03-16. Retrieved 2022-05-07.
  2. ^ "Ukraine: Apparent POW Abuse Would Be War Crime". Human Rights Watch. 2022-03-31. Retrieved 2022-05-07.
  3. ^ Ankel, Sophia. "US has evidence that Russian troops in the Donbas are executing Ukrainians even as they surrender, official says". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-04-29.
  4. ^ Coote, Darryl (28 April 2022). "Surrendering Ukrainians were executed by Russia, U.S. says in U.N. war crimes meeting". UPI. Retrieved 28 April 2022.

Russian soldier being tried in Ukraine

This should have at least a mention, and yet the legal section does not at this moment include the Ukrainian court system at all. I just did a pass through the article, but it was a copy-edit secondary to reading/acquainting myself with the article, so I don't want to stop and add this right now; I am currently focused on spinning material down from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also, I saw this on CNN, so I do not have links at my fingertips. I am working on Legal aspects so I will come back and take care of this if nobody else does, but for now this is a note to myself or others.

This trial is notable because it is the first war crimes trial, and also because nobody expected the government of Ukraine to be functioning well enough to have a justice system. Apparently the Ukrainian theory is that trying some of these crimes as soon as possible may give pause to other Russian soldiers' sense of impunity. As I understand it, the soldier was with a group in a tank/vehicle that broke down; they obtained a civilian vehicle and were leaving when they came across a 62-year-old man on a bicycle and the soldier who is on trial was ordered to shoot him because he might tell the Ukrainian soldiers about them. Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

When I came back I found the section; I had just missed it. I added a section about the war crimes trial Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Why arbitrary detention of journalists yes, and torture of Russian-supporters no?

Could anybody please explain why do we have in the lead and in the article info about "arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists, public officials and civil servants", and we don't have info about "torture and ill-treatment of people believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, and curfew violators"? As the editor who wrote both the section on journalists and the section on marauders and Russian supporters, I'm very interested in having an answer. The main source is the same - HRMMU report - and I don't see any difference apart from the fact that the former is responsibility of the Russians, and the latter of the Ukrainians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned on lead after finding description on body. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Undue for lead because of the incredibly small scale and impact. Shadybabs (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
My main concern here is with the body. This section, which I saved in a sandbox, has been repeatedly removed by the same editor, User:Volunteer Marek ([7], [8], [9], [10]) and has been restored by User:Dunutubble, User:Ilenart626 and myself. I'm now trying to settle this once and for all. The thread here above, "Marauders etc", didn't deliver a consensus for inclusion, but it was mainly Volunteer Marek and me bickering at each other, so not very useful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I support including it in the lead and the body of the text, however I would change the title to Torture and ill-treatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters” as this more accurately reflects what the HRW report states, which is; "OHCHR is concerned by a large number of reports and video footage of torture and ill-treatment of people believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, and curfew violators in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine. HRMMU has received credible allegations of more than 45 such cases of torture and ill-treatment by civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence." Would also suggest we add a statement regarding the link between torture and war crimes ie "Torture is a grave breach of humanitarian law and is a war crime.[1]" Ilenart626 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bouchet-Saulnier, Françoise. "The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law". Doctors without borders. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
Any large group of people who feel very strongly about something is going to contain individuals who are willing to break the rules in support of it. At the moment, the sourcing is nonzero but thin. The UN source does not say that the 45 cases were war crimes -- though I certainly wouldn't rule that out. The source also doesn't report any hallmarks of high-level planning to support the activity. All of this raises questions of whether or not the material is WP:DUE on which I am open to being persuaded either way. If it is included, we do need to contextualize mountains vs. molehills. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Its not hard to find additional secondary sources, ie the Sydney Morning Herald article on Matilda Bogner, the Australian-born head of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, plus her offical statement from the UN here. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have also reported it here Ilenart626 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Ilenart626, I see that the OSCE report you shared settles the question we've being discussing for quite a while on whether torture and ill-treatment of marauders and Russian-supports belongs to this article. I'm now restoring the section. I've added references to the sources you provided and I've taken on board your other suggestion about changing the title and the text in order to reflect the sources more closely. I'm also adding the following sentence, taken from the OSCE report: "IHL prescribes that all persons should be treated humanely and prohibits any violence and outrage upon personal dignity": it's the sentence they use in commenting the incidents involving marauders and Russian-supports, so it's clearly relevant here. Under the ICC Statute, ill-treatment is a war crime if the perpetrator was aware that the victim belonged to the adverse party (Elements of Crimes, Rome Statute), and at least in the case of the Russian supporters this is a matter of course. With regard to the need to contextualize, it seems to me that the article already provides enough context: we're reporting dozens of terrible war crimes attributed to the Russian army, so IMHO when we're reporting crimes allegedly committed by the Ukrainian party, there's no need of commenting and comparing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
[Radio intercept discussion by a Russian soldier about torturing many Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians https://www.yahoo.com/news/intercepted-call-russian-admits-enjoys-184200516.html]

If an invading power abducts journalists etc. that's a war crime. If looters try to take advantage of a chaotic situation in the country being invaded and get caught and there's some vigilantism, then that may be a crime but it's not a war crime. This isn't actually hard. Volunteer Marek 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Torture and ill-treatment of alleged Russian supporters is defintely a war crime. I'd be happy to provide you with scholarly references and quotations on this, but you would probably say that it's my "original research", so I won't do it. Nonetheless it's a war crime and belongs to this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
It would be if it was in any way substantiated. But it's not. Hence UNDUE in the lede. Sources report that these are looters and marauders and speculate that they may be "pro-Russian supporters" but no sources has confirmed this. This also has been making rounds obsessively on pro-Putin social media for awhile and I see no reason why we should play into that. Also, I'm not gonna template you, but you're on 3 reverts. Volunteer Marek 00:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
But that's simply not true, you don't remember what the UN Monitoring Mission said about this: "large number of reports and video footage of torture and ill-treatment of people believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, and curfew violators". They are not reporting that these are looters and speculate that they may be "pro-Russian supporters": they say that the videos show people attacked because believed to be marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
what's a marauder in this context? Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Here you can read an article on Kyiv Post describing the practice and also trying to justify it: [11].
Here a more detailed report by France24 Observers: [12].
And finally a joint statement by Ukrainian human rights organisations condemning the practice: [13]
Shall we publish? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I have removed section for gross failure of WP:Verification Policy. Any attempt to restore the content, without complying with WP:Verification Policy, may constitute WP:Disruptive editing. After reviewing the sources I was unable to find ANY of them characterizing any of this as War Crimes. Crimes between civilians are not War Crimes just because they happen during a war, and even a crime by a domestic police officer against a domestic civilian is not a war crime just because it happens during a war. And in any case, it is WP:Original research for any of us to debate what does or does not constitute a War Crime. WP:Verification Policy dictates that we may only characterize things as War Crimes when that is a significant or prevailing characterization in WP:Reliable sources. Alsee (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
(continued) Perhaps it will help if I invite Gitz to explain to Gitz why this does belong in the article. I just came across the following:
I'm not a judge nor a soldier. I'm a humble editor of Wikipedia and I stick to the sources. Are there reliable sources (RS) stating that something is a war crime? We publish. Are there not? We don’t. If a RS says that something is a war crime according to the US ambassador, the Ukrainian prosecutor or the Russian government, then we publish "according to the US ambassador, etc." But if a source simply describes a shelling with civilian casualties, we don't publish until a RS claims that it was a war crime, i.e. it was both deliberate and military pointless or disproportionate. It's simple as that. That's what WP:POV and WP:RS require us to do. And frankly it's not just pity editorial policy, it's also the right thing to do: if everything is a war crime, then nothing is a war crime. The concept of war crime becomes meaningless and the subject of this article boundless: "horrible things that happen during a war". Gitz 22:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[14]
How domestic citizens deal with domestic citizen looters, in the absence of effective policing due to the war, is surely one of the LEAST "horrible things that happen during a war". And it does not remotely belong in this article. Alsee (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I will answer to you properly when I'll get a laptop with a stable connection but in the meanwhile you could read the thread "Marauders etc" where the point is akready discussed Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
P.S. that quotation of mine: please mind the date, 25 March. My point didn't get a consensus and since then we been publishing loads of contents that are not explicitly qualified as war crimes by RS. Bombing with civilian casualties is a good example. As my argument was rejected, most of the subsections of "Concerned areas" are not described as war crimes, and the lack of a proportionate military objective is a sheer speculation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Gitz you are pursuing an idiosyncratic definition of "War crime" and making flawed/original leaps of interpretations of sources. For example the United Nations Human Rights office addressees human rights regardless of whether they are related to wars, nevermind whether they are related to war crimes, and their term term CRSV(combat related sexual violence)[15] encompasses sexual violence incidental to conflicts and unrelated to war crimes. You were making a wildly inappropriate leap of WP:Original research trying to claim "That's enough" to support your claim. To quote the lead of our own article on War_crime A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by the combatants. That reflects the overwhelming viewpoint of Reliable Sources. However, I do invite you to point me to the various other articles on other wars where we routinely include non-combatant domestic-on-domestic incidents as "war crimes". Because if you can't do that, there there is no chance whatsoever an RFC is going to endorse applying an interpretation entirely novel and unique to this war. Insisting on a futile RFC would be a total waste of the community's time. Either show that it is standard in our other-war articles to cover routine domestic crimes as "war crimes", or let it go. Alsee (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I will answer later more thoroughly (now I'm moving home and it's a mess) but note that ill-treatment (and even torture and deliberate killing) of Russian supporters (which is mentioned in HRMMU report and in other RS as far as I remember) falls within the notion of war crimes mo matter how narrowly construed it is. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Academic source describes Russian society

" Firewall, I have not read it. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2022.2074020

If it does not belong here, where does it? Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
It probably belongs to Russian information war against Ukraine. These online groups are actually a part of anti-Ukrainian propaganda. There is a question however. How representative views by users of these groups are for Russian society in general? My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
But these subjects are related. Here is an excellent analysis by Ann Applebaum, Ukraine and the Words That Lead to Mass Murder. As she says, All of this—the indifference to violence, the amoral nonchalance about mass murder—is familiar to anyone who knows Soviet history. (yes, of course). So, as she puts some aspects of this:
all genocides have been preceded by genocidal hate speech. The modern Russian propaganda state turned out to be the ideal vehicle both for carrying out mass murder and for hiding it from the public. The gray apparatchiks, FSB operatives, and well-coiffed anchorwomen who organize and conduct the national conversation had for years been preparing their compatriots to feel no pity for Ukraine. They succeeded. ... As Russians occupied Ukrainian cities and towns, they kidnapped or murdered mayors, local councilors, even a museum director from Melitopol, spraying bullets and terror randomly on everyone else. ... Yet even as these crimes were carried out, in full view of the world, the Russian state successfully hid this tragedy from its own people. As in the past, the use of jargon helped. This was not an invasion; it was a “special military operation.” This was not a mass murder of Ukrainians; it was “protection” for the inhabitants of the eastern-Ukrainian territories. This was not genocide; it was defense against “genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime.” The dehumanization of the Ukrainians was completed in early April, when RIA Novosti, a state-run website, published an article arguing that the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine would require the “liquidation” of the Ukrainian leadership, and even the erasure of the very name of Ukraine, because to be Ukrainian was to be a Nazi: “Ukrainianism is an artificial anti-Russian construct, which does not have any civilizational content of its own, and is a subordinate element of a foreign and alien civilization.”
So, perhaps something like that could be included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday you were arguing that "this page is already too large, we must focus on the most widely covered/publicized materials", and that therefore we shouldn't have included war crimes documented by OSCE, and now you are proposing we include a purely speculative, highly subjective and biased academic reflection on how the Soviet past might have influenced the Russian approach to war crimes. And why not also the Ukrainian approach, as they also shared the same Soviet past? It's entirely irrelevant, not notable and as far as their fringe theories on the roots of distorted violence perception are concerned, not verifiable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can see it was 'perhaps', not 'let's include'.
I have proposed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_information_war_against_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1087400249

No cooperation.
There exists basic difference between Putin's growing imperialistic propaganda and the Ukrainian one changing since 2004. The separatists have views similar to the Russian ones and there exists radical difference between the separatists and Ukrainian government, even military one since 2014.
If there was a danger for Ukraine it was OUN/UPA cult, not professed by Zelenskyy.
'biased academic reflection' - you break Wikipedia rules.

Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to this comment by My very best wishes. As they said that the analysis by Ann Applebaum was "excellent", I'm free to disagree and argue that that analysis is simplistic and biased. By doing so, I don't see what Wikipedia rules I would have broken. With regard to the article you mentioned, this one, I think that it may be relevant for the main article Bucha massacre. In fact, I now see that it is already quoted in the section "Social media comments". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Georgian Legion commander

@Dunutubble added this info on the Georgian Legion's commander justifying the killing of Russian POWs, which @Volunteer Marek removed. I restored and @Shadybabs undid. I restored again and I explained I'm not [now] restoring only the contents on failed UN resolution drafted by Russian and justification of torture by Georgian commander, which do not belong to the lead. I'll remove the controversial contents about POWs in the lead straightaway, and Volunteer Marek undid because No, there's explanations on talk and multiple editors object to this UNDUE "bothsideism" material, as well as to irrelevant info being added. Please get consensus before reinserting. Here above Volunteer Marek explained: Why is what some commander said notable? People say all kinds of things, and Dunutubble replied Mamulashvili's statement is somewhat important because a few days later Georgian Legion members were caught killing three Russian POWs. He's not just "some commander".
Working on this article is becoming increasingly difficult, as disruptive and tendentious editing are wasting precious time and energy that could be spent better (e.g. we need more on Borodianka and we need to reply to the thread here above "move some things and add more"). In case anyone wants to add their views on having these contents about the Georgian Legion commander's statements, I open this threat, and in the meanwhile I restore the text, which at least two editors think it's notable and compatible with WP:UNDUE; only one has argued against it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that what the Georgian Legion commander said is not only relevant because they allegedly killed a Russian POW; even if they had not, the order of "no quorter" is in itself a war crime, and as such belongs to this article. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The justification "statement is somewhat important because a few days later Georgian Legion members were caught killing three Russian POWs." is classic WP:SYNTH and the claim that it was "caught killing three Russian POWs" is basically based on one person's... probably perusal of pro-Russian social media. Which kind of says something about their purpose here (did someone say WP:TENDENTIOUS?). Sourcing is weak, no indication of notability, pretty much UNDUE given how many videos and statements are floating out there.
Also, you guys REALLY need to learn to get consensus for inclusion before you do the edit warring thing. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
And if you want to add info about Borodianka, no one's stopping you, so please don't use that as an excuse or a justification for trying to add OTHER, sketchy, material to the article. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree that Georgian Legion's commander, Mamouka Mamoulashvili, statement justifying the killing of prisoners of war should be included. The source clearly states the whole story as a war crme. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
So we should include all the statements of Russian TV calling for genocide of Ukrainians in the article too? How about the Russian women in Australia who called for murder of Ukrainian children? Or the the Russian women in Sweden who said all Ukrainian women were whores and deserve to get raped? Or .... etc etc. there's hundreds of videos out there of people saying horrible stuff. You just happened to pick one that advances a particular POV. Volunteer Marek 02:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
He is a commanding officer! He's leading soldiers in military operations in Ukraine! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
That's to do with Anti-Ukrainian sentiment and incitement to violence, not war crimes. I don't see why a leading military commander giving an order of no quarter to prisoners of war in a section about executions of POWs is not notable. IDONLIKEIT or OTHERSTUFFEXISTS won't get one anywhere. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
You’re trying to misrepresent the source and the situation. He didn’t “give an order”. He said something in an interview, most likely venting, after seeing the atrocities committed by Russians. There’s no source saying “he gave an order” so please don’t try to pull a fast one here. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I can only understand Volunteer Marek's reference to WP:SYNTH as implying that they haven't checked the source: this article from Le Monde. Sourcing is weak, no indication of notability?!? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
It's a single source. A search shows that there aren't any other major reliable sources reporting on it. Just like above with the nonsense about Bangladeshi students supposedly being held as "human shields". We keep replaying this scenario. Someone goes and scrapes the bottom of the internet for a single source to add something non notable to article to "balance" (i.e. whitewash, bothsidesit) Russian war crimes then others point out that it's not notable then we get these arguments. Volunteer Marek 02:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
According to Meduza, Mamulashvili said that "Russian soldiers would not be taken prisoner under any circumstances." According to eurasianet, Mamulashvili later denied he meant to kill POWs, but has still had a criminal case lodged against him.
Le Figaro also covered the subject, portraying it as a contradiction of the Legion's claims to not be responsible for the killings. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Le Monde is not a sketchy source, if that's your definition of "sketchy," I don't know what is. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Please show me where I said that Le Monde was a “sketchy source”. Can you? No? Then you should probably strike the false accusation. Volunteer Marek 15:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Folks, rather than perennially starting edit wars over objectionable material, if you really want to try and include this info, start an RfC. Volunteer Marek 05:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

no. There must be a different easier way to get things done here. We can't let you waste everyone's time simply by raising pointless objections to any edit that doesn't fit your POV. We must find another way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Who are 'We'?Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I’m not “wasting anyone’s time”, and that kind of accusation is a personal attack. I - and other users who have objected to this content (funny how you refer to yourself as “everyone” now) - have as much right to edit this article as you do. I could just as easily assert that you and Illenart are “wasting everyone’s time” by engaging in blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and failing to follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:ONUS (which is needed for inclusion not removal).
And User:Ilenart626, can you please stop edit warring? And stop making false claims of non existent consensus. Even if it was 2 v 3 then that’s still not consensus.
Both of you. Start an RfC if you feel strongly about it. That’s the proper procedure. Until you establish consensus the cherry picked undue material doesn’t belong here. Volunteer Marek 08:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. To focus on the content, are there any other reliable sources reporting on this? BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that Le Monde is reliable enough. Please for a comparison have a look at this section of the article: it's the "Ukranskaja Pravda"and the "Mirror", and the story looks quite fishy to me (mummy encoraging her son to mutilate Ukr. POWs). No editors, included myself, raised any objections to that. Anyway, I've done a bit of research I can see that Mamuka Mamulashvili's statements (his unit "will no longer take Russian military prisoners") have atracted attention especially in non-English speaking media following the killing of a Russian POW by that same military group. In Italian we have Il Corriere della Sera (main national newspaper, comparable to Le Monde, FAZ, Times, NYT) and other national newspapers like Il Riformista, Libero and Globalist. Apart from Le Monde, in France also Le Figaro has covered the news. The Georgain news agency Interpressnews has an article on Russia launching a criminal case against Mamulashvili, which is confirmed by TASS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this is valid source, but I would oppose to this because there is another problem. The whole section about Russian POWs [16] should be included, but it must be summarized very briefly, much shorter than it is right now. This is because we need to keep a proper due weight for various sections of this page. Meaning that something covered in a huge number of sources deserves a lot more space on the page than something covered in just a few sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    The 12 April 22 OSCE report from page 10-15 discusses prisoners of war. This secondary source gives equal weight to both discussing the various issues with Ukraine and Russian prisoners. It specifically discusses the video of killing of Russian soldiers, plus it includes “On 2 March 2022, a declaration that no quarter will be given to Russian artillery soldiers appeared on the official page of the Command of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. “. Disagree that the section should be shortened, instead it should be expanded with this secondary source. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    I am not sure this is a "secondary" source (a report by a human rights organization), but certainly a good source. What really matters are not any declarations (they are frequently disinformation or no one follows them in a military conflict), but the deeds, i.e.the actual crimes. Interesting, on page 13 this ref says that combatants from DNR/LNR and members of Wagner group may not qualify as POWs in this conflict. Who are these people claimed to be executed or kneecapped as "Russian POWs" (ones in the 3rd and second subsection here)? Did sources say it explicitly somewhere? I did not follow these sources a lot. Those in the 1st subsection ("Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers") were clearly defined in sources, no questions about them. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    Ordering no quarter or even threatening that no quarters will be given is a war crime in itself, and it doesn't matter if the order/threat is brought into effect or not ([17]); apparently in this case it was implemented. I remember we already had something about a no quarter threat on Facebook by a Ukr. commander, which was cancelled because WP:UNDUE according to some editors. Unfortunately I'm now in the process of moving home, so I won't have much time available in the next few days, but I'd like to retrieve that old text and check if it's about the same episode. Re POWs: huge amount of RS call them "Russian POWs", so unless we have very strong reasons for believing they are all wrong, they are POWs. OSCE report doesn't say anything which might be construed as questioning this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yes we had this discussion in the past and the text on no quarter was this one, which is about the same declaration reported by OSCE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    • This page is already too large, even though it uses many sub-pages. It should be made smaller and more readable by focusing on the most important and most widespread war crimes covered in a lot of sources. Single instances may or may not be covered enough or be notable enough to deserve inclusion even to the body of the page, much less to the lead. As about the monthly OSCE report, this is just one of many sources, there is no reason to cover everything on this page exactly as in the OSCE report (it is issued every month). My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
      @My very best wishes
      I would be very hesitent about removing single instances of alleged war crimes. They have notable validity unto themselves.
      Also, as such stories and their investigations develop, many will grow into larger stories.
      I think a better use of time is to focus on splitting into several articles.
      Chesapeake77 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
      I restored the section after having added more sources ("Corriere della Sera" and "Globalist.it") and contents. Note that the leading Italian daily newspaper "Corriere della Sera" explicitly says that the Georgian Legion's commander Mamouka Mamoulashvili acknowledged that that killing of Russian prisoners of war was done under his own orders by a patrol of the Georgian Legion:
      "The Corriere identified the self-styled commander of the killers' unit. His name is Mamuka Mamulashvili and he prides himself on that horror being the outcome of his orders (…) In fact, at least one of the members of the unit that killed the Russian POWs speaks Russian with a Georgian accent. And anyway, officer Mamulashvili himself recognises that unit as acting under his orders" (my translation). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
      If not already, and I missed it, this Georgian Commanders claims of executing Russian POWs should definitely be in the article.
      Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian POWs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9&oldid=1146077275"