Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Ukrainian POWs 2nd discussion

In the grand scheme of things, with mass murder and mass rapes in the background, perhaps this isn't really that significant but sources are calling the death sentence to two British-Ukrainian and one Moroccan-Ukrainian POWs a war crime [1] so perhaps this should be included. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not? The original source we should quote is this one, however - "Welsh Online" is just republishing from "The Conversation" - and in reporting the info we should make it clear that the alleged war crime does not result from sentencing POW to death when they are proven guilty of committing a war crime, but rather in the questionable fairness of the trial and impartiality of the court. Also this article could be used for providing some context and analysis: this might be a retaliation for the trials to Russian POWs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

a bunch of sources could be copied from the Aiden Aslin article. pretty much every british media has covered it since aslin (aka cossackgundi) was quite well known on social media in britain Cononsense (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

another article by polygraph.io (voice of america's fact checking website);

https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-russia-claims-humane-treatment-of-ukrainian-pows-but-this-evidence-casts-doubt/31879063.html

two cases - one by The Media Initiative for Human Rights, an ngo who interviewed some pows after they were involved in a prisoner swap, and another by Franceinfo.fr.

not sure if they pass the litmus test of this page or not. Cononsense (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A tweet released today by news organization Visegrad 24 shows a Russian Colonel identified only as V. Gorshenin discussing the torture of Ukrainian POWs on state TV. The original untranslated video can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.158.163.51 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• war crime does not result from sentencing POW to death when they are proven guilty of committing a war crime (said Gitz above). Yes, sure, but these 3 foreign citizens were not convicted or accuses of committing any war crimes. They were sentenced merely for being foreign citizens in Ukrainian Army. Therefore, yes, include. Also, that "polygraph"-sourced content can be included. This is a tricky subject though. For example, Ukrainian laws consider foreign citizens to be members of their own Ukrainian army, after signing a contract (hence they are definitely POWs). However, Russian law officially forbids any participation of foreign citizens in Russian Army (please correct if I am mistaken). Therefore, a citizen of Belarus, for example, who fight in Russian Army could be considered an illegal combatant rather than a POW. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes You have misunderstood my edit here. Please read the text carefully before delating it, because it is a rendering of what this reliable source says and it's fully compatible with the point you make in your edit summary. If there's a problem with my English, please correct. The points we need to express are the following ones:

  1. Foreign POWs were not charged of war crimes; they were charged only of joining the armed forces of Ukraine and fighting with them, which does not constitute a war crime;
  2. Russia and the prosecuting authorities in the self-proclaimed republic of Donetsk failed to recognise their POW status;
  3. Therefore Russia and the prosecuting authorities violated the rights of the POWs under IHL.

  I restore the text because I don't see any substantial disagreement. If you want to improve the quality of my English, please modify the text as you think best. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is all correct, but as written, your phrase incorrectly implies they we charged of war crimes (but not guilty of that). Moreover, this is very long and convoluted phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request fully-protected

In the Killing and torture in Makariv section, change the last clause "killing elderly couple inside" to "killing an elderly couple inside". Also, in the Genocide section, remove the stray space between the refs in the last sentence. Wretchskull (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Guys, I have protected the article for two days so you have an ability to have a compromise rather than edit war that will just make you all banned. Protecting a particular version of course do not mean it is by anyway the correct one Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

As an editor whose opinion does not weight more than anybody's (probably less) Can we reduce the number of "alleged" in the article? The cases probably would not be processed by ordinary criminal courts and the risk of influencing the future juries is minimal. Regarding the section on Donetsk attack I agree that it looks disproportional - it is only one missile of an unknown origin while we are talking about hundreds of missile attacks in other sections. On the other hand maybe for NPOV sake keep it? Can we have a survey or something? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, what’s up with that "alleged" word being repeatedly submitted into the article? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia and Western media when deal with crimes by living people not sentenced by courts tend to use the word "alleged". The reason is presumption of innocence - a person is innocent until found guilty be a court. Russian and Ukrainian sources tend to be direct in this regard. This case differ as most of the perpetuators might avoid courts. I propose the following criteria:

• If a Western source do not use the word "alleged" we do not use it either
• If an International or Ukrainian court sentenced perpetuator when we do not use the word "alleged"
• There are a lot of evidence that courts in Russia and the separatist quasi-states are biased so we use the word "alleged" even if there is a sentence by such court
• Otherwise we use the word "alleged"

Another issue is with the cluster munition sentence. Using cluster munition is not a crime, many countries do it, both Russia and Ukraine have done it. It does not need the word "alleged". Using cluster munition in a manner that endanger civilian population beyond expected is a war crime. We need to either satisfy criteria above or put the word "alleged" Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

If we want to "compromise rather than edit war", as @Alex Bakharev suggests we do, we'd better unpack the various contents of VM's proposed edit (this one). I suggest we continue discussing the Donetsk missile issue in the dedicated thread "one missile falls on Donetsk"; I've just added (at 09:03, 23 June 2022) my comments on that in replying to MVBW. Please have a look and add your comments there.

Re cautious language ("alleged"), we can continue the discussion in the dedicated thread All Russian war crimes are only "alleged". I will add my comments on that there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an art, not a science. When something is alleged, we must be clear it is. However, an excessive use of qualifiers such as alleged can cast doubt on the claims, which is also a bias. We want to convey that these are credible accusations that have yet to be proved.

Also, we should not ourselves determine which courts are credible, we leave that to reliable sources reporting the cases.

Finally, I agree that we should use the degree of certainty in Western media sources, such as U.S. cable news, and U.S. and UK broadsheets.

TFD (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We should definitely not limit ourselves to Western mainstream media sources; we should primarily use WP:RS, whether they are Western, East European, or any others if they appear to be reliable for the topic. No need for westsplaining. There are plenty of Ukrainian and Russian reliable sources on the invasion and the war crimes, especially:

• The Kyiv Independent
• The Moscow Times
• Meduza

Boud (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not say we should limit ourselves to Western mainstream media sources, I said, "we should use the degree of certainty in Western media sources." TFD (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The degree of certainty in The Kyiv Independent, The Moscow Times, and Meduza is more reliable than that of US cable news on this topic; Amnesty International (headed by non-Westerners for much of the past few decades, so only somewhat "Western") and the International Criminal Court are also a lot more reliable than US cable news. Some sources are more reliable than others; we won't completely avoid WP:BIAS, but we can still make a reasonable effort and try to avoid westsplaining. Boud (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

All Russian war crimes are only "alleged"

User:Gitz666 can you stop trying to sprinkle in the word "alleged" in front of every Russian crime described in this article? See WP:ALLEGED. Also please cut it out with pretending that these crimes have not been documented. This is especially problematic in light of your previous comments in which you claimed that kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Volunteer Marek 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." A further issue is WP:BLP crime, we cannot state as a fact that someone committed a crime, including genocide, unless they have been convicted. It doesn't matter how certain we are, because it is not up to Wikipedia editors to weight evidence and determine facts, per NOR. TFD (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting WP:ALLEGED, Volunteer Marek, which is precisely the guideline we needed, as TFD demonstrated. Just two points:

1. I'm not "sprinkling" the article with the word "alleged"; if one were to read what you write without knowing the article, one could even believe you. I'm actually restoring the word "alleged", which for some reason you've decided to massively remove from the article;
2. I have already asked you before to stop attributing to me false ideas that I've never supported and that I find hateful. You alleged that according to me Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians. This is false, I asked you to strike through your comment and you didn't comply. Now you are repeating again that according to me kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Now please, either you strike through that false comment of yours and apologise, or you provide a diff here or in my talk page showing where I'd made these ludicrous comments. Providing a diff shouldn't be too difficult. For example, if I were to claim that you argued that shooting Russian POWs in the legs doesn't amount to torture, I could easily provide this. I'm sure you could try to do the same - and utterly fail, because I've never said what you apparently understood. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

In your #1 you admit that you are "sprinkling" the word "alleged" in front of everything and then proceed to argue semantics. Stop restoring it where it doesn't belong.

Re your #2, this comment speaks for itself: There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. This is you proposing to refer to the kidnapping of Ukrainian children (after their parents were murdered by Russian soldiers) as "Naturalisation" and "Adoption". In the same comment your wording actually manages to imply that it was in the interest of the (Ukrainian) child to have their parents killed and then be adopted by some Russians. You said it. It's right fucking there. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia is able to solve the doubts, but it distinguishes soldiers accused of crimes instead to investigate the crimes.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Some of that can be alleged, but most of the war crimes committed by Russian forces (like ones in Bucha) are just that, war crimes, and they are described as such in RS. There is no really a dispute about it. Therefore, I agree with VM. My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I notified to WP:ANI the conversation here above with @Volunteer Marek, plus various other comments and edits of VM which I think are contrary to our guidelines and policies. The discussion is here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not what the talk page is for. You're basically WP:CANVASSing. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and @My very best wishes have been repeatedly trying to make two edits (now merged into one): removal of the attack to Donetsk and removal of cautious language ("accused", "alleged"). They are trying very tenaciously to have these contents removed: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Please, note the following:

1. At least 6 editors have reverted and/or criticised in the talk page these edits: if I'm not wrong, Ilenart626, Alaexis, TFD, Just Prancing, AdrianHObradors, and myself. See this thread and the thread "one missile falls on Donetsk". Apart from VM and MVBW, their edits might enjoy the support of Adoring Nanny and perhaps Shadybabs. For the time being, six against four is no WP:CONS for removing contents that have always been here (see e.g. this old revision of end-March [17]). So WP:NOCON applies and we should restore the status quo pending discussions.
2. Instead of edit warring, which is frankly quite boring and childish, we should discuss the merit of the proposed edits. Let me add one more argument on the cautious language point. Status quo version says in the lead: The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions"; the new proposed version says The Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions. This is likely a mistake. Let's set aside for the moment the issue of the "alleged" (which I think it's due in case of crimes as per WP:ALLEGED, and particularly due here given the fog of war and that these are all very recent events). The new formulation confuses "indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks" with "direct or deliberate attacks on civilian", and that's a mistake. No doubt the Russians were also accused of direct attack on civilians (e.g. Irpin shelling if I'm not wrong, "Shooting on passing civilian vehicles", Bucha, etc.) but when they use cluster munition it is always, as far as I know, a case of indiscriminate attack: they don't know (and possibly are not interested) if they're going to strike a military objects or a civilian object. It's "indiscriminate" (and disproportionate) not direct. So the new formulation is pejorative also for this reason.
3. The main reasons why the new formulation is pejorative, however, can be read here above in this thread and in the thread "one missile falls on Donetsk". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Guy, you're claiming that because you have support of some barely-ten-edit WP:SPA that has exclusively showed up here to edit war you have "consensus". I'm also not sure if you're accurately representing the views of some of the editors you mention. You also fail to mention two others users, Adoring nanny and Xx236 who also seem to be opposed to inclusion. Finally, consensus is not determined by bean counting but by the extent to which the argument rely on established policy (and that's where you REALLY come up short). Per WP:REDFLAG and WP:ONUS the responsibility for getting consensus is on those who wish to include such material. You can start an RfC. There's obviously been multiple objections to this material and restoring it repeatedly is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And one big issue that you're skirting around is your continued attempts to change "have committed" war crimes to "have been accused of committing war crimes". The former is what the sources say since by now it's pretty well established. "Have been accused" is an obvious attempt to downplay and WEASEL the fact of war crimes here. Volunteer Marek 22:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The "Have been accused of committing" issue has been addressed here above by TFD (quoting WP:ALLEGED). We should be aware of the risks of WP:RECENT and avoid stating accusations as facts with Wikivoice until they are proven out through time. Re WP:CON, you are wrong: I mentioned and counted Adoring Nanny. I even counted Shadybabs, although they didn't joined the discussion but just removed some contents. I didn't mention Xx236 because they didn't express their views on neither of the two edits. So even if we were to ignore the editor you claim is a WP:SPA, we would still be five against four - and a majority is not a consensus, let alone a minority! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a 1RR on this page? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @EvergreenFir, could you please read my point number 1 here above and let me know if I can restore the wrong version? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't have the time to assess the whole situation here. I just see that there's an edit war occurring. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Same here, i dont really want to do anything, but, please, stop edit warring over the missile attack on donetsk. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666, you're up to 3 reverts in less than four hours and you have the audacity to tell others to "stop edit warring"? Seriously? And you keep claiming false consensus for restoration of controversial material that you simply don't have and you keep ignoring the points raised here. Volunteer Marek 01:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, can you please provide sources that say Russians have committed war crimes. I checked the first source for the first change you made. It says, "There have been urgent calls for investigations into allegations of war crimes in previously Russian-held areas of Ukraine after shocking footage of murdered civilians. But there are wider questions over whether widespread Russian attacks on civilian targets amount to war crimes." (BBC 10 April 2022)[18] TFD (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the lede, which summarizes the article, which is chock full of sources which state exactly that. I'm sure you can find some among those already in the article. Volunteer Marek 23:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Do in-line references currently used on this page say "alleged" about specific claims? If yes, then OK. If not, then things like that qualify as POV-pushing I think. Let's consider 1st example on this page. It says:

The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions

. Do the in-line references say this is all "alleged"? Apparently not? Besides, this is simply ridiculous. What is "alleged" here, exactly? The use of cluster munitions? No, this is simply a matter of fact. The civilians dying from such munitions? Also a matter of fact. Overall, this is an incredible example of editorializing, and indeed expressing a doubt when there is no any doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Now, let's go further. Second use of "alleged" on this page is fully justified. But third use is not. It says: "...one man and two or three naked women under a blanket whose bodies were allegedly burned by Russian soldiers on the side of a road before they fled". No, because the cited source [19] does not say or imply "alleged", it says very definitely that these people were killed by Russian soldiers. My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

In many instances, the only doubt cast over events is the Russian doubt. Presenting the lone counter-claims of an aggressor in denial of their own military actions (not a war, a 'special military operation') is not providing balance. Atrocities well-documented in reliable sources are atrocities, and the weasely use of the word 'alleged' for well-documented events is basically lawyering on behalf of Russia. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the "alleged-by-alleged" methods you're following in discussing these all-encompassing edits [20] and this edit. I'll add my two cents, and I'll leave a separate comment on each proposed change.

1) Changing
The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions
with
The Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions

Do you want to the get rid of the "alleged"? Drop it, I don't mind, although I think we'd better maintain a more cautious and detached language, be mindful of the risks of WP:RECENT, wait for the fog of war to disperse, wait for independent rulings by courts of law and reports by international agencies, and in any case refrain from weaponizing the discourse on war crime. But if you really think that that "alleged" is intolerable, then drop it, but don't change the sentence because your altering the meaning and you're making a false/unsupported claim! RS don't say that the Russian army "attacked the civilian population using cluster munition". When you use cluster munition what you might be doing is carrying out an indiscriminate and/or disproportionate attack (e.g. when this happens in a highly populated area); it would be quite extraordinary if the direct object of your attack were the civilians. Occasionally this might have happened in Ukraine but we need sources.
The sources we are quoting there are all speaking about indiscriminate attacks: Amnesty International ("The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been marked by indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas", "The Russian military has shown a blatant disregard for civilian lives by using ballistic missiles"); Human Rights Watch ("In Kharkiv, Russian military forces showed disregard for civilian lives through repeated apparent indiscriminate attacks in populated areas"); OHCHR ("The extent of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian objects strongly suggests that the principles of distinction, of proportionality, the rule on feasible precautions and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks have been violated").
I'm right now working in my sandbox on an article on Indiscriminate attack which might help people understand a very basic distinction of IHL: [21] Everybody's help would be much appreciated. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• You say: "you're making a false/unsupported claim! RS don't say that the Russian army "attacked the civilian population using cluster munition". ... it would be quite extraordinary if the direct object of your attack were the civilians." Let me ask you this question: are you at all familiar with this subject? Yes, of course they directly attack civilians by destroying houses with civilians, by destroying whole cities with civilians, like in Mariupol where they killed at least 20,000 civilians. This is the entire point: by attacking civilians/terrorizing the civilian population they achieve their goal, i.e the destruction of the Ukrainian nation and statehood. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

To sum up: I don't agree with dropping the "allegedly" and using Wikivoice here, but I'm also relatively indifferent to the point. What I strongly oppose is replacing "exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm" with "attacked the civilian population".Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

2) Changing

the plants' safety systems had not been affected and there had been no release of radioactive materials
with
the plants' safety systems had not been effected and there had been no release of radioactive materials
English is not my mother language but I think you are adding an English mistake to the sentence. "Affected" is the right word. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

3) With regard to this edit,
changing
two or three naked women under a blanket whose bodies were allegedly burned by Russian soldiers
with
two or three naked women under a blanket whose bodies were burned by Russian soldiers

I don't agree with this. Even the source we quote (Kyiv Independent) says "The photos appear to prove that the Russian forces carried out targeted, organized killings" (emphasis added). Indeed a photo as such doesn't prove much about the identity of the perpetrators. Moreover, as far as I read it's quite likely that they were not "Russian soldiers" but rather "Russian paramilitary groups" (Wagner Group and a paramilitary riot-control force known as OMON), so it's possible that you are inserting a factual mistake there. But there's no need to rush to conclusions: cautionary language is preferable here. Using "alleged" here is just a sign of reliability and professionalism on our part, and it's also closer to the language used by quality press and truly reliable sources such as NYT, BBC and the like. Why should we lower the standard? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

4) Changing

the mayor and deputy mayor of the town of Skadovsk being allegedly abducted by armed men
with

the mayor and deputy mayor of the town of Skadovsk abducted by armed men.
Source Radio Free Europe reports this as a fact, and it's also quite likely they were armed, so in principle I agree on dropping the "allegedly". However, "Radio Free Europe" is a controversial source [22] and consensus is that "particularly in geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate." So I suggest we find a second source to cross-reference this and only then we drop the "allegedly". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

5) Changing

"rapes, shootings and a senseless execution" had been alleged to have occurred in the village of Berestyanka near Kyiv

with

"rapes, shootings and a senseless execution" have occurred in the village of Berestyanka near Kyiv

In this case, the source itself uses the "alleged" terminology: "The ABC has gathered accounts of potential war crimes against civilians in the village — rapes, shootings and a senseless execution — allegedly carried out by Russian forces (...) The alleged atrocities add to mounting evidence of widespread war crimes in the Kyiv area". I'm wondering why MVBW and VM think they know better than the source they are quoting; or maybe they didn't read the source and they just happen to know that rapes took place and were done by the Russian? In any case I would retain the "alleged" here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

6) Changing On 25 March Reporters Without Borders alleged that Russian forces had threatened with "stated", and dropping the "alleged" in French President Emmanuel Macron described the alleged killings in the Ukrainian town of Bucha. I agree with these two changes: RWB said what they said, and in Bucha killings were not only alleged but independently documented and verified. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

One final remark. My fellow editors occasionally complain about my walls of text: they are right, sorry about that. But it's transparent here that it is not me who is WASTING lots of editors' time: removing an "alleged" here and there, occasionally misrepresenting sources and altering the meaning of the text, making false claims - this is poor editorial work and it takes an amount of time that could be spent more productively elsewhere. Our POV-pushers here are basically blocking the editorial work, and that's happening for no reason at all - NOTHING here is "the Voice of Russia", we're just summarising our usual reliable sources. So I urge interested editors and admins to please take care of the delicate editorial work being repeatedly disrupted in this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To put it simple, there is nothing "alleged" about war crimes committed in Bucha and many other places. Based on the coverage in most recent RS, there are no doubts that Russian military forces were responsible. And even looking at this relatively old (April 6) ABC publication [23], it is titled "The world was shocked by Russian atrocities in Bucha.". It says Russian atrocities in Bucha. Please do not misrepresent these crimes as "alleged". That is not how RS describe them.My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The whole line of argument that "we have to say 'alleged' unless there's a court verdict" is bad faithed bunk. Many of these instances never make it to trial, not because there's no evidence, but because international law is actually really weak. Look at the First Chechen War. Officially 80,000 (some estimates go much higher) civilians were murdered or killed in indiscriminate shelling. 10,000 of those actually children. Russia set up torture camps through which 1/5 of total Chechen population went through. Nobody absolutely nobody in their good faith doubts that there were massive war crimes committed there. So... where were the trials? A couple servicemen, some finger wagging from EU and some unenforceable verdicts with no consequences. What do you think's gonna happen here? We're an encyclopedia not a court. If reliable sources don't say "alleged" then we don't say "alleged". If reliable sources say Russia did it we say they did it instead of this weaselly "have been accused" nonsense. Volunteer Marek 00:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The perpetrators of war crimes are rarely punished. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we don't need a court verdict. A report by an international agency, a well-documented historical research by an authoritative scholar, multiple reliable sources concurring on a given point of fact would be enough for stating that point in Wikivoice. The problem here is that most of the RS we quote do say "alleged": see e.g. my point 5 here above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This simply isn’t true. Do you really believe that the Bucha massacre was only “allegedly” committed by Russian forces? Are you seriously arguing that most reliable sources weasel their reporting on Bucha by saying “allegedly”? Maybe they did when the news first broke, but still insisting on casting doubt on culpability at this point in time is pretty messed up. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that. Please, I ask you for the umpteenth time: don't put in my mouth words and concepts that I've never used. The Bucha massacre was committed by Russian forces, there's plenty of reliable sources on that. We should use Wikivoice as we're already doing both in the dedicated article and here: there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces of Ukrainian civilians. I myself added some contents on Bucha recently and I used Wikivoice: [24]. So please don't misrepresent and trivialize my argument. The point here is whether we know (i.e. multiple reliable sources report) that the naked women's bodies found near a highway 20 km outside of Kyiv and photographed by Mikhail Palinchak were killed by Russian soldiers. Simply put, the answer is "No", we don't know it for sure, and we need to use the "alleged" terminology here. For the time being we just have a photo, no eyewitness, nothing about the nationality and position of the perpetrators. Reliable sources say that in the area also mercenaries and paramilitary groups were active, such as the Wagner group [25] and the Chechen troops from the Special Rapid Response Force and another paramilitary riot-control force known as OMON, which is not under the direct control of the Russian army [26]. So "naked women under a blanket whose bodies were allegedly burned by Russian soldiers" is entirely appropriate here and it is also closer to the source ("Kyiv Independent") which says "According to the photographer Mikhail Palinchak, who took the photo on April 2, under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down" and "The photos appear to prove". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so if you do think that Bucha massacre, a war crime, was committed by Russian troops, and if sources say the same, why do you keep changing "committed" to "accused of"?

And regarding the naked women under the blanket whose body was burned, the source says: "under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down at the side of the road 20 kilometers away from Kyiv". There's no "alleged" there. There won't be any "alleged" here. Volunteer Marek 23:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, the discussion on the "alleged" and "accused of" terminology has been going on for sometime now, and there's no clear consensus neither for removing the alleged/accused from the lead nor for retaining them. Your edit summary here mentions the discussion at AN/I, but it seems to me that the only comment on the point there was contrary to using Wikivoice (User:Masem said that we should be careful on stating certain events as facts on Wikivoice until proven out through time). So maybe the only way forward is to create a RfC. Do you agree on this? We should concentrate on the lead section only and link both to RS that use direct language ("the Russians have carried out an indiscriminate attack") and to RS that use a more cautious, indirect language. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@User:Gitz6666 Your edit summary, in your revert where you continue edit warring (last time you made 3 reverts within 4 hours) The indication we got from ANI on this was to retain the "alleged" terminology is completely false. Here are relevant comments from ANI:

"I will not be suprised if this report ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG (against Gitz6666)" User:GizzyCatBella

"I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice" User:Iskandar323

"while they (Volunteer Marek) might be forthright in their opinions, their contributions could not be considered exceptional wrt civility or POV. I have found them to be generally acceptive of broader consensus." User:Cinderella157

"Yeh, Gitz666 has a POV here." User:My very best wishes

"I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here " User:Black Kite

"Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine" User:Only in death

" it was *back* on Gitz6666’s extremely consistent advocacy of a Russian narrative on every single detail, minimization of sexual misconduct, and attempts to include vague Russian allegations of Ukrainian misconduct. Gitz is aware that he does this and discussed on his used page with another editor how uncritically he felt that the Ukrainian narrative was being accepted" User:Elinruby

So. That's seven editors right there telling you're in the wrong here.

You picked out ONE comment, by User:Masem, who's not even agreeing with you but making an entirely different point!!! (not including every detail and observing WP:NOTNEWS

You. Are. Simply. Not. Listening.

Yet. You. Continue. Edit. Warring.

This couldn't be any clearer/

Volunteer Marek 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

With the exception of Iskandar323, none of the comments you shared deals with the "alleged vs Wikivoice" issue. Masem on the contrary was dealing with that: the issue we're presently discussing here, which is not about me or you being pov-pushers. I'm sure you understand this and you could stay on topic if you so wish. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

They are all commenting on your edits here generally. You know what WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is usually coupled with? WP:WIKILAWYER. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Article scope

Can we change this article to something like "Alleged Russian War crimes in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine"? At present, there is little or no literature that discusses war crimes by both sides, hence there is a notability issue. That would not preclude us from having an article about Ukrainian war crimes, provided it was a notable topic, which at present it is not.

Also, per WP:BLPCRIME, we are not supposed to determine whether living persons have committed crimes, but should leave that to the courts. As soon as reliable sources determine that at least some of the allegations have been proved, we can remove alleged.

TFD (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

We could change it to "Russian War crimes in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine". No freakin' way we're sticking "alleged" in the title. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's irrelevant here. This policy is about a specific person (like "Petrov") who is not a public figure. If RS say that Russian forces committed war crime X, so should we.My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a novel argument: only armies can commit war crimes, not individuals. That defense was not accepted at Nuremburg, but if you have any evidence it has been overturned, I would like to see it. TFD (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Responsibility for war crimes is individual, not collective. Jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court, under the Rome Statute, is related to national citizenship of the suspect(s) and the victim(s), and the place of the event. But for criminal responsibility, see 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, such as ... (bold added). If the responsibility can be proved to go high enough up the chain of command to commander X, then that individual commander X is charged with a war crime, not the military unit that s/he is responsible for as a whole.

As for the proposal itself, I see no point in excluding war crimes by Ukrainians. So far there are very few reports on these, so there's no need for a WP:SPLIT based on the suspected perpetrators. (Other ideas for splits might be needed soon.) The fact that the overwhelming majority are by Russian forces does not mean that we need to insert that into the title: it's unnecessary and would give the impression of introducing POV by limiting the scope of the article. Boud (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason to exclude them is that most if not all the literature so far is about Russian war crimes: "Ukraine opens more investigations into possible Russian war crimes" (Thomson Reuters), "What is a war crime and could Putin be prosecuted over Ukraine?" (BBC), "Ukraine reports 15,000 suspected war crimes" "Ukraine: Apparent War Crimes in Russia-Controlled Areas" (Human Rights Watch).

That btw is the approach reliable sources take on WW2 crimes. Sources don't write about Allied and Axis war crimes together. If you do that, there is an implicit comparison. That's fine, but only so long as the comparison is explicitly related. Imagine for example a book called Nazi and American war crimes in WWII.

There are several potential reasons there are more reported Russian war crimes than Ukrainian and a neutral article would explain the reasons and their degree of support in reliable sources, otherwise it POV.

TFD (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

i think it would be kind of strange to put "*ALLEGED RUSSIAN* war crimes", especially because some war crimes arent alleged, and, not all of them were commited by the russian army. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

All Russian war crimes are committed by Russian soldiers or their superiors by definition. "Alleged" means not proved. In most countries guilt is determined by courts after which, provided it was fair, reliable sources accept it as proved. So for example a recent Thomson-Reuters article says, "Ukraine opens more investigations into possible Russian war crimes." That's just the way that accusations of crimes are reported in respected sources that maintain at least a neutral tone. Once the cases have been concluded to the satisfaction of mainstream sources, they will be described as actual war crimes. TFD (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I've raised a WP:MOS talk page discussion about the distinction between 'alleged' and 'accused' in MOS:ALLEGED, which I think bungles the linguistic distinction. But if you look at the Oxford dictionary definitions for these, a key distinction is that 'alleged' carries the aspersion of their being no proof, unlike accused, which merely reflects accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. As a non-native English speaker, I'm not aware of the nuances. What about "reportedly"? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I imagine that by Wikipedia standards, 'reportedly' could be viewed as falling into the same slightly weasel-y way, but in general usage it can be used to assert that information has been reported, without any particular presumption of veracity or falsehood - in that sense it is fairly neutral. Best if supported by reliable sources though. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I'm now thinking about having a RfC on this is that we have both RS using direct/observational language ("The Russians did that") and RS using indirect or cautious language ("it's likely/apparently/allegedly" etc.). If we were to maintain the latter we would need an adverb that doesn't cast any shade of doubt on the allegation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Absent consensus, quite possibly necessary. Such cases exemplify why a wider review of the MOS:ALLEGED guidelines might be good. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

What about something like "Human rights organisations and international agencies reported that the Russian army..."? Do you think that that, while avoiding the use of Wikivoice, also prevents any implications of falsehood or lack of evidence? If so, I may use this formulation either for a RfC or for an edit which hopefully might encounter consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• On this page we mostly just describe the war crimes themselves that had happen, and mass murder of civilians and rapes by military forces are obviously war crimes. However, in almost all cases the exact pepetrators (like Ivanov, Petrov, etc.) are simply unknown. I think what we did here so far is a reasonable approach. The WP:BLPCRIME is only relevant for cases when there are specific perpetrators, accused or convicted (Ivanov, Petrov, etc.) There are few such cases here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with MVBW here above. Even if we cannot pinpoint the perpetrators, there are lots of war crimes we can describe in a verifiable way (by the way, amongst them there's also the missile in Donetsk: the perpetrators are unknown, but still we have plenty of reliable sources saying that that has happened, civilians were killed, and it amounts to a war crime). So there's no need of adding an "alleged" to the title of this article. When reliable sources say or imply that it is doubtful, albeit possible, that something amounts to a war crime, we can signal it using the "alleged" terminology.
  

  Re scope of this article, I would change its title to "International crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". That title would justify having a section on genocide. Moreover, we could have a section on the crime of aggression. However, if we decide to keep the existing title, then IMHO the section on genocide is not justifiable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  The first sentence of war crime currently gives genocide as an example of a war crime. While genocide can occur in a non-war situation (such as the ongoing Uyghur genocide), the current case is clearly in the context of a war situation, in which case the war crimes component of genocide is a significant part of the genocide. This has come up earlier on this talk page, with Buidhe's comment here: As for the international law issues, yes, technically courts charge crime of aggression, crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes as separate counts. But the articles "war crimes in X war" on Wikipedia invariably cover all serious violations of the law of armed conflict or international criminal law that occurred during the war, including all the above as are applicable to the conflict. It seems to me that this broader definition makes more sense for us encyclopedia writers because it is more intuitive for readers and real events can violate multiple categories of international law. In any case, we only have one short section+paragraph on genocide, so I don't see why that section+paragraph and would have to be removed with the current title. Boud (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

NATO Propaganda

The article praised the Ukrainian state and the government of Volodymyr Zelensky. It dismissed the presence of far-right and fascistic forces in the Ukrainian state apparatus and the army as nothing more than a “myth”. Ukraine demanded in practice that US/NATO engage in direct military confrontation with Russia, likely provoke a nuclear war. It would be nice if the Wiki were independent and less biased. We should stop believing that just because the American intelligence service and all the mainstream media declare that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is true. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Which text are you specifically referring to? Zelensky is mentioned TWO times in the text and neither one "praises" him. There is no text here "praising" the Ukrainian state. There's no text which "dismisses the presence of far-right and fascistic forces"/

If you're gonna come to an article in order to push a particular POV it helps if you actually bother reading it first, otherwise the WP:ADVOCACY and the WP:NOTHERE are kind of obvious. Volunteer Marek 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The very tiny presence of far-right forces in the Ukrainian military is not significant.

Relying on Russian state-controlled media for information about Ukraine is a real mistake.

The extreme-Marxist Left in Europe makes this mistake quite often.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 02:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an English language Wikipedia, so not 'OTAN' but 'NATO'.

Does 'praised' mean that it does not any more?

Ukraine fights so it demands. NATO countries decide what to do.

Russia also demanded and demands, an example "The demands include a ban on Ukraine entering Nato and a limit to the deployment of troops and weapons to Nato's eastern flank" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato

Russia terrorizes the world with nuclear weapons.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

The Russian state is authoritarian, close to totalitarian. Russian state ideology is far-right and fascist. President Zelenskyy has Jewish roots, is a Russian speaker from Eastern Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe that The Guardian is pro-American? French and German media? Name them.Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is so biased that the description in the first photo has been twisted to make Russia mean. Anyone can follow the image link and find that the "true" description of the image is: Video published by the National News Agency of Ukraine reportedly showing Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers. The Wikipedia editor here decided to describe as: "Bodies of civilians shot by Russian soldiers, lie on a street in Bucha. The hands of one of them are tied behind their back. 3 April 2022". Ridiculous! Not even the National News Agency of Ukraine had had the courage to be such a yes-man for Ukrainian propaganda and biased the this article is. Shame! Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 02:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You have not answered any of my points. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the Bucha massacre, please do it there. The words you quote were written in April. There are many documents supporting Russian responsibility. This discussion reminds me Holocaust denial, perhaps Denial of Russian crimes in Ukraine should be written?. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

OH! I got it! You mean to said that if the misleading "words quoted were written in April", in June they are no longer misleading! Wikipeadia is a place that giving the wrong idea or impression is OK after 3 months. Ridiculous. It, in my opinion be corrected now. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 17:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A Rusian Professor Sergei Medvedev (writer) https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/etwas-archaisch-boeses-russland-und-seine-gewaltkultur-ld.1688815 "In der russischen Armee existieren keinerlei Schutzmechanismen gegen ungerechtfertigte, willkürliche Gewalt." No mechanisms against unjistified violence in Russian army. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

So what? Medvedev said that! But the other Medvedev, Dmitry Medvedev claims that the images released in Bucha are “fakes” of “false propaganda” from Western Ukraine. I would wait for an International Criminal Court's inquiry into potential war crimes, but Wikipedia editors know better looking into propaganda and crystal balls. Article like this one destroy Wikipedia's credibility. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Carl Bildt, 419 executions have been documented. https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1539532331261861890 Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting! You should go to NATO's article DP and inform them that publishing NATO or OTAN as North Atlantic Treaty Organization abbreviation is a mistake. Tell them that "This is an English language Wikipedia, so not 'OTAN' but 'NATO'." In time, also inform that we, Americans will not accept this kind of abbreviation! USA does not like it! American for the Americans! Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 18:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Iam sorry I do not understand you. NATO is not American only, it has many mebers. BTW this is not a Forum.Xx236 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/1 , and: “… likely provoke nuclear war…”, in your words no difference with conspirology because you need to argue that Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)