Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

one missile falls on Donetsk

One missile falls on Donetsk, which *may* (it's disputed) have been launched by Ukrainians and we make an article about it and put it in this article as, supposedly, a "war crime".

Meanwhile, Russia fires literally tens of thousands of missiles on Ukrainian cities which kill literally thousands of civilians and which literally erase some of these cities from the face of the earth.

But we absolutely must have an article and text in this article about THAT ONE maybe-Ukrainian missile!!!!!! Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!").

So why is that stuff REALLY here? Simple, because it was a big propaganda push on pro-Russian social media so someone scraped together some borderline sourcing and crammed it in here. There have been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article - and Wikipedia as a whole - into some kind of pro-Russian social media fork / OSINT aggregator. Even putting the inherent POV in this endeavor, that's simply not what an encyclopedia is.

I'm removing this info as it's very obviously very UNDUE. If we were being honest here we'd have text on every single one of those tens of thousands missiles fired on civilian targets by Russia. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

1. One missile falls on Donetsk ... and we make an article about it" No, it was not "we" editors of Wikipedia who made the article, it was first The Guardian (here) plus other news outlets that also qualify as WP:RS. Then some fellow editor (not me) took their time and effort to write down a few contents probably because they thought the incident (alleged indiscriminate attack with more than 20 civilian casualties) was verifiable and notable enough to be included in the article: I agree with them.
2. There's no point in saying that they scraped together some borderline sourcing and crammed it in here - the sources look good to me, much better than other pieces of war propaganda that are constantly pushed into this article.
3. Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!") ... There have been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article ... If we were being honest here ... This way of attributing mean intentions to fellow users is annoying - we have policies and guidelines (WP:CIV, WP:GF) that protect us from this.
4. On the merit: are these contents WP:undue? We have almost 20 subsections dealing with indiscriminate attacks, some of them with relatively small casualties (Mariupol hospital, 4; Irpin, 8; Odessa, 8). Now you select one bombing that killed 23 people and say that it needs to go because the Ukrainian army might have done it... I'm not persuaded. This incident received good media coverage, and I don't think you can strike the balance based on the kind of arguments you provided.
5. I've restored the section until a consensus for removal is reached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't get it, Volunteer Marek, are you saying that Ukrainian war crimes don't count because Russia did more? War crimes are war crimes, Marek. I doubt the people affected by the missile will be ok with it if you tell them that it was only one missile and that Russia is launching more. AdrianHObradors (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying a Russian false flag attack isn't a "Ukrainian war crime". I'm saying that cherry picking a single incident when there's literally tens of thousands of ones like it is UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This event has been covered by RS such as The Guardian and HRW so it clearly satisfies the notability criteria.

However, it was hardly the first attack on Donetsk in which civilians were killed, if anything they appear to have intensified recently. We should have a section about all of them here. Naturally the sourcing is complicated as the Western media are not present in Donetsk whereas the Russian media have their own bias and reliability issues. But this should not make us ignore what is happening there - in addition to just being plain wrong it would also be a violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 09:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Russian media have their own bias and reliability issues" . . . as in they have zero reliability. Question -- does the sourcing include a reliable source which characterizes this as a war crime? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are talking about the specific incident in March, then are two versions of what happened: a strike by a Ukrainian missile or a Russian false flag attack (either a missile or some kind of IED). However, both sides call it a war crime: Russia, Ukraine. Alaexis_¿question? 13:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A single missile striking the city centre is more clearly a war crime than a coordinated and prolonged bombing: in fact, it's very difficult to come up with a military reason that could justify it. Anyway, sources rule on this, so there's no need to speculate about it.
Re "false flag attack", however, I'm not at all sure about the source. Both the Guardian and Reuters say "Ukrainian military spokesman Leonid Matyukhin"; Ukrainska Pravda speaks about "Analysis of the founder of the Conflict Intelligence Team Ruslan Leviev", and indeed on youtube there's this video, which we quote. But I couldn't find any written and well-documented analysis on this, nothing on their website, nothing that looks even remotely as a reliable source: just an interview to Ruslan Leviev on youtube. Is he reliable? is he independent? I remember @Volunteer Marek making this point very convincingly in a discussion about Kramatorsk railway station attack: we need "MULTIPLE serious reliable sources", they cried, before publishing something so ludicrous as an army voluntarily bombing its own territory. I agree with them and I think we should drop altogether the reference to "An analyst from the Conflict Intelligence Team, an independent investigative organization". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim is not WP:EXTRAORDINARY when the country involved is Russia. See Russian apartment bombings, in particular the sentence "Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at the Guardian Source here. In the first four paragraphs, it makes it very clear that it's disputed as to who did this. This discussion could do with a link to the disputed section. IF it is to be included, it needs to be contextualized in terms of each side accused the other, Russia has a history of making false flag attacks on its "own" people, and so on. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, speaking of contextualisation, Ukraine has a history of shelling Donetsk as well. I'm a bit surprised by this approach - I mean clearly Russia is responsible for the lion's share of the crimes but it would be a very unusual war if one side never committed any crimes. Alaexis_¿question? 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I was responding to the assertion above by Gitz that the idea of an army voluntarily bombing its own territory is ludicrous. With most armies, I would agree. But Russia has a history of doing exactly that. Therefore, in their case, the claim is not ludicrous, or WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Obviously, in a war, an attack on either side's territory might have come from the other side. As a general matter, that's not unusual. What is unusual is a country that has a history of indiscriminate bombings against its own people. That's why the contextualization is needed here. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a big crime no matter who fired the missile. Cluster munitions hit civilians and killed more than twenty.Just Prancing (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

And here we go with barely-ten-edits WP:SPA accounts showing up again to pretend there's "consensus" for one version (which happens to be the highly POV one). Volunteer Marek 21:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There are two problems here: (a) we can not include every single incident to this page (and that one is not hugely notable based on coverage in RS), and (b) we do not even know for sure who was the perpetrator (most probably Russian or DNR forces, of course). Without knowing all details, we can not even say what it actually was, and if it was a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes (a) We have 17 incidents that likely qualify as indiscriminate attack in this article: see section War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Areas_hit_by_indiscriminate_attacks. As you'll see, most of them are "single incidents" and some of them had much smaller casualties than this one. Besides, the fact that this was "just" one single missile makes it even more clearly a war crime from the viewpoint of IHL: it's very difficult to come up with any military object or military reason that in principle could justify this attack with civilian casualties. Finally, in terms of coverage we have Reuters and The Guardian, as you know, but there's also Euronews, Il fatto quotidiano, La Repubblica, Le figaro, Le Perisien, and others.
(b) The fact that we don't know who the perpetrators are obviously doesn't imply that this is not a war crime. You say Without knowing all details, we can not even say what it actually was, and if it was a war crime, but that's not correct: we don't know anything, we just report what reliable sources say, and RS say that this might qualify as a war crime (which by the way is pretty obvious and not controversial under the circumstances). Note that international agencies, human rights organisations and independent journalists have reported that separatist-controlled Donetsk has repeatedly been the object of indiscriminate attacks since 2014 (e.g., 2014 Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine). So when you say most probably Russian or DNR forces, of course, that's just baseless bias. I think that our discussion would be more transparent and honest if you and Volunteer Marek were to openly acknowledge that the reason you want this section removed is that the attack was most likely carried out by Ukrainian forces. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Changing my stance on this from undecided to Delete per a combination of reasons. First, there is WP:ONUS. There is discussion of a "consensus to remove" in the edit history, but that's not how it works. We would need a consensus to include. Editors ought to know that. Second, the sources mentioned by User:Gitz6666 do not say who fired the missile. Many of them do report on what Russia-backed people say. But that doesn't tell us anything about what actually happened. Lastly, I agree that this was, in the scheme of things, a minor event. The sources mentioned by Gitz above are decent sources, but they are not first-class sources, and the coverage simply isn't that broad. So we are left with an event with moderate sourcing that does not actually tell us who fired the missile. "It happened in wartime, and it's disputed" is not exactly Earth-shattering information. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

After only one hour since the page protection was removed, @Adoring nanny removed the section that's been one of the causes of the recent edit war. In terms of arguments and reasons, we've all expressed our views (although I don't see how the argument "sources do not say who fired the missile" is relevant here: whoever the perpetrators are, this is a war crime, and sources say so). In terms of consensus, I see that @Volunteer Marek, @My very best wishes and Adoring Nanny argued for removing the section, while @Alaexis, @AdrianHObradors and myself argued for inclusion. The section has been here since 23 March; in the last three months, it has been edited by multiple fellow users. So it's not clear to me where consensus lies. I ping @Alex Bakharev who might help us to see more clearly on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also pinging other editors who have expressed views on the recent edit war: @Ilenart626, @GizzyCatBella, @Boud, @The Four Deuces, @Xx236. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS those who wish to INCLUDE need to get consensus. In other controversial areas, such as American Politics, there's a restriction that if controversial material has been challenged through removal it cannot be restored without consensus. And in this particular case no one on the "include" side has really managed to offer a decent reason for why this isn't UNDUE. All we get is "there's some sources about it" (yes, but that's a MINIMUM requirement) or "we have to include some Ukrainian war crimes" (it's not even clear who shot the missile, and actually that's not how it works).

I think it's time you either establish consensus for inclusion (perhaps start an RfC) or stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Le Figaro shows a photo that is apparently undisputed as a photo of a missile that landed in Donetsk; it says that according to both the RU and UA sides the event occurred, killing civilians in a densely populated urban zone with no obvious military targets; the only dispute is which side fired the missile. Other sources appear to agree: it's a war crime, probably by RU, but possibly by UA, and the evidence of which side did it needs NPOVing. It's still a war crime if RU did it. It should be included. Boud (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Re the latest removal, WP:ONUS does require consensus but consensus doesn't mean that some editors can simply veto any changes they don't like. This strike has been reported by multiple high-quality sources like the Guardian, Reuters and Le Figaro. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are following the developments. HRW include it in the list of attacks using cluster munitions - alongside the strikes on Chernihiv, Mykolaiv and Kharkiv which are (justly) mentioned in this article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

On 25 June Adoring nanny removed the section [1] and explained deleting per WP:ONUS. See talk for a fuller explanation. In this thread, also Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes argued for removing the section. However, AdrianHObradors, Alaexis, Boud, Just Prancing and myself argued for retaining the section.
The section has been in the article since late March, and I'm not sure if WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content") applies here or rather WP:NOCON ("In discussions of proposals to ... remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit").
Any views on this point? Should we open a RfC or should we rather restore the text and leave it to those who want to remove the section to open a RfC, if they are so inclined? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That was good removal discussed on this page; there is little coverage at this point. If more will be published on this incident, it might be included in a future. My very best wishes (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's do an RfC. Do you want to draft one? I could do it a bit later. Alaexis_¿question? 11:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could take care of this. Honestly I've already too much going on at AN/I to be able to draft an RfC! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Targeting of nuclear power plants

Based on the criterion "we need a RS qualifying the incident as a war crime" (otherwise it's WP:OR), this section must be dropped (unfortunately: I would like to keep it). In fact, the incident has been discussed extensively (even at the Security Council) and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv had tweeted "It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant", but the only reliable and independent source discussing the legal point (this) concludes that "It is less likely that the operation satisfied the threshold for the associated war crime, as articulated in article 85(3)(c). Given that there was in fact no radioactive leak and that there seems to have been relatively little collateral damage, it does not appear that those who engaged in the attack would have known at the time that excessive civilian loss would arise from it". So we need a reliable sources (not the US Embassy) claiming that that was a war crime, because the only RS we have on the point says that it wasn't actually. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, here is RS that say it [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is an in passing reference that doesn't outbalance a scholarly article, written by a legal expert, entirely devoted to the topic of the legitimacy of targeting nuclear plants: that article said it doesn't amount to war crime, so unless you find an equally reliable source, this is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and most importantly doesn't count as reliable source as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see my reply above [3]. RS provided. Your source is not particularly assertive ("it is less likely"), and it also discusses it as a possible/alleged war crime. Here is a citation from your RS: The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv tweeted, “It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant.” So whatever these different RS have to say on the subject of shelling the nuclear plant being a possible war crime need to be summarized and included to this page. Given the huge coverage and significance of this incident in RS, that absolutely must be included. This is not a video of doubtful origin. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get it - are you claiming that a tweet from the US Embassy in Kyiv is a reliable source? Because here, once we've adopted your strict notion of verifiable war crime, we need reliable sources, not tweets by ambassadors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I am saying that your source [4] is an RS. That is where the info about the Embassy appears, and it does not matter how the Embassy (or whoever) communicated their claim. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion of the incident as a possible "war crime" is notable and appears in multiple RS (e.g. [5]), which justifies its inclusion to the page as a possible "war crime" during this war. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think this is a crystal clear case that must be included to the page per coverage in RS. These RS (including one in the beginning of the thread [6], PBS, CBS and others) extensively and explicitly discuss if the incident was (or could be) a "war crime". Hence belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Is the first source you mention the one that explicitly rules out that the attack was a war crime? how can we build upon that basis an argument for inclusion? I didn't check PBS, but CBS merely reports the tweet by US Embassy in Kyiv; apart the tweet of the US Embassy, no one called this a war crime, not even the "Lieber Institute for Law & Land Warfare at West Point", which explicitly excluded that. So I think we need to find a criterion for inclusion different from "RS labelling as a war crime". But maybe in the thread "On the object of this article" IP 187.39 has just had an idea for solving the issue. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... You just said this content should be included in your opinion [7], and now you argue it should not? My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be included based on my preferred criterion - war crimes lato sensu; it should be excluded based on the criterion you'd like us to follow - war crimes stricto sensu. As that criterion of yours succeeded in blocking new sections on Russian supporters and migrants, I reluctantly embraced it, as NPOV dictates, and therefore I'm now arguing that valuable contents that qualify only as war crime lato sensu, such as this one (a mere violation of IHL), need to go. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Calling the takeover of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant a war crime is a stretch. Yes the Kiev US embassy called it a war crime, however this was retracted by the US State Department and the analysis by Lieber Institute West Point said it as probably not a war crime. However I would support keeping it in this article as there is a lot of miss information still being reported. We could reduce the size of this section with some of the details transferred to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant article and amend the current "See also" link (now going to "Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast"?) to point directly to this updated section. Happy to do this if we have consensus Ilenart626 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There's also Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants. I mean, if the stricto sensu approach prevails, then NPOV demands that it is consistently applied throughout the article, and we need to find a proper venue for the undoubtedly notable and good-quality contents of the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Did not see that one, yes that could be expanded with this info Ilenart626 (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As per my comment above in "On the subject of this article, and ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals" now support removing this section from this article and tranfer to another article, probably expand Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I see a couple of edits have now been done. Note that the facts of what happened has now been established by the NPR Video Analysis report, which means some of the uncertainties in the international scholars' reports have been cleared up. For example, Russia's allegations that Ukrainian forces initiated the action by firing anti tank missiles has been confirmed, as per this quote from the NPR report:

"Just before 11:30 p.m. local time, someone began livestreaming the plant's security footage on its YouTube channel. The livestream rolled on as Russian forces began a slow and methodical advance on the plant. The column of armored vehicles, led by the tanks, used spotlights to cautiously approach the plant from the southeast along the main service road to the facility. Around an hour and 20 minutes later, one of the two tanks that led the column was struck by a missile from Ukrainian forces and was disabled. That marked the beginning of a fierce firefight that lasted for roughly two hours at the plant." Ilenart626 (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

But then this needs to be stated clearly. Either we quote that source immediately after "Had the Ukrainian forces initiated the action ...", or we drop the "as alleged by the Russian army" and write "As the Ukrainian forces initiated the action ... that might have breached...". As the second option might be questionable because of WP:SYNTH, I'd go for the first one and I'm now modifying the article accordingly. If anybody doesn't agree, I'd suggest we restore the original formulation ("Ukrainian forces initiating the action by firing anti tank missiles may have breached the Passive Precautions section of Article 56, paragraph 5") which is perhaps more simple, short and entirely correct. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that the discussions we've had (not only here above but also elsewhere in the talk) came to a somewhat paradoxical "nonconclusion". On the one hand, most of the editors (including @Volunteer Marek, possibly with the sole exception of @My very best wishes) agree that we don't have enough reliable sources qualifying what happened as a war crime. We could even say it openly: the attack to the nuclear plants was not a war crime. On the other hand other editors - including myself and perhaps including @AdrianHObradors and @Ilenart626 - feel that it would be a pity to drop the whole section: we think (or at least, I think) that this is the kind of information that someone interested in "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion" could be eager to know. So what do we do? I see three options.

1) Rigorist approach: we stick to our "stricto sensu" and "strict verifiability" approach. The section goes away, no matter what.

2) Cherry picking/ad hoc approach: who gives a damn? let's WP:IGNORE our criteria and the section stays as we want it to stay; this is just an ad hoc exception to otherwise undefeatable criteria for inclusion.

3) Adjust the criteria for inclusion so as to get to a reflective equilibrium between the criteria and the contents we feel should remain. E.g.: not only "stricto sensu" (legally determined) war crimes but also any serious violation of international humanitarian law and/or serious violation of human rights connected to the war (my preferred solution); or "loose verifiability" (a not independent, non reliable source alleging that something might "possibly" be a war crime suffices for inclusion - this might be the stance taken by MVBW in the above discussion). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gitz, I couldn't have expressed it better. I am with you on that regard. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Would also support what Gitz is saying, so would would include in this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

For some reasons which I don't fully understand (possibly because they were never explained) this edit by My very best wishes [8] (which later became this edit by Volunteer Marek [9] and then this edit by Shadybabs [10]) removed some contents from the section on targeting of nuclear power plants. Instead of restoring the text, as I was about to do [11], I think that maybe we should drop the whole section. As the discussion we've had clearly shows, here there are no allegations of war crime: the attack was a violation of IHL that doesn't amount to a war crime, according to the RS we quote. Therefore I'm inclined to remove the whole section. Any opinion on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian authorities and armed forces have been accused of committing war crimes

I do not accept such biased language. Some day it will be "Russian authorities and armed forces have been accused of committing alleged war crimes in alleged Ukraine".Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Then take your complaint to the policy pages. Articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Do the RS say "Russian authorities and armed forces have been accused" and never "Russian authorities and armed forces have committed crimes"? Creative quoting of RS is manipulation. We have RS about Geocentric model, eg. Plato and Aristotle, but we reject the model. The problem is the timing. The same phrase may be acceptable in 2021, controversial in February 202 and dumb today.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think now that the article has received more attention, it’s pretty clear that this POV over-the-top over usage of “alleged” when referring to Russian war crimes has absolutely no consensus. Volunteer Marek 00:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've proven that the two proposed edits have factual and editorial mistakes, and also grammar mistakes (here above, thread All Russian war crimes are only "alleged"). IMHO the only two "alleged" we should remove are "Reporters Without Borders alleged that Russian forces had threatened" and "French President Emmanuel Macron described the alleged killings in the Ukrainian town of Bucha" (here above N. 6). Perhaps we might also drop the first "alleged" in the lead ("allegedly exposed the civilian population") but frankly I don't think that would be an improvement: ascertaining if an attack is indiscriminate and/or disproportionate requires an assessment of military necessities that neither AI nor HRW are in the position to make; what AI and HRW do is to allege, claim, declare, denounce, etc., that something is an indiscriminate attack. Anyway, even if we were to drop that "allegedly" in the lead we should refrain from rephrasing the sentence in the way you proposed as that would introduce a factual mistake (here above N. 1). All the other proposed changes (Donetsk missile included) are pejorative, POV, and not supported by sources nor consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we're in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Volunteer Marek 23:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, sure, I agree with Xx236. As our page "War crimes" correctly tells (and this is referenced to a scholarly RS), A war crime is a violation of the laws of war ... such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, the conscription of children in the military, committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender.... Almost everything currently described on the page are very real war crimes as a matter of fact. They are not just "accusations", and few of them have been "alleged". My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indiscriminate attacks on Donetsk People's Republic

@My very best wishes you removed not only the section on the missile in Donetsk [12] but also the new section on the Maisky Market attack [13]. With regard to the former, the section has been here since end-March so (unless I'm mistaken) it is you who should get a consensus for removing it from the article as per WP:NOCON. Many editors asked you not to remove the section. With regard to the second section, the one on Maisky Market, there WP:ONUS applies and I'm the one who needs to find consensus for inclusion. Could you tell me why you think that that is not a notable attack? I'm afraid that the removal of all the indiscriminate attacks on DPR is politically motivated and incompatible with WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

First one was debated already on this page [14]. I do not see consensus. You included the section about Maisky Market attack a day ago: [15]. It is not even clear if this attack had happen at all; this is just a single claim by DNR rebels. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As about the missile attack in Donetsk, I could agree with you if (a) you provide a couple of RS saying that was a war crime, and (b) these RS say assertively who was the perpetrator. To my knowledge, the most recent strong RS [16] describe this as a propaganda stunt and a probable false flag attack. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

At least another editor has already pointed to you that it's not at all clear why the information on the identity of the perpetrators is necessary in order to publish. By the way, the information you're actually asking for is not about who the perpetrators are (we never know), it's about their nationality and/or the party they are fighting for. Which proves that your approach to war crimes is entirely political: it's a matter of distributing scores between fighting parties. But that can't be the approach of a Wikipedia article: we're interested in what happened (a war crime?) to whom (are there any victims?) and the information on who did it, while valuable, is not indispensable. Finally, the notion that we need "a couple" of RS is another fabrication of yours with no grounding in WP policy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I am just saying that too little was published about this incident and too little is known about it to be included on this already very long page. Or, in other words, according to the article in WaPo (linked above), this is just a minor episode in Russian war of propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree on using WoPo, but we shouldn't rephrase or interpret what they say. They say: "Ruslan Leviev, founder of a Russian analytical group that uses open-source data to track military activities, said photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted." That's it. They don't say he was right, they don't say he was wrong. With regard to the responsibility for the attack, all they say is what we were saying in the section you removed: "Russia and its separatist proxies blamed the attack on a Ukrainian Tochka-U missile they said was intercepted, but Ukraine said it was a Russian missile." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

May I ask what is your approach to the war? If you speculate on Mvbw one, please declare yours. Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"As consequence of the conflict, large swathes of the Donbas region, on both sides of the "contact line", have become contaminated with landmines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW). According to the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine, in 2020 Ukraine was of one of the most mine-affected countries in the world, with nearly 1,200 mine/ERW casualties since the beginning of the conflict in 2014. A report by UNICEF released in December 2019 said that 172 children had been injured or killed due to landmines and other explosives, over 750 educational facilities had been damaged or destroyed, and 430,000 children lived with psychological traumas associated with war."

A very good text describing Russian responsibility. The numbers are obviously obsolete. Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Xx236. Did you know that it was actually me who wrote that piece on landmines or did you pick it up randomly? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Et voilà [17]. It's a bit off topic, but thank you anyway for the appreciation Xx236. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I know, I copy your accusations to better understand your pro-Russian motivation. It was Russia who totally destroied Donbas, expelled , murdered or imprisoned local people. The pre-2014 tensions look like eden to the contemporary vicitms. Russia attacked Ukraine using many false-flag operations, Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War), FSB and other formations officers. Russia refused to cooperate during Minsk format talks. Russia invided in 2022 without any rational reason, making the NATO stronger, suspending NS2. Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

i've no pro-Russian motivation and I've always edited here and elsewhere without paying the slightest attention to the Russian/Ukrainian divide. Honestly this is not my war, otherwise I wouldn't be editing here. But if you think differently and want to discuss my motivations and allegiances, the right place is the thread now open at WP:AN/I. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You do not comment your old text. Is my interpretation (that you criticized Russia) correct? Or maybe you criticized Ukraine and now the context has changed? Xx236 (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So you are not aware of pro-Russian tone of your opinions and you provoke people inadevertendly? Will this Wikipedia be better without VM? It will be more biased, yes. Xx236 (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In regard to Maisky Market, it seems to me we are far from having sufficient sourcing. What we have is some sourcing saying that pro-Russian officials said that an attack took place. That's not the same thing. For example, the headline "Maisky market attack" is misleading. What we have is a claim by pro-Russian officials that there was an attack. Not only that, the sourcing of the pro-Russian claim is itself only moderately good. Hence this material is far from sufficient for inclusion. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that Newsweek, Euronews and Reuters (plus video) are good enough sources. Admittedly there are many "unknowns", but DPR authorities called the incident a war crime ("terrorist attack"), which is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim given that a market is a civilian object, there are civilian casualties and no discernible military target - so this looks either as a deliberate attack on civilians or as an indiscriminate attack. A few lines on the incident should be included in a newly created section "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks">"Donetsk People's Republic" (now removed). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"DPR authorities" are Russian puppets. Let's not create false reality. Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple problems here. First of all, those are mid-level sources. Conspicuously absent from your list are NYT, BBC, Al Jazeera, or similar. But secondly, you cannot change "DNR officials said X" into "X". They are different statements. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

1. I suspect there are a handful of Western journalists, if any, in DPR now, which means that what happens there necessarily gets a scarce coverage from our WP:RS here. But that's not a reason for sweeping under the carpet the small coverage that we get. Based on the sources we have, we can write with verifiable accuracy that On 13 June 2022, an artillery attack reportedly hit a marketplace in Donetsk, capital of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic. The attack happened at the Maisky Market in the central part of the city, starting a large fire. The pro-Russian Donetsk News Agency claimed the munitions used were "155-mm-calibre NATO-standard artillery munitions." Five civilians were killed, including a child, and at least 22 were left injured.
2. As far as I know allegations of war crimes, as opposed to independently verified and documented war crimes, have always sufficed for the purposes of inclusion in this article. Remember that (for some reason that I cannot understand) we are still reporting the unverifiable and highly dubious allegations of sex crimes involving children by former ombudsperson Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

   "I suspect there are a handful of Western journalists, if any, in DPR now" This is Russian information war. Shall we help Russian propaganda in the name of neutrality? Let they allow professional journalists into DPR. Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, the sourcing of that one is a lot better. NYT and BBC and lots of others versus Newsweek and EuroNews. This is not a close question. Also note the appropriate way in which we follow the sources. We say "the prosecutor said X." That's exactly what the sources say. We do not, as your previous section did, change hearsay of X into a claim of X itself. Lastly, even if you disagree with the inclusion of the prosecutor's statement, the answer is not to go pushing some considerably-worse-sourced allegation from the other side. Doing it with a misleading title makes it that much worse. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The source of Denisova's allegations is not NYT and BBC: the source is Denisova herslef (and the telephone helpline service she organised); NYT and BBC were merely reporting what she said, like Reuters and others are now reporting what the DPR authorities said. And Denisova is not a WP:RS, so when she says "a baby was raped with a tea spoon" (as she did) we shouldn't write that in our article unless that extraordinary claim is confirmed by independent sources. Here the situation is different. We are not saying "a war crime was committed!" (with wikivoice); we have never done that for any indiscriminate attack. We are just saying: "a bombing happened, civilians died, and X claims that this is a crime" (which, given the circumstances, is not an extraordinary claim). It's identical to what we've done several times before in many sections on indiscriminate attacks, and it's something that we can do with verifiable accuracy because we have enough reliable sources on that (Reuters, etc.). With regard to even if you disagree with the inclusion of the prosecutor's statement, the answer is not to go pushing some considerably-worse-sourced allegation, I'm afraid you are misrepresenting what I'm doing, and Denisova is not a prosecutor but was an ombudsperson. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Edits to the Lede

I don't want to do too much to the lede because I don't edit this page often. I've been trying to pare it down a bit and improve readability. I would say that the second paragraph is problematic because it has alot going on from Bucha Massacre, to UN Agency investigation, to abuse of POWs and these three ideas don't really fit together. I'd probably do something like the following, but won't because it's a fairly large change and I don't edit the article often:

After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv there was overwhelming evidence of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces of Ukrainian civilians.[15] There were reports of forced deportations of thousands of civilians, including children, from Russian-occupied Mariupol to Russia,[16][17] systematic sexual violence by Russian soldiers,[18][19] and deliberate killing of Ukrainian civilians by members of the Russian forces.[20] After Ukrainian forces recaptured the town of Bucha, evidence emerged of a massacre perpetrated by Russian troops, including torture and the deliberate killings of civilians.[21][22][23] According to Kyiv police, more than 900 bodies of civilians were found in the Kyiv region after Russian forces withdrew, most of them having been summarily executed.[24]

On 2 March, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened a full investigation into past and present allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide committed in Ukraine by any person from 21 November 2013 onwards and sent a team of investigators to Ukraine to begin collecting evidence.[33][34][35] Two other independent international agencies are also investigating violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law in the area: the International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, established by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 4 March 2022, and the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, deployed by OHCHR. The latter started monitoring human rights violations by all parties in 2014 and employs nearly 60 UN human rights monitors and has documented the unlawful killing of 50 civilians in Bucha, as well as the arbitrary detention in Russian-occupied territories of journalists, activists, public officials and civil servants,[26][9][27] and has expressed concern about videos depicting interrogations of Russian soldiers by Ukrainian forces following their capture.[9] Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war have been repeatedly abused and exposed to public curiosity,[28][29] and on at least two occasions Russian prisoners have been tortured[30][31] and killed.[32]

On 7 April 2022, the United Nations suspended Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.[36] By early June, the Ukrainian Prosecutor's office documented more than 14,000 Russian war crimes, identified more than 600 suspects and initiated proceedings against approximately 80 of them.[37]

I realize the last two sentences are hanging abit, but the previous paragraph is really dealing wit the UN so they don't quite fit. Anyhow if you like it feel free to use, if not archive. Cheers. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I like the proposal, which is an improvement in my opinion - we'd better streamline the lead a bit so as to make it more readable, and this goes in the right direction. My two-penny worth:
1) We need to update some information, and this applies also to the current version of the lead. For instance, there's no need of saying According to Kyiv police, more than 900 bodies of civilians were found in the Kyiv region: we now have the OHCHR reporting 1,200 civilian bodies recovered in the Kyiv region alone. We should modify the sentence and the source, and in doing so we should also drop the sentence most of them summarily executed because that's definitely an overstatement and cannot be attributed to the OHCHR (which tells us that they are working on overall 300 allegations of deliberate killings). If some editor is worried that dropping that erroneous statement might make the lead less impactful, maybe Alcibiades979 could help us include somewhere that OHCHR also documented 270 cases of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of civilians (eight of which were found dead) and/or add a sentence on the Russian "filtration system". I also have some doubts about systematic and massive sexual violence: there might have been a bit of war propaganda here, and we should be aware of the risks of WP:RECENTISM.
2) I don't think that the reports by HRMMU/OHCHR should be placed in the paragraph on institutions and procedures. Here perhaps there's a misunderstanding because we are basically using the Monitoring Mission as a source for the "substantive part" of the lead (what crimes, committed by whom?) rather than reporting about their investigations, so we shouldn't move their findings (which need to be updated, from March to the recent ones of July) to the "procedural part" of the lead - the one on institutions, investigations, etc. Unlawful killings, arbitrary detentions, torture on POWs need to be reported alongside the other war crimes, like forced deportation and wilful killing. We could even drop all references to the Monitoring Mission, if we want, as now we have plenty of sources on these crimes. So my suggestion is to keep that part on arbitrary detention, torture, etc., in the second paragraph of the lead section, instead of moving it to a separate paragraph.
3) Maybe we could drop On 7 April 2022, the United Nations suspended Russia from the UN Human Rights Council because the connection with war crimes, if any, is flimsy and not evident. We could leave the info on the investigation by the Ukrainian Prosecutor either at the end or (best) at the beginning of the institutional/procedural paragraph. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"systematic and massive sexual violence by Russian soldiers"

This sentence might be inaccurate. On 5 July OHCHR released a statement [18] where they say that the HRMMU has verified 28 cases of conflict-related sexual violence, and that The extent of violations is not yet clear given the active hostilities.... So we'd better be cautious. Also the 6 June report by the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict is noteworthy [19]. While she says that Allegations of sexual violence by Russian troops in Ukraine are mounting and that Sexual violence in this war is the most hidden crime, nothing in her report suggests that sexual violence by Russian soldiers is "systematic and massive" (compared to what? to what would be desirable? to peace times? to other similar wars in the past?). I think that we should replace reports of ... systematic and massive sexual violence by Russian soldiers with repots of ... sexual violence, including cases of rape, gang rape and torture, quoting OHCHR as source.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)