Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Lead

Why is the entire lead of the article talking exclusively about "Russian war crimes" when the actual article acknowledges in multiple instances that war crimes were committed by both sides? 2001:569:57B2:4D00:1B4:407:B56B:10A3 (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to suggest any symmetry - Russia has invided Ukraine and refuses to break the invasion. Russian politicians and writers declare genocidal goals. Ukraine has no genocidal goals in Russia. Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the IP did not suggest a symmetry, in the sense of equal number or gravity of war crimes by each side. If the actual ratio is 80/20 the lead should reflect that. Of course we cannot know what is the true ratio, so for now the lead should reflect the current contents of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 11:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP User is currently blocked.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Move some content to the attacks on civilians article

there are some parts of the first section (and its subsections, the "indiscriminate attack on civilians" part) that could be moved to the Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article as a new section, we could also summarize some of the more relevant attacks on that article here so the reader doesn't need to go to that article and read everything just to get a summary of the attacks, thoughts? 2804:14D:4482:46D:B1D4:BA4A:BE69:C6E (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and it's particularly important that we summarise some of the attacks in this article. I shared my views on this here above in the section "After the split". We should write the lead section of "Attacks on civilians" and use it here to replace or supplement the first section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Missile attacks on Donetsk People's Republic

Q1: shall we include a subsection on the March 2022 Donetsk attack in the section "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" of this article? Please say Yes/No and why. Q2: shall we include a subsection on the Maisky Market attack? Please say Yes/No and why.
A rough draft of the two subsections can be read in this sandbox. For background discussions see thread #one missile falls on Donetsk and thread #Indiscriminate attacks on Donetsk People's Republic above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (updated 00:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC))

Survey

• Both questions No, sourcing is insufficient. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both questions but combine into one subsection "Missile attacks on Donetsk People's Republic," I don't think these two events deserve separate subsections and also it's quite possible that there will be more attacks. Multiple reliable sources have reported on these events: Guardian, Reuters, Le Figaro and Euronews. 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. Needless to say, WP:NPOV requires us to mention that there are different opinions regarding the responsible party (regarding the March strike) and that the June strike has not been independently verified. Alaexis_¿question? 07:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both but combine into a single subsection (given the sources known on 18:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)), as per Alaexis, with appropriate NPOVing. Whichever side is responsible, it's difficult to see how either event would not be a war crime. Boud (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Commenting as the RfC creator. Yes to both, and I also agree on combining the two incidents into one subsection. We are already reporting nearly 20 indiscriminate attacks in Ukraine, some of which with far smaller casualties, and cherry picking the only attacks which might have been carried out by the Ukrainian forces in order to remove them is incompatible with WP:NPOV. Coverage in WP:RS is sufficient, and while there are many "unknowns", the sources we have already allow us to say something with verifiable accuracy: responsibility for the attacks is contested, but it is not disputed that the events occurred and killed civilians without any apparent military justification. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to question 1. In the case of question 1, the proposed section is leaving out something critical. For the Donetsk missile attack, we have the following in the WaPo[1]:

  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.

  This strongly suggests that the Ukrainian claim is correct, and Russia fired the missile. Of course the WaPo source is dated March 17, while the proposed section says "as of March 14 . . ." thereby excluding the March 17 source. I'll comment on question 2 separately. The upshot is that this was likely just another Russian attack, this time a false flag on its "own" people, which they've also done in the past; see for example Russian apartment bombings. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If it was a Russian missile that hit Donetsk and caused civilian casualties, why don't you think that this should be mentioned in the article? Alaexis_¿question? 19:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was replying regarding the proposed section. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Probably the RfC question should have been worded more clearly. Do you think these events should be mentioned in the article at all? Gitz6666, you might want to add a clarification to the RfC whether you seek feedback regarding the specific text or about mentioning these events in general. Alaexis_¿question? 19:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I sought feedback about mentioning the events in general. The specific text is there just for illustrating what this is all about, it can be modified and I expect contributors who don't have a simply Yes/No answer to make suggestions as to how modify it. If a consensus for inclusion were to emerge, then I guess we could publish the proposed text and then change it in the usual way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC). To make this clear, I just inserted rough draft in the opening statement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's a reasonable way to look at it. For the closer, this would mean that if it passes, this RfC would be treated as support for inclusion of a section about the incident, but the specific text would not be treated as "supported by RfC". For my part, not sure what I think in that case. As I remember, the sourcing seemed so-so for this section anyway. I'll get back to that later. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Looked into the sourcing. Still thinking not. Just compare the other subsections related to Donetsk Oblast. The other sections have main articles or main sections: Siege of Mariupol (twice), Mariupol theatre airstrike, Mariupol hospital airstrike, and Kramatorsk railway bombing. All of these have broad, deep, and extensive sourcing. The Donetsk missile also has a main article March 2022 Donetsk attack, but its sourcing is nowhere near the level of the others. The bottom line for me is that a lot of events in this war are going to have sources, as this one does, but one has to look at how broad and deep the sources are. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the sourcing for the events happening on the Ukrainian-controlled territory is much better, as most of media have no reporters on the Russian side. As a consequence, we have a good coverage of strikes causing civilian casualties in the Ukrainian-controlled territory and very poor coverage of such strikes in the Russian- and separatist-controlled territory, which would make the coverage unbalanced. In my view the solution is to mention these noting the issues with the sources and both sides' versions. Alaexis_¿question? 06:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I just want to say that even though I reach a different conclusion, I don't find that view crazy. "The sourcing is bad for an identifiable reason, and we have to compensate" and "The sourcing is bad, so we leave out" are both reasonable ways to look at things. So while my conclusion here is different from yours, I don't think yours is fundamentally wrong. Cheers. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• No to question 2 Essentially all of the sourcing is just reporting on the claim by the separatist "news" agency. That's not sufficient. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to question 1, with the caveat that additional information by analysts which state the Russia is likely responsible for the attack.
• No to question 2 unless there are reliable sources that can corroborate the claims made by the Russian seperatists.--Shadybabs (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both questions, can't ignore the facts of what is happening on both sides. War is ugly, neither side is lillywhite. Mathmo ^Talk 02:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to both Neither has lasting significance, sourcing for both is weak, both were staples of Russian propaganda on social media and that was more or less the extent of their coverage. Volunteer Marek 05:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just a comment that if this ends up passing, we may want to mention that propaganda in the section, provided your statement above "both were staples of Russian propaganda on social media" can itself be sourced without WP:OR.Adoring nanny (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. If there are reliable sources on this, it would be interesting - and it would also increase the notability of the subject - if we were in the position to document how these incidents were presented in pro-Russian social media and press. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• No, at least as suggested, to question 1. The strongest and most recent RS on this subject was article in WaPo [2] entitled " Inside "Russia’s propaganda bubble: Where a war isn’t a war". It tells that according to Ruslan Leviev, a leader and founder of Conflict Intelligence Team, and independent fact checking organization, all "photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted [as claimed by DPR representatives]". Meaning, that was a false flag attack by Russian forces. But this is not what the suggested edit said. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how the suggested edit excludes the Conflict Intelligence Team information. A false flag attack by Russian forces deliberately killing civilians in Russian-occupied Donetsk using a missile is a war crime. The attribution can evolve as the sources improve in quality and number, but it seems unlikely for the event to be updated as not a war crime in future edits. Boud (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• No to question 2. This incident/attack was so insignificant and poorly covered in RS that we do not even know if it actually happened. All we know is a single claim by DPR rebels, and they promoted numerous lies. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to both No lasting significance.Just Alabama (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to both I think both of these events require separate sections. Multiple reliable sources have reported on these events and it is very important to paint the full picture and tell the other side of the story too. Organizations like HRW have included these in their list of attacks. Prevent Wikipedia from becoming a propaganda tool! 2400:ADC5:17B:A100:B189:12FC:96E5:64E2 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

New sources These excerpts from a recent report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are relevant for this RfC.

OHCHR has reasonable grounds to believe that both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups, as well as to a lesser extent Ukrainian armed forces, have been using weapons, in most cases MLRS and missiles, equipped with cluster munitions (...) OHCHR is concerned that both the Russian Federation and Ukraine have been using Tochka-U missiles armed with cluster munitions in their conduct of hostilities (...) OHCHR was able to identify and corroborate at least 10 attacks by Russian armed forces and 25 attacks by Ukrainian armed forces with the use of Tochka-U missiles. (...) Ten such incidents have resulted in at least 279 civilian casualties (83 killed and 196 injured): four incidents in Government-controlled territory (65 killed and 148 injured), four in territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups (16 killed and 41 injured) and two in territory controlled by Russian armed forces (2 killed and 7 injured) (...)
Emblematic attacks with the use of cluster munitions
31. On 14 March, Russian affiliated armed groups claimed to have intercepted a Tochka-U missile equipped with a cluster munitions warhead over the centre of Donetsk. As a result of the detonation of four sub-munitions in the vicinity of the missile’s crash site, 15 civilians were killed (3 women, 1 man, and 11 adults whose sex is still unknown) and 36 injured (20 women, 14 men, 1 boy, and 1 adult whose sex is still unknown). Ukrainian armed forces denied any involvement in the incident.
— The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24 February to 15 May 2022 (Report). OHCHR. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 11 July 2022.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Chaplyne

Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Treatment of prisoners

Random Fan Camping, I appreciate the effort you've made to add the sources, however I still think that your summary is not entirely accurate. This is what the source says

“ In an interview with DW, the head of the UN Mission for Human Rights in Ukraine, Matilda Bogner, said that the conditions of detention for Russian prisoners of war were satisfactory overall. According to Bogner, however, UN observers had also received information that Russian soldiers were allegedly mistreated and tortured after their capture. ”

In addition to these general statements there are a few accounts of individual soldiers which can't be used to make general claims about the conditions of Russian prisoners. This is what you wrote

“ The Russian POWs was usually treated well, according to them: they received food when needed, medical care when needed, and haved normal living conditions. ”

First, if the statement is based on Bogner's words it should be attributed accordingly. Second, Bogner also mentioned the mistreatment reports and cherrypicking her words is a violation of WP:NPOV. The second part of the statement comes from the interviews with several soldiers. The source does not say that all (or even most) Russian prisoners live in similar conditions, so we can't write it here. Alaexis_¿question? 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to add this as there is no description related to POWs even that it supposed to.. I didn't include any source

at first and instead mentioned I got the information from videos because… Well… I know what the russians doing there.. With Ukrainian POWs and what Ukrainians are doing with russian POWs, even if it was a video, I still understood perfectly well what was going on.. Sorry I did some things wrong, I will try to edit better later, including sources, not just saying that I got the info from the video or from whenever else.. However, I have some problems with the way I interpret the information from the sources, so I might write it wrong or in the wrong context, so I'm sorry if I do more errors by adding things like these Random Fan Camping (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, the community considers several difficult questions about the War in Ukraine -- with a strong focus on occasions when Russia has knowingly or recklessly harmed civilians. It's not in doubt that these incidents took place. The decision that's needed is where and how to cover them.

To understand this discussion it very much helps to follow the timeline. On 10th August, the nominator of this RfC began an article on Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. He explicitly did this as a spinout of the article we're considering, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The next day, he began this RfC with, I must say, a creditable effort to ask clear and simple questions. Early in the debate, Wikipedians weren't necessarily aware of the newly spun out article when they commented.

As is usual with difficult and nuanced matters, Wikipedians did not confine themselves to the nominator's questions, so the debate ventured beyond its original frame. It's custom and practice for the close to assess the community's decision in all respects, not just in respect of the original question.

This discussion was affected by sockpuppetry, and also attracted participation from some rather recently-registered accounts. This led to various representations from people who want to constrain who can close this RfC, so I ought to reassure those people that I'm an appropriate closer for contentious and difficult discussions. I am.

The role of closer is to give weight to the arguments made in the RfC, not to count the votes, and this is particularly important where there's a credible allegation of sockpuppetry. In composing this close I haven't done any counting.

I assess the consensus as follows:

Q: Should the article deal with placement of military objectives near civilian objects?
A: Yes, there is consensus that the article should cover this.

Q: Should the collapse box version be used?
A: No. The consensus is that it's too long, and needs drastic trimming. The revised and shortened version should clearly distinguish between placement of military objectives near civilian targets as one topic, and actual human shields as another.

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

Q: Should we cover these topics in this article, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or in the newly-formed Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?
A: No consensus.

I do hope this helps. Questions, comments or criticism about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

---

There are three questions on military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack:

1. Should the article have a section dealing with placement of military objectives near civilian objects?
2. If the answer to Q1 is yes, should this version (here below in the collapse box) be used? If the answer to Q2 is no, please explain what changes are needed.
3. Should the subsection on Stara Krasnianka be included as proposed? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed text

Placement of military objectives near civilian objects International humanitarian law requires all parties to the conflict to avoid, to the extent feasible, "locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas" and it also requires them to "remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives". On 28 March human rights activists and international humanitarian law experts told the The Washington Post that "Ukraine's strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". On 13 June Amnesty International said that Ukrainian forces had violated international humanitarian law and endangered civilians by locating military objectives in densely populated areas of Kharkiv. On 29 June, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern about Russian as well as Ukrainian armed forces taking up positions close to civilian objects without taking measures for protecting the civilians; the human rights agency had also received reports of the use of human shields, which involves utilizing the presence of a civilians to render certain areas immune from military operations. OHCHR documented the consequences of these fighting tactics in the case of Stara Krasnianka care house attack and in the case of a school in Yahidne, where 360 residents, including 74 children, were held captive by Russian forces for almost a month. On 20 July, also a report by OSCE mentioned these two incidents to illustrate concerns about possible use of human shields. According to OSCE, there was evidence that both the Russian and the Ukrainian armies had endangered the civilian population by placing their forces in residential areas. On 21 July, Human Rights Watch said that both Russian and Ukrainian armies had based their forces in populated areas without first evacuating the residents and, in so doing, had exposed them to unnecessary risks. The human rights organisation documented four cases in which Russian forces had placed their bases in populated areas (in Mykhailo-Kotsiubynske and Yahidne, Chernihiv region, in Malaya Rohan, Kharkiv region, and in Polohy, Zaporizhzhia region) and three cases in which Ukrainian forces had taken position in residential areas without attempting to evacuate residents (in Pokotylivka, Selekstiine and Yakovlivka, Kharkiv region). On 4 August, Amnesty International reported that it had found evidence that Ukrainian forces had repeatedly put civilians in danger by establishing bases and firing positions in populated residential areas, including schools and hospitals; some areas were were kilometres away from front lines and, according to Amnesty International, alternative locations were available to the Ukrainian army. Between April and July, Amnesty International researchers found evidence that Ukrainian military objectives had been placed within residential areas in 19 towns and villages in the Kharkiv, Donbas and Mykolaiv regions. Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard stated that there was "a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated area". The Amnesty report sparked significant outrage in Ukraine and the West. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Amnesty of trying "to amnesty the terrorist state and shift the responsibility from the aggressor to the victim", while Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba stated that the report created "a false balance between the oppressor and the victim". Oksana Pokalchuk, head of Amnesty International in Ukraine, resigned from her post and left the organization in protest over the publication of the report. According to Ukraine’s deputy defence minister, Hanna Maliar, Ukrainian forces were placed in cities to defend the population from Russian forces. She stressed that civilians often refused to evacuate despite repeated offers of transport to safer regions. Stara Krasnianka care house attack Main article: Stara Krasnianka care house attack On 7 March the Ukrainian armed forces occupied a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka, near Kreminna, Luhansk region, and set up a firing position there without first evacuating the residents. On 9 March, the Ukrainian forces based at the care house engaged in a first exchange of fire with Russian affiliated armed groups without casualties among the civilian residents. On 11 March 2022 pro-Russian separatist forces attacked the care house with heavy weapons while 71 patients with disabilities and 15 members of staff were still inside. A fire broke out and approximately fifty people died. A group of residents fled the house and ran into the forest, until they were met five kilometers away by Russian affiliated armed groups, who provided them with assistance. Ukraine officials accused the Russian forces of deliberately targeting a medical facility and forcefully deporting the survivors. On 29 June, a report of the OHCHR described the incident as "emblematic" of its concern over the potential use of human shields to prevent military operations.

Survey

• No to all questions for the following reasons:

1. This page includes already the section about human shields, i.e. the intentional placement of civilians in harm’s way to deter the enemy.
2. The proposed text [3] improperly combines in the same section the use of human shields (which is generally a war crime and already included on this page) and the endangerment, i.e failure to evacuate and provide protection for civilians, which is something very different.
3. As clear from the text and discussions on this page, the proposed inclusion serves to implicate Ukrainian forces, along with Russian forces in committing war crimes. However, none of the sources say that the alleged endangerment of civilians by Ukrainian forces were a war crime. Instead, they use wording like "also to blame" or a "potential violation of international treaties". None of the sources say that Ukrainian side intentionally used their own civilians as human shields to deter Russian forces. Hence such content does not belong to this page.
4. Did the actions by the Ukrainian side represent even violations of international treaties? That was strongly disputed in many sources. "Many experts have said that the Ukrainian military has acted within the bounds of international humanitarian law by using vacant school buildings, positioning its soldiers in urban areas in order to protect them from being overrun by Russian troops."[4]". This is because such treaties say "everything feasible must be done to evacuate the civilian population from the vicinity of military objectives", and the Ukrainian authorities made a lot of effort to evacuate civilians in general. Sure, one can probably find cases when not everything possible was done (which happens during all wars), but even that was not proven in specific cases mentioned in the published reports. Maybe the civilians just refused to leave or were not able to leave because of shelling by Russian forces? Cited sources (including the heavily criticized Amnesty report) usually do not say anything about the reasons which prevented the evacuation, but simply state that the people were not evacuated, which is not enough to claim the endangerment per international treaties. Many sources [5] even say that false narratives, similar to the one suggested in this RfC, justify war crimes by Russian forces and endanger the lives of civilians in Ukraine.
5. There are other issues. For example, the Stara Krasnianka case was described twice, and the events in Stara Krasnianka are described as a matter of fact in WP voice, while they are very far from certain. My very best wishes (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to all questions.

1. Here we have good quality independent secondary sources saying that both Russian and Ukrainian armies have placed military objectives near civilian objects. In some cases RS say that Ukrainian forces took no apparent action to move residents to safer areas (Human Rights Watch) and that viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians (Amnesty International); one case (Stara Krasnianka) is described as emblematic of the OHCHR's concerns about placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields (here at para. 34); in all cases, RS say that these behaviours may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law (OHCHR, OSCE, HRW, AI) or may weaken the efforts to hold Russia responsible for war crimes (Washington Post).
2. These allegations belong to the article: they deal with serious violations of the laws and customs of war (that is, war crimes) and have received wide coverage in the media. Admittedly these allegations are very controversial, they might all be wrong and the Ukrainian army might have had no other options available. But that would be one more reason to publish: even if it were true that "flawed Amnesty report risks enabling more Russian war crimes in Ukraine", we would need to account for the public debate over these flawed allegations by leading international agencies and human rights organisations. Sweeping sources of such standing under the carpet would render that debate on war crimes in Ukraine less informed, it would impoverish this article and it would be incompatible with WP:NPOV.
3. The incident in Stara Krasnianka has been described as a war crime almost by anybody [6]: 56 or more elderly people had been killed by Russian fire when they were bed-ridden in their care home in the middle of the countryside. Since it happened, we have been reporting the incident in this article as a case of indiscriminate attack on civilians (e.g. as "Kreminna care home attack"). In June OHCHR documented that the Ukrainian army had set up a machine gun post in the care home. The release of that report by OHCHR is not a good reason for dropping the whole subsection, as we did. On the balance of sources now available, the incident rightly belongs to a section on "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to all questions.

1.Concerned wikipedia article is about war crimes in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, placement of military objectives near civilian objects is a violation of international law As per --Mrboondocks (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Article 58(b) of Additional Protocol I it is the duty of each party to the conflict to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areasBold text. Thus this is well in line with the topic of the article (i.e war crimes). Amnesty international recently released reportreport is a credible independent secondary source, documenting how Placement of military objectives near civilian objects by Ukrainian army endangered civilians. Excluding this a report of a credible organization in human rights, concerning violation of international humanitarian law could harm [[7]] of the article.

2.Proposed text should be used, as it clearly defines and cites references of credible organization for placement of military objectives near civilian objects.

3. yes it should be used as proposed.Mrboondocks (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet

This account was started on 8 August 2022. Volunteer Marek 15:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer MarekYou should be polite to new comers as per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy. Mrboondocks (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am polite to NEWcomers. Volunteer Marek 19:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any substantial counter-argument on what I said apart from me being a newcomer ? Mrboondocks (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

While that's true, also read WP:SPA. Is there any evidence you are NOT a SPA? Cononsense (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cononsenseyou should read this section of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account that says "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.

Also note it says Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus, and is therefore not a SPA.

I merely added and supported by arguments with credible secondary sources, that is in line with being a new editor with a preferred focus rather than SPA.

Calling me sock like you did @Cononsenseis a clear violation of Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy Mrboondocks (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Dude, you're a sock. You can hide behind "don't bite newcomers" all you won't, but it's 100% obvious you're not a "newcomer". Please stop wasting our time. Volunteer Marek 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

calling a new editor as sock is clear violation of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy Mrboondocks (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet

• Yes to all questions.

1. The issue is highly relevant to this article which already covers allegations against Russia in the ‘Human Shields’ section, but fails to cover allegations against Ukraine. Amnesty International are an independent body and their report quotes extensive evidence supporting their claims. In particular Ukrainian forces using hospitals as military bases in five places, in “a clear violation of international humanitarian law” should be highlighted in this article. Their are plenty of reliable sources quoted, plus the Amnesty International report is supported by this AP Report where “AP journalists observed several scenes in recent weeks that mirrored the findings of Amnesty’s researchers”, which has also been reported by the Washington Post.
2. The AP Report where the AP journalists identified scenes that mirrored the Amnesty International report could be added to the proposed wording.
3. The Stara Krasnianka care house attack is described as “emblematic” (ie representative) by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of its concern over the potential use of human shields. Again it is highly relevant to this article and should be included. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Some of this material should be incorporated, but not all of it in the form presented.

1. Yes, there should be a section on placement of objectives, as a subsection of the section Use of human shields.
2. No, the quantity of text relative to the rest of the page is WP:UNDUE.
3. No, as a single incident, making a section for Stara Krasnianka in this article is wildly UNDUE. It should be given a sentence or two in the aforementioned "placement of objectives" subsection. Stara Krasnianka could validly be the topic of a WP:SPINOUT article.

Sennalen (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your #1 is a reasonable suggestion if the text would clearly articulate the differences between just "placement of objectives" and human shields. But the text suggested by Gitz6666 does exactly the opposite. It conflates both to "prove" that the former is a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerned that the proposal misses the most-notable case of this I think the most-notable case of military objects near civilian locations are the Russian forces placed near, and firing from, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. It seems like there are high-profile stories on that topic with a lot of regularity, i.e. recent NYT story entitled "Fresh Shelling at Nuclear Plant in Southern Ukraine Deepens Grave Safety Concerns"[8]. (link may go stale? Not sure how to permalink it). So this area may well belong in the article, but the answer to questions 2-3 above is definitely no. For question 1, I think the particular topics proposed in this RfC are pretty far down the list of notable cases of military objects placed near civilian objects. So I'm not opposed to having a section on that, but for the particular proposed topic, my answer is again no. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes to Q1, whether the placement of forces next to civilian objects will be found a war crime or not later, it is relevant to the attacks on civilians discussed in the article and not mentioning that in some instances military targets were placed near civilians poses a neutrality concern. Partial yes to Q2: placement of Russian forces next to the Zaporizhzhia plant should be included; the two paragraphs about the AI press-release can be done away with, there's too much controversy and it contributes too little to the understanding of the discussed subject. No strong opinion on Q3, I don't think including this subsection is problematic, but, as there's a separate article about it, linking it in See also or text instead of a subsection would be fine too. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't realise attacks on civilians are being split to another article in the middle of RFC; in such case my opinion above still stands, but in relation to the new article rather than this one. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• No to question one and by consequence the following questions. I think with the article split it just makes more sense to put it in the article about Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This content can be used to build a "background" section for that article, which is currently missing. If there are specific instances where it seems civilians are deliberately and intentionally used to prevent enemy fire on military units, that would belong in this article.Shadybabs (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes to all questions. RandomPotato123

• Yes to Q1. The article describes other violations of the International humanitarian law, so there is no reason not to include it, especially since these violations are often called war crimes in the media. Mostly Yes to Q2, considering that now we have a separate article on the attacks on civilians, I think we can shorten the proposed text somewhat by consolidating the statements by various human rights organisations. The controversy regarding the AI report issued in August should not preclude its inclusion: Wikipedia is not censored and if there is a controversy we should faithfully report on it. Obviously more information can be included in future, for example about placing troops near Zaporizhya nuclear power plant. No answer to Q3 for now. On one hand it makes sense to move it to Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, on the other hand this article contains lots of individual incidents which are less lethal and less prominent that the the Stara Krasnianka attack. Alaexis_¿question? 15:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The accounts "Mrboondocks", "RandomPotato123" and "Paul2022T" are all recently created accounts and a quick look at their contributions makes it obvious that they're all WP:SPA accounts with a particular WP:AGENDA. Before anyone says "assume good faith" let me remind you that AGF is not a suicide pact and this is some pretty transparent kind of hijinks. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Before anyone says "assume good faith" let me remind you that AGF is not a suicide pact and this is some pretty transparent kind of hijink"

  @Volunteer Marekwhat makes you think my account is WP.SPA. You previously called me a sock in clear violation of wiki policy

  @Gitz6666@Alaexis is there anyway I can report user @Volunteer Marek to moderation of wikipedia (if any) for continuously harrasing me by violating wikipedia policies ? this kind of behavior discourages new editors to come to wikipedia. Mrboondocks (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  You can but I'm not sure you should. You've made your point, Volunteer Marek has made his point in a not-too-civil tone, the other editors can see what you've written and decide accordingly. Alaexis_¿question? 05:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Appreciate your feedback Mrboondocks (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC) strike sp

• No to all questions. A section on human shields is already present in the article. The specific incident is not described as a war crime. Indeed, sources note that it has not been described as a war crime. Volunteer Marek 07:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@Sennalen: The article has recently been split and the destination article is Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. To know how the article looked before the split you can click here; as you can see, it included detailed descriptions of individual incidents. Following the split, I agree that WP:UNDUE considerations suggest having a shorter text in this article while - I believe - the more detailed account of the events (including Stara Krasnianka) could be placed in the newly created article "Attacks on civilians". It is however important to determine that no principled consideration prevents publishing this kind of contents in "War crimes in Ukraine" and related articles. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure

As discussed with @Gitz6666: on his Talk page, I have requested an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close this RfC, refer Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_on_military_objectives_near_civilians_and_Stara_Krasnianka_attack. May take a few days depending on response Ilenart626 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would ask this RfC to be closed by an admin because of sockpuppetry and other issues. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  The sockpuppertry has been dealt with above, what "…other issues” are you referring to? Ilenart626 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  No reply, therefore no need to bother an Administrator, an uninvolved editor can close, as per Wikipedia:Closing discussions Ilenart626 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is not just one account. This is a highly contentious subject. There are very long discussions related to the RfC on this page. Closing by an experienced admin reduces chances for the closing to be challenged. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  If you read the guidelines it already saids “ Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. -Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.” My understanding is an Admin is only required for articles for deletion or move discussions. So unless you can find a policy, guideline, etc that saids otherwise, any uninvolved editor will be fine to close this RfC. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I personally have nothing against this RfC being closed by an admin, as requested by MVBW, but I don't see why and how we could achieve this. WP:CLOSE says

  If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

  I don't see the "ask for an admin" option there. So following that guideline @Ilenart626 made a request for closure here, and I think that if you want the closer to be an admin, @My very best wishes, maybe you could explain your reasons there, at WP:RFCL after Ilenar626's request, and perhaps an admin will be persuaded to accept the task. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  The RfC thread above includes alleged behavior issues by several contributors. Therefore, I think closing by an admin would be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, there are not that many admins and they already have a huge backlog. But do feel free to ask. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources for Сергій Болвінов Pisky-Radkivski/gold crowns photo?

The photo apparently by Сергій Болвінов (Serhii Bolvinov) on Twitter of a box full of gold crowns, presumably removed from Ukrainian victims by Russian military occupation forces in a torture chamber, discovered in Pisky-Radkivski after its liberation, is starting to circulate widely.

Do we have WP:RS for this? Is this notable enough for an article? What is most notable for the article title: the torture chamber, the gas mask, or the suggested comparison with Auschwitz? Following recent similar discussions, an appropriate name might be Pisky-Radkivski box of gold crowns, rather than using words such as massacre that are not directly stated by the Western mainstream media, or maybe Pisky-Radkivski chamber where some unusual items were found. However, I would probably rather go for Pisky-Radkivski torture chamber, which might have a chance of achieving consensus. Boud (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The telegraph covered it here, however I haven't seen other WP:GREL sources cover it. As of right now it does not seem to have enough coverage in reliable sources for an independent article, but that may change in the future. I'd think the torture chamber would be the topic of the article Tristario (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tristario: The "gold" crowns seem unlikely to be notable enough for an independent article, and at most notable as a phrase in a sentence on looting, since a local 60-year-old dentist thinks, per the unreliable source (tabloid) Bild, that the dental crowns were very likely looted from his collection; and apparently the main component is stainless steel, not gold. We'll see if sources find the torture chamber itself (or the use of the box of "gold" crowns to scare prisoners) to be sufficiently notable. Boud (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The New york times also covered it here, and wrote "Mr. Bolvinov said the authorities were investigating whether the teeth were evidence of torture or had been taken from a dentist’s practice. The teeth have been sent for DNA analysis, he said." They also wrote "The police have also discovered 22 locations that they suspect were used as torture chambers in areas of Kharkiv Province". Perhaps this is all best suited for the section War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Russian_torture_chambers and the article Russian torture chambers in Ukraine. The individual torture chamber may not be notable as it seems there's quite a few. Tristario (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:War crimes in Ukraine vs Category:Ukrainian war crimes

So, there was an IP who determined the category Ukrainian war crimes didn't belong on the article (as well as Stara Krasnianka care house attack). I've been sent here by Johnuniq following a failed request for page protection. On second thought by reading the article, I can see that the article doesn't mention much in the way of Ukrainian war crimes (same with the aforementioned Stara Krasnianka care house attack), and I wanna make triple sure everybody else is on that same wavelength. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not "Russian" war crimes in Ukraine, but War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. On many occasions editors working on this article have discussed about whether war crimes allegedly committed by Ukrainian forces should be reported and there's a consensus that yes, they should. And indeed the article as it is now mentions and/or describes crimes allegedly committed by Ukrainian forces:

• The mission also expressed concern about mistreatment of prisoners of war in the conflict, as prisoners of war held by both Ukrainian and Russian/separatist forces have been repeatedly abused.... (lead section);
• According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, weapons equipped with cluster munitions have been used both by Russian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists, as well as to a lesser degree by Ukrainian armed forces. (Use of cluster munitions);
• Since the beginning of the invasion, Russia has repeatedly accused Ukraine of using human shields, a claim which is regarded by third-party observers as baseless. (Human shields);
• Both the Russian and the Ukrainian army have been accused of violating international humanitarian law by locating military objectives within densely populated areas without removing civilians to safer areas ... OHCHR documented the consequences of these fighting tactics in the case of a care house in Stara Krasnianka where the Ukrainian army had set up a firing position without first evacuating the residents (Placement of military objectives near civilian objects);
• The alleged perpetrators were ... from Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement in 10 cases (sexual violence; contents and source recently restored);
• Russian prisoners of war: the whole section is dedicated to war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces, see Torture of Russian POWs in Mala Rohan and Execution of captured Russian soldiers.

Re Stara Krasnianka I quote from the dedicated article:

On 29 June, a report of the OHCHR described the incident as an "emblematic" case of a military objective placed near civilian objects and possible use of human shields to prevent military operations in the area

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems like you made the case clear that the category "Ukrainian war crimes" does belong, at least from what I can see. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I think people stopped updating this article out of exhaustion. In the meantime, mass graves of civilians murdered by Russians were found in Kupyansk, Lyman and across other recently liberated areas. Torture chambers have been found. Russia has launched terror strikes against civilian targets in multiple Ukrainian cities. More reports of rape being used to terrorize people.

Yes, this article is about Russian war crimes because that is who is committing almost all of them here. We need to stop pretending otherwise and trying to "both sides" this issue. Volunteer Marek 08:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it's "both siding", it's just an administrative thing. If anyone does use the category they'll see that russian war crimes far outweigh ukrainian ones Tristario (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME considerations

Per WP:CRIME, which reflects practice across the encyclopedia, convictions in a court of law are required for us to state without modifiers that any living person has committed a crime, war crime or otherwise. As WP:BLPCRIME states, Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.; we should therefore acknowledge that crimes are "suspected" or "alleged" until convictions are handed down (which are likely to follow in months and years to come, as signaled by the International Criminal Court and courts within Ukraine). While understandably difficult, in following our BLP policy Wikipedia follows suit with the reliable sources that it cites (which are showing similar editorial prudence) and maintains its credibility; it should further be noted that this is a matter subject to BLP discretionary sanctions. The current article is fairly careful and seems to be generally compliant with BLP policy – I have made one edit, adding "allegedly" to the lead sentence; it being a highly-edited and important part of the article, it should continue to be watched carefully. — Goszei (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum quoted from MOS:ALLEGED: Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. — Goszei (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The disputed text is "Russian authorities and armed forces have committed multiple alleged war crimes."[9] In this case, Legal persons and groups applies: only in the case of small groups do BLP considerations apply. That doesn't mean of course that alleged does or does not belong in the sentence, just that there is no BLP reason to include it. TFD (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Not this again. We are not naming any person as having committed a crime. We are not putting in "allegedly" in the lead sentence. See WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED. Wrongdoing HAS been determined. We're not doing this. Volunteer Marek 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Echoing what Marek said. Those policies are not applicable in this particular instance, for several reasons (which TFD and Marek already highlighted). The entire world, with the exception of Russia and their most erstwhile allies, acknowledges that these war crimes occurred. It's not an allegation, so we're not going to say "allegedly". I can't say I've ever seen someone try to apply BLPCRIME quite this way before. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, these war crimes occurred. There is nothing alleged about them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I too agree. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

From the comments above, I can see how "alleged war crimes" may imply that the crimes did not occur, rather than the fact that they are allegedly attributed to a specific perpatrator (Russia) outside of findings by a court of law. I suggest an alternate wording of "Russian authorities and armed forces have been accused of committing multiple war crimes", which is more consistent with the wording in the article body itself. — Goszei (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)