Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Position of "sexual violence": beforeor after "Concerned areas"?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this edit summary [1]. What's "logical" about it? It seems the organization should be/is "by type, then by area" so Sexual Violence should come after Indiscriminate Attacks but before Concerned Areas. This has the appearance of trying to tuck away the worst of the crimes in a far corner of the article. Volunteer Marek 23:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The structure of the article is not a hiararchy of importance! "Kneecapping of Russian soldiers" is at the bottom, par. 6.2 now, yet it's a horrible crime; rape is horrendous, but what about the shilling of Mariupol, the Irpin shilling, etc., which are all placed in "Concerned areas"? There's no way of ordering war crimes based on gravity: would one rather get tortured, raped or killed? It doesn't make sense. The critarion for structuring the article is purely logical: "indiscriminate attacks", then "concerned areas" follows, as they are the areas that have been targetted by bombing, shilling, etc.; then we deal with crimes different from attacks, like deportations, kidnapping, torturing and killing of civilians and PoWs. Sexual violence to me is strictly related with torture, so these two sections should be one after the other. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

So basically it's a matter of deciding whether we want (A) this index (favoured by me) or (B) this index (favoured by @Volunteer Marek). The main difference is that in (A) "1 Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian objects" is followed by "2 Concerned areas", and "6 Sexual violence" is placed between "5 Ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of civilians" and "7 Treatment of prisoners of war". Note that in (A) "5.1 Mass killings of civilians in Bucha" is placed under "5 Ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of civilians". On the other hand, in (B) "2 Sexual violence" is placed between "1 Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian objects" and "3 Concerned areas", and "3.3.1 Mass killings of civilians in Bucha" is placed under "3.3 Kyiv Oblast" which is under "3 Concerned areas". If I understand well, the only argument in favour of (B) is that sexual violence is "the worst of the crimes". Or are there other reasons for (B)? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No, "sexual violence" is closer thematically to "Indiscriminate attacks" than "Concerned areas" (where did that wording come from anyway? It's kind of... weird). We could move up ill treatment as well. Volunteer Marek 01:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the wording is not best. If you have a better phrase, that would be great. The basic idea is: areas that have been subjected to indiscriminate attacks (or also deliberate attacks against civilian objects): bombing, shelling and the like. The section was originally called "Attacks on civilians" and the name was too similar to "Attacks on civilian areas", which is what now is called "1 Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian objects". Here you can see how the article was originally structured. In that section, "Attacks on civilians", many editors have been adding contents about attacks which may or may not qualify as "war crimes" (civilian casualties per se are not sufficient); eventually it turned out to be not too bed, because subsections like the attacks on Mariupol, Chernihiv, etc., the shelling of Irpin, etc., can easily qualify as war crimes. But you see, the point is that the whole section is, and has always been, closely related to "1. Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian objects". You can't put "sexual violence" in between them, it doesn't make sense. Sexual violence is closer to torture than to "Indiscriminate attacks". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek If changed the name of the "Concerned areas" section to "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" to make the object of the section clearer. As you see, "Sexual violence" cannot be placed between "Indiscriminate attacks" and "Areas hit by...." However, I've had an idea for taking into account your point that "gravity" is relevat and should affect the structure. After indiscriminate attacks and areas hit by indiscriminate attacks, we could have the following progression: crimes against live and body integrity (Wilful killing of civilians, torture, sexual violence) and then crimes against liberty (deportations, unlawful detensions). I'm now changing the structure accordingly. Note, moreover, that crimes like "Bucha massacre" and "E40 highway shooting" should not be placed in "Concerned areas/Areas hit by indiscriminate attack" but rather in "Ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of civilians"; "use of children as human shields" also belongs to this section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense, though I still think that the “Areas” sections should go after the thematic sections. Volunteer Marek 18:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ugly truth is that sexual violence of all degrees is a predictable by-product of war, but is rarely a war crime, unless pursued systematically and condoned by the higher-ups of the perpetrators. Former Yugoslavia is one of the few recent conflicts where sexual war crimes have been established as having been policy. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

April 6 video showing alleged execution of POW

I saw this NY times report about a video verified by the paper showing the killing of captured soldiers. It might be worth discussing. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/06/world/ukraine-russia-war-news/russia-pows-ukraine-executed 2A02:C7E:324:ED00:A8AE:E62A:6F0C:4181 (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's been independently confirmed and thus deserves its own piece Yokohama1989 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: WP:SNOWCLOSE (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

---

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War crimes and crimes against humanity in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – As stated within the article, "...the ICC Prosecutor found that 'there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed'". War crimes are individual acts, while crimes against humanity are state sponsored, either directly or indirectly (i.e., on the orders of the state or via negligence by the state, among other things). There is an important distinction between these two terms, particularly since crimes against humanity are far graver than war crimes. Also, genocide is discussed within this article. Genocide is primarily a crime against humanity, since one person cannot commit genocide on the scales that has been alleged and designated the perpetrators of such as war criminals can be misleading since many perpetrators may be operating under force or duress, among other things. Fluffy89502 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I think that title is too long. Also a reasonable argument could be made that (in this artice) any mentioned alleged "Crime against Humanity" is also (in this context) always a war crime too.

• Oppose. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth}

Oppose - as I believe the title is broad enough to cover Crimes against humanity. If you look at the Russian war crimes and Soviet war crimes articles they both cover war crimes and crimes against humanity Ilenart626 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - existing title is already broad enough to cover crimes against humanity, proposed alternative title is quite wordy, and may potentially be WP:TOOSOON. --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. "War crimes" is sufficiently generic to cover all of those crimes commonly linked to war, including those "against Humanity". Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the current title is perfectly descriptive, and without an excess of WP:RS with hindsight (which we can't have for an ongoing conflict) that clearly indicates that the term "crimes against humanity" should be used, then we shouldn't change it. I'm also a bit concerned that the proposed title violates WP:NPOV (again, in the absence of a clear consensus in RS). aismallard (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose GooseTheGreat (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There can be cases where a crime against humanity is not a war crime, but in this context there is an invasion, which is a type of war, so crimes against humanity in this context are almost certainly likely to be formally considered war crimes. So there's no need to have the extra long title. I'm not an expert in these definitions, but my guess is that a loose definition of genocide could be "crime against humanity" with genocidal intent; without the genocidal intent, it's "only" a crime against humanity. Buidhe knows these definitions better than I do. In any case, "war crimes" is a generally accepted overview term for these three classes of crimes of international humanitarian law (and loosely can include the crime of aggression). Boud (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Boud you're right that crimes against humanity committed during war would most likely also be war crimes. See here for a detailed explanation and here for the distinction between genocide and CAH. (t · c) buidhe 20:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. BilledMammal (talk) 20:07, 7 April 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.

POVing of the article

• This edit adopts the fiction that the DNR is a separate republic which is the POV of the Russian government. This is NOT a "minor" edit and should not be marked as such.
• This restores highly POV wording. The justification for original changes has been provided. Saying the massacre in Bucha was attributed to Russian "by Ukrainian authorities" is POV. The whole freakin' world attributes it to Russia. No reliable source attributes it to Ukraine. Please do not make such WP:TENDENTIOUS edits.
• Same edit. For fuck's sake, this also restores the idiotic notion that two Russian soldiers being poisoned by some pies is ... ... CHEMICAL WARFARE!!! Gimme a break. There's absolutely no source for such a claim (probably because it's patently ridiculous). The given source certainly doesn't say anything so stupid. But it's also frankly offensive. Guess what. Two soldiers getting bad pies is in no way comparable to actual chemical attacks in which dozens of people have been killed and even attempting such a comparison is offensive, vulgar and dishonest. I am very tempted to report this fairly transparent violation of WP:POINT.

Volunteer Marek 00:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the introductory phrase must reflect what the remainder of the lead say. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

1. This is a minor edit, the section title is simply too long so it had to be shortened. MOS:SECTION.
2. This happened when I restored an earlier version of the page. If you had tried to look at the whole article's revision history you would see I changed that shortly after as there is a consensus the Bucha massacre happened and was done by Russian forces.
3. This is how restoring earlier revision works. I also changed the section title in this case to "poisoning" instead of "chemical warfare".

Throwing a WP:TANTRUM is not the correct reaction to someone who made an effort to restore many of your edits. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• It is not a minor edit. It changes the POV of the text. When in doubt, don't mark it as minor.
• If you restore earlier revisions, you take responsibility for any disruptive or problematic content. In this case you restored the absurd notion that food poisoning by some civilians amounted to "chemical warfare" or a "war crime". If you did not mean to do this then take this as a good reason for why you shouldn't BLINDREVERT. Volunteer Marek 02:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yesterday I removed this opening thread as I found it harmful and disruptive. Now, after due consideration and pondering, I accept that I was wrong in removing the post, which is not harmful and off topic, and I apologise for that. But I keep on thinking that the OT is disruptive and inappropriate, if not harmful . "For fuck's sake, this also restores the idiotic notion that ... The given source certainly doesn't say anything so stupid. But it's also frankly offensive ... I am very tempted to report this fairly transparent violation..." We were already discussing the issue "Use of chemical weapons" in the thread "Use of Poison by Ukrainian civilians against Russian troops" without any need for threats and rudeness. This way of putting things verges on the personal attack and is at odds with civility. Please have a look at WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL: belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap"). We are working here on a delicate article and we need to discuss in a peaceful and argumentative environment. We don't need the kind of tantrum that @Volunteer Marek has thrown upon us yesterday. Basically they have blocked the work on the article for over an hour. The fact that they are an expert editor doesn't justify but rather makes this way of behaving even more unacceptable. So from now on please refrain from doing so. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I don't need a lecture from you. If someone is putting in ridiculous, falsely sourced, content into the article (food poisoning is chemical warfare!) then we remove it. And there's nothing wrong with calling out such content as ridiculous. These are not personal attacks as they discuss content not editors. Now what is a personal attack? Referring to another editor's comments as a "tantrum". THAT is "belittling" (literally, since tantrums are what children do). So how about you focus on content and stop insulting others? Volunteer Marek 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Technology and warfare is interesting. The delusional and irresponsible nature of humans is also noteworthy. It's like, everyone in the world outside of China, knows every single thing the Russian state run media and government officials say is a lie to cover up a lie to cover up another lie, which a nation like China likes deeply because it's exactly what they do.... And everyone knows this. Everyone else, everywhere in the world knows this. Everyone knows it. It is indisputable fact. Yet these Russian people are so delusional and they don't even care they just embarrass themselves over and over and over again, by trying to lie about history, to make them feel less guilty about what a terrible and horrible governments they have.... Just like China, except obviously Chinese citizens would never be allowed to read something like Wikipedia, obviously, as that would be considered dangerous and seditious truthful information which is very upsetting to Chinese and Russian governments because they feel entitled to control the lies that they allow their people to read to stay in power and keep them living in constant fear..... The good news is Putin will be dead soon, one way or another he's only got 10-15 years left.... even if he gets very very lucky and survives this war. Then maybe, with any luck, we won't have to read this kind of garbage on wikipedia anymore....

I mean my God hey Wikipedia---- why did 100,000 people die in Ukraine? Wikipedia: -- Vladimir Putin's ego.

Damn you wikipedia, damn you and your facts Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources for the section on Bucha massacre and treatment of prisoners

• German Intelligence Intercepts Radio Traffic Discussing the Murder of Civilians // Der Spiegel

"Some of the intercepted traffic apparently matches the locations of bodies found along the main road through town ... In [one] intercepted conversation, a man apparently said: First you interrogate soldiers, then you shoot them."

"The BND material also apparently provides evidence that members of the Russian mercenary unit called the Wagner Group played a leading role in the atrocities ... The radio traffic intercepted by the BND makes it seem as though the atrocities perpetrated on civilians in Bucha were neither random acts nor the product of individual soldiers who got out of hand. Rather, say sources familiar with the audio, the material suggests that the troops spoke of the atrocities as though they were simply discussing their everyday lives."

"That, say sources familiar with the audio, indicates that the murder of civilians has become a standard element of Russian military activity, potentially even part of a broader strategy. The intention is that of spreading fear among the civilian population and thus reducing the will to resist."

• Russian soldiers ‘discussed killing civilians’ in Ukraine in radio intercepts // The Guardian

"Radio transmissions in which Russian soldiers appear to talk among themselves about carrying out premeditated civilian killings in Ukraine have been intercepted by Germany’s foreign intelligence service ... The evidence was presented by officials from the foreign intelligence service, the BND, to parliamentarians on Wednesday."

"In the radio communications, Russian soldiers were claimed to have discussed how they had questioned Ukrainian soldiers as well as civilians before shooting them."

Please include these sources and a brief mention of this verified radio traffic intercept in the article, thank you everyone! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

First propose these for Bucha massacre. This article war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is intended to give an overview of the war crimes in the invasion. Boud (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This is already briefly mentioned there. Just thought these citations would be good here as support / confirmation regarding allegations of war crimes, etc. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ombudsman/woman/person

As @Pincrete rightly noted, there's uncertainty in this article as to whether ombudsman, ombudswoman or ombudsperson is the best denomination for the office now headed by Lyudmyla Denisova. All three denominations are used by the RS (e.g. [2], [3], [4]). I think that consistency within the article would be desirable. I'm sure the matter has already been discussed in the community, and I'm wondering whether an editor can point to an already established consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I based my edit on her own article, and the Ukr source, which refers to her as Ombudsman in Ukr - which if it is her official position (job title), may well not be susceptible to rendering in gender neutral, or feminised form. I would also say that adopting the 'traditional' form is sometimes done. The first female Lord Mayor of London, chose to be called 'Lord Mayor', many female performers choose to be called 'actors', some midwives are men! It seems a bit arrogant to presume that this person wants her sex acknowledged in her title. Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, I would keep it as ombudsman, specially when the source also uses it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

And her page refers everywhere as Ombudsman. Yet there is this page: Ombudsman in Ukraine, that while the title says "Ombudsman", everywhere else says "Ombudsperson". Just letting it be known, perhaps we want to change that as well, or the title, but there is a clear dissonance between article and title. I think I am going to go ahead and change it too. AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Another term used in the Ukr source is "Commissioner for Human Rights in Ukraine" - that has the advantage of being intrinsically gender neutral! Whether Ombudsman or Commissioner is closer to being the job-title, I'm don't know. A native Ukr speaker would probably be able to answer that. Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I've only been able to find an essay, WP:GENDER, which apparently suggests to use "ombudsperson" or perhaps "ombudswoman". MOS isn't particularly helpful here - MOS:GNL. I personally would prefer "ombudsperson". Chairperson/chairwoman are also very common in English, and I don't think that for the ombudsman office things go differently. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed it but @Anonimu changed it back. I don't mind either way, but I do think it should be consistent with Lyudmyla Denisova (currently using "Ombudsman") and with Ombudsman in Ukraine (currently using... well, "ombudsman"), and Ombudsman.

Actually, digging a little bit more on that last one, I see it depends a bit by country. And in Ukraine, the first ombudsman was actually a woman, Valeriya Lutkovska and they refer to her as "ombudsman", not "ombudswoman".

And not of much use as it is anecdotal and unconfirmed, but someone with an IP from an Australian government office claiming to be an Australian Ombudsman stated "Ombudsperson is not technically correct" on the talk page. Just found it interesting.

All this makes me want to leave it as ombudsman, but we can have a vote maybe. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice the discussion. I think we should follow the usage in sources, but if consensus say we use a single form throughout the article, I'm fine with that.Anonimu (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

For me either works. Perhaps we should move this discussion to one of the main articles, either Ombudsman or Ombudsman in Ukraine? Then if we decide ombudswoman is a better word, change it everywhere. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ombudsman is the grammatically correct term. "Ombudswoman" is a neologism. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That may well be, and yet it's a neologism used by "The Times", so we cannot claim that ombudswoman is simply wrong and needs to be corrected. I have nothing against moving the discussion elsewhere, as AdrianHObradors suggests, but I'm having second thoughts and I'm now inclined to agree with Anonimu: we could simply follow the sources and renounce having consistency throughout the article. I very much doubt anybody will ever read the article from top to bottom, and even if they were to read it all, I doubt they'll notice this minor linguistic inconsistency. We could simply leave everybody free to use the form they prefer. At the most, we could agree on reverting the edits that modify that original choice by the editor. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian sources don't feminize, nor neutralise the term, but since 'ombudsman' in Ukrainian is almost a phonetic transliteration into Ukr script, the Ukr term isn't gendered anyway ('man' being an English word)! Just out of interest, I looked up the term on Mirriam Webster, by chance Denisova is listed in the first two recent examples of use there: "Lyudmyla Denisova, the Ukrainian ombudsman, said more than 400,000 people, nearly a quarter of them children, had been sent to Russia. — Tribune News Service, al, 26 Mar. 2022 … Lyudmyla Denisova, the Ukrainian ombudsman, said more than 400,000 people, nearly a quarter of them children, had been sent to Russia. — Los Angeles Times, 25 Mar. 2022! Particularly if this is her job title, why are we meddling with the title she and her Parliament have given to her job? Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think that setles it. I will change it, if anyone else has anything against the change let me know and I will revert it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

References

looting

can someone add information about looting by russian troops in ukraine? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a section on looting which has been delated as it was not supported by RS. Now we might have RS on the point. If that is the case, please point to the reliable sources and we will restore the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

ive seen a couple sources like CNN and stuff talking about, although in Portuguese, but i believe that there might be a couple English Reliable Sources talking about it, going to search for them, if i do find some, ill put them here, but, you could also try to find some of them.187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

edit: found yet more sources talking about it, BBC (in portuguese), WSJ (in english) and Haaretz (in english), and, apparently, the section on looting had a RS on it (the haaretz article i just mentioned), so we could restore it, and add a few more info about looting in bucha (as reported by CNN and by Huffpost (i dont know if huffpost is 100% reliable, although its listed as reliable except on politics on the Reliable sources list)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

apparently someone has added a section for looting, although it misses important information on looting in Kherson and Bucha and attempts to sell looted goods in Belarus (with one man even geolocating his headphones to be in Belarus after they were stolen by Russian troops), apparently Newsweek has also reported on it, although Newsweek has a problem with reliability and, its reliability needs to be checked on a case-to-case basis, but CNN (RS) also reported on looting in bucha. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Based upon the extensive coverage that shows this has been widespread and in some cases necessary as the soldiers have been under supplied, I think an article would be justified. I started a draft: Looting during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thriley (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I support starting such an article, but I suggest you make the article title "Corruption in the Russian Army during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine".

Because a lot of other things have happened too.

Your proposed title would do better as a sub-section under this.

Categories

Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be removed, it is a subcategory of another listed one.Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's the other way around: in general, supercategorisation should be removed in favour of subcategorisation. See WP:CATSPECIFIC: Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. Boud (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Chemical weapons section

Seems really not due. Original source is a statement by the Azov forces, which aren't really reliable, but even if they were... Their statement is that after an explosion on a metal working plant (which of course have chemicals by themselves), they had shortness of breath and one collapsed because his legs felt weak. I am not sure if the use of non letal chemical weapons is considered a war crime, but neither of the cited sources call it that.

And the statement by Eduard could perhaps be kept, but is that person important enough to reflect here what he says? AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion had 10-20% neo-nazi members in 2015, per the lead of Azov Battalion, so it's not a reliable source, except as a source to say that it made the claim. Basurin appears to be a spokesperson for the DPR, which is a notable entity since the 2014 Russian invasion. For chemicals whose "weapon" status is disputed, my guess is that intent is significant, though my guess doesn't count for much here.

Whether a chemical weapon is lethal or not is not a strict criterion, and there are unclosed debates about some chemical weapons; see the second paragraph of Geneva Protocol#Subsequent interpretation of the protocol: There have been differing interpretations over whether the protocol covers the use of harassing agents, such as adamsite and tear gas, ... The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention effectively banned riot control agents from being used as a method of warfare, though still permitting it for riot control. It may sound absurd, but this class of chemical weapon is currently illegal in war but allowed against civilian protestors. The section is currently missing reports on the use of white phosphorus, but see the last sentence of Chemical Weapons Convention: if the white phosphorus is used "in the right way", then it's not a chemical weapon; if it's used "in the wrong way", then it's a chemical weapon and the usage is a war crime. So interpretations from WP:RS that argue that a particular incident of usage counts as using a chemical weapon would be needed.

WP:DUE seems open to discussion to me. My feeling is that the section is short enough, and better to have it so that editors don't try to re-add it because they think it's missing or censored; but we can see what others think. We could remove it for now, and restore it if/when more RS claim chemical weapons usage, as a war crime, in the invasion. The current version is here in case someone comes along later and wants to use the current content of the section to restart it. Boud (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Boud I personally would have removed it, but tried instead cleaning it up a bit. Let me know what you think. Is a bit late here and late editing isn't always my best. I did remove a very weird vestibulocerebellar syndrome claim, because it just seemed ridiculous. It is a genetic disorder that has only been detected at three families. I mean, it might be possible that they might have it, but personally I would avoid adding it if we don't find any other source mentioning it. Is kyivindependent.com a reliable source even? AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@AdrianHObradors: vestibulocerebellar syndrome is about the most concrete element of the claim. Giving concrete details is what makes something falsifiable. I agree that the extreme rarity makes the claim extremely dubious - I saw that there was a Wikipedia entry on the topic and didn't read it to that level of detail. Since nobody seems to have defended keeping the section, I think it should be safe to remove (possible shift to the Casualties... article?). Kyiv Independent does generally seem to be reliable. In this case, they should have checked the credibility of the claim, but so could any of the Wikipedians (including me) have done during the several days since the text has been here, until you noticed the problem. If nobody objects quickly, then either you or me or someone would seem to have consensus to remove the section. Boud (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit 1 of Sexual violence section

Yesterday I made this edit which Volunteer Marek has reverted and requested consensus on the Talk page. To me it is a clear case of deleting a unreferenced statement, as per WP:CS. I assume Volunteer Marek will provide his reasoning, can other Editors provide their opinions either for or against this edit, so we can reach consensus. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek appears to be correct in terms of sourcing, although the newsy style and anonymity of the spokesperson invited a copyedit, which I've done. The NYT source says A Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, rejected Ms. Venediktova's allegation, telling reporters in Moscow last week that 'we don't believe it at all.' 'It is a lie,' Mr. Peskov said, according to the Interfax news agency. Boud (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Boud, I agree with your edits and have added the NY Times as a reference. If no one else has any comments I believe this issue is resolved Ilenart626 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of children as human shields - Sitting on top of tanks

Yesterday I made this edit which Volunteer Marek has reverted and requested consensus on the Talk page, To me its a clear case of stating what the reference says, which is the children were riding "...in coaches in front of their tanks", not "...forcing them to sit on top of their tanks as they withdrew", which is now the current wording. I assume Volunteer Marek will provide his reasoning for this revert, can other Editors provide their opinions either for or against this edit, so we can reach consensus. Feel free to suggest alternative wording. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you are doing a fantastic work with your cleanup, and I don't have much free time lately, otherwise I would love to help.

About the edit, you are right it doesn't mention anywhere on the source anything about sitting on top of tanks. He does say "putting them on their trucks" at one point, but hard to get from that if he means on top of the trucks or just inside.

Also I don't really like the way it is worded "According to witness accounts gathered by the Ukraine's attorney general". Seems to indicate it is true, as if the witness accounts were seen or investigated by any RS. When it is actually a doubly non reliable source, a claim by the Ukrainian government about claims by witnesses, where "the cases were being investigated by the country’s attorney general, but he was unable to provide further details". I already rose this problem here before on the talk page, about giving Ukrainian claims too much veracity.

I did do some OR trying to find a single picture of a kid on top/inside a Russian tank/truck, but couldn't find anything. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Russian soldiers placing children on tanks to protect their vehicles when moving".
• "Russian soldiers have used Ukrainian children as hostages, putting them on their trucks. They’re doing it to protect their vehicles when moving"

You're trying to make it sound like they gave them a ride or something. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree on sticking to the source, "Coaches of children were said to have been placed in front of tanks in the village of Novyi Bykiv ... It was further alleged that children had been taken as hostages". The image of children sitting on top of the trunks (tied with ropes?) is frankly ridiculous and it's taken from some kind of Mad Max imaginary. We don't know what happened, obviously, but what the Ukrainian authorities claim is clear enough. Besides, we should start the section using the same cautious and honest approach of our RS ("The Guardian"): "Russia has been accused by Ukraine of using children as human shields", or something similar so as to avoid WP:COPYVIO. "According to witness accounts gathered by the Ukraine's attorney general" is not acceptable; the article is reporting statements made by Ukraine’s attorney general, by Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman and by a spokesman for Ukraine’s ministry of defence: that's all we know and it's all we should say. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on the above feedback suggest we replace:

"According to witness accounts gathered by the Ukraine's attorney general, Russian units leaving the area near Kyiv used children as human shields by forcing them to sit on top of their tanks as they withdrew. In the village of Novyi Bykiv Russians allegedly placed Ukrainian children in front of their tanks to protect themselves."

with

"Ukraine has accused Russian forces leaving the area near Kyiv of using children as Human shields. Russian units leaving the village of Novyi Bykiv allegedly placed coaches of Ukrainian children in front of their tanks to protect themselves."

Ilenart626 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

now updated as per above Ilenart626 (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Deportations

Re this edit, I think that the removal is not justified. Currently the section is based on Ukrainian sources and two witnesses from Mariupol who spoke with the Guardian. Haaretz spoke with other refugees from Mariupol who described the events as evacuation and said that the filtration was more akin to registration. Per WP:NPOV we should mention it. Hopefully in future human rights organisations or other third-party sources will publish their accounts and we'll know whether it was mostly forced or mostly voluntary. Until then we can only report anecdotal evidence and the positions of the parties of the conflict, as reported by reliable sources. Alaexis_¿question? 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we can only report "anecdotal evidence and the positions of the parties", but precisely for that reason why we shouldn't construe the article by Haaretz as falsifying the charge of deportation or objecting to that charge. "Other witnesses described it as evacuation" suggests that they didn't qualify it as deportation but rather as (voluntary) evacuation. But that's not the point of the article. Indeed it says that "At some point, the buses of the Donetsk People’s Republic began evacuating people in the direction of Nikolske, say the women." but that doesn't imply anything about the coercive or voluntary nature of the evacuation; plus, one reads "They forced us to go out", which sounds like a deportation to me ("Neighbors said that soldiers from the People’s Republic of Donetsk had passed through in the night and said we had one day to evacuate before they ‘cleansed’ the place. That’s what forced us to leave, even though we didn’t want to leave our homes"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, to be precise they don't say "they forced us to leave" but rather that the warning made on the previous day forced them to leave. Anyway, we can wait for more accounts and update the article then. Alaexis_¿question? 08:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That paragraph is about deportations TO Russia. That particular sentence is about evacuations to other towns in Ukraine. There were evacuations. There were also deportations. The source does not say they were the same thing or that they were perceived in different ways by different people. This is simply confusion and WP:SYNTHESIS. You need a source here which says that *the deportations* were perceived as “evacuations”. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, this sentence from Haaretz is about these people moving to Russia as is clear from the rest of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 07:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe using the Haaretz article to support “Other witnesses described it as evacuation” is problematic as the source is not clear on this point. What is clear is that the Sukhorukov family, who were transported to Russian controlled territories, are not stating that they were “forced” . Plus the Haaretz article makes it clear that the Mariupol families transported through Russian controlled territories to Ukraine controlled Zaporizhzhia did not face any major issues. This is also supported by this Human Right Watch report which states in the "The Route Out" section "None of the Mariupol residents described serious mistreatment by soldiers at the checkpoints." As an alternative we could insert after "Human Rights Watch has not been able to verify these accounts" something along the lines of "...however no major issues have been reported from Mariupol residences travelling through Russian controlled territories to Ukraine controlled Zaporizhzhia." and reference both the Haaretz article and the HRW report. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence specifically refers to people who were taken to Nikolske, which is in Ukraine, though under control of Russian forces. The article also notes that some of the people were surprised at where they were going. Anyway, with this source the sentence as is is WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We are both right. First, the article says that the buses of the Donetsk People’s Republic began evacuating people in the direction of Nikolske, say the women which is not relevant for this section. Then it says

“ Roman Sukhorukov, 45, left Mariupol with his parents, his wife and his two children. They reached the village of Bezymenne, east of Mariupol, and from there made their way to the city of Novoazovsk. From there, the family continued to Russia and stayed in the city of Rostov, like many other evacuees from Mairupol... Neighbors said that soldiers from the People’s Republic of Donetsk had passed through in the night and said we had one day to evacuate before they ‘cleansed’ the place. That’s what forced us to leave, even though we didn’t want to leave our homes... Roman managed to get his car to work and the family left the city in a convoy of six vehicles. ”

.

So this family clearly wasn't deported to Russia, no matter how much the definition is stretched. They went in their own car and were checked twice, in Novoazovsk and on the border. Of course, this doesn't mean there were no deportations. It does contradict the Ukrainian officials' claims that all the Ukrainian refugees in Russia were deported there. This is just 6 families and the only reason I suggested to include it is that the section already mentions two Mariupol women who said they were deported. Alaexis_¿question? 21:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the Ukrainian authorities are claiming that all the Ukrainian refugees in Russia were deported there. What they are claiming is that "over 402,000 Ukrainians had been forcefully taken to Russia". They might be exaggerating the numbers but that's not the kind of claim that one can contradict or falsify by reporting the case of a family that wasn't deported to Russia against their will. Besides, I even doubt that our task here is to contradict or falsify claims of war crimes. If there are reliable sources, we report the claims, and if they turn out to be false, sooner or later lies will be exposed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I see your point. Let's wait for RS to cover it then. Alaexis_¿question? 11:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of Poison by Ukrainian civilians against Russian troops

The Ukrainian government acknowledged yesterday that Ukrainian civilians in Kharkiv killed two Russian soldiers and hospitalized 28 others of the 3rd Motorized Rifle Division by handing out pastrys/cakes to Russian troops that contained poison. This has been reported in a wide range of reliable sources, see these articles [5], [6], [7] for examples. The use of chemicals of any kind in warfare is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention, see here [8] and as noted on the History of Chemical Warfare wikipedia page, the use of poison is one of the oldest forms of chemical warfare. This incident appears to me to warrant inclusion on this page, however it was removed by two other editors, one who merely said it was "whitewashing". It seems to me that if this page is going to maintain NPOV that this incident must be included.XavierGreen (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, none of the sources claims that this is a war crime, nor qualifies the episode as "chemical warfare". If we were to qualify it in that way, we would be engaged in WP:OR. Besides, when one speaks of chemical warfare one thinks about gas in the trenches; this episode to me sounds like something else. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Chemical Warfare Convention applies to all chemicals, not just gas. And the Hague treaty specifically makes it a warcrime to use poison as a weapon as User:BilledMammal linked below.XavierGreen (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There's different viewpoints here, and they're all WP:OR. My reading, based on the preceding "international armed conflict" clause, would suggest that use of poison by an invading or occupying force is a war crime but domestic use by forces resisting occupation is not. Either way, our opinions don't matter and we need a reliable source to categorize the poisoning as a war crime before inclusion. Shadybabs (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed it before seeing this discussion; if we are to describe it as a war crime, we need reliable sources to do so - and we cannot use sources such as this to do so, as that would be WP:SYNTH. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well, that is obviously NOT a war crime. Killing of occupantsoccupiers by civilians who resist occupation is well known as resistance. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, did you mean to wrote "occupiers"? Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

    My mistake, that is how that word sounds in Russian. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Obvious case of WP:OR. No source has been provided which actually describes it as use of chemical weapons. Also whole story is based on a facebook post of dubious reliability.--Staberinde (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Poisonings by civilians are not a war crime, just a crime under Ukrainian law. War crimes are perpetrated by state actors. If the these poisonings were perpetrated by the armed forces of Ukraine, then it would be a war crime. Also, as made clear in Article 1, the Chemical Weapons Convention only applies to sovereign states and the actions of the same, not human beings. Unless you got any proof that the Ukrainian government was involved here in any influential way, this incident was not a war crime. Fluffy89502 (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course it was terrible and also very unwise. But was it a war crime or self defense?

The Russian soldiers were occupying peoples homes, making the residents sleep in the basements and then raping the women and eventually torturing or killing some family members. The residents were absolutely terrified-- so some of them may have thought "just poison these guys before they rape, torture or execute us."

Under the law that would be self defense, not a war crime.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Split article?

The fact is, that the overwhelming portion of the war crimes discussed in this article have been perpetrated by Russian forces (per all the reliable sources). There are also some war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces but their number is much smaller than those on the other side. As such I think it might make sense to split this article into Russian war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and a corresponding article for the Ukrainian side. Otherwise, the title of the article itself suggests a false WP:BALANCE. Thoughts? Volunteer Marek 18:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

What's the rush? I agree with you regarding the overall balance but still there is quite a lot of uncertainty and in many cases the evidence is indirect. I think it makes sense to wait until the dust settles and decide then. Also, there are quite a few precedents of general War crimes in XXX war articles, for example War crimes in the Kosovo War. Alaexis_¿question? 19:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No, this would just be an attempt to hide under the carpet war crimes perpetrated by Ukrainians. There's no need to split the article as it correctly deals primarily with allegations regarding Russian war crimes, without ignoring allegations regarding Ukrainian war crimes. What we should be doing is stop misrepresenting reliable sources, removing sourced info and adding fake description to photos, as Volunteer Marek has been doing the past week.Anonimu (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Then the fact that the overwhelming number of these crimes have been perpetuated by Russia (and we're not even including the worst ones because they're so horrendous no one wants to talk about them!) needs to be made clear right at the beginning. Volunteer Marek 21:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

How so? Splitting the article would ensure there's a page seperate for Ukranian war crimes, one that is just as visible as the Russian one to users. I would agree that if a particular editor is in fact misrepresenting reliable sources, removing sourced info and addking fake descriptions to photo's that would be a problem, one that can be addressed. I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion, as it only serves to muddy the waters and inflame what already seems to be an edit war between the two of you. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be a good idea actually. Writing the lead section has been a constant struggle and the problem always emerges: if you add a crime allegedly committed by the Ukrainians, that inevitably looks as if you were downplaying the crimes allegedly committed by the Russians, so the info gets moved towards the bottom of the page (POW treatment) or even deleted (as was the case of other sexual offences different from assault). Having two separate articles would solve the problem of balancing what cannot be properly balanced. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't oppose it. At least temporarily, a future merge could come once the dust settles. Right now this article is a bit confusing. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I support this, including the problem caused by the sense of equivalency. I came here from Russian war crimes, and I'll also note the existence of Russian war crimes during the Syrian civil war (ok, that's just a redirect). For now I created a redirect based on the propose name. After the sploit this article can became a disambig. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think it's better not to split the article into the seperate articles 1) Russian war crimes and 2) Ukrainian war crimes.

This is because Ukrainian perpetrated war crimes are far less in comparison to Russian war crimes (in the current conflict, as we know so far, to date).

Consequently, creating an entire article about Ukrainian war crimes at this time would cause problems of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)