Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Lead is clearly POV

The lead is POV and doesn't adequately summarize the article, as the lead exclusively discusses Russian war crimes whereas the body, while mostly focused on Russian war crimes, also in several instances discusses allegations against Ukrainians.

A more fair wording would be something like (roughly) "war crimes happened, the vast majority of allegations against Russians although some against Ukrainians as well..." JDiala (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Going to need to carefully balance "allegations" there if we want to stick to WP:NPOV, whereas war crimes committed against Ukrainians have wide data and references, a lot of the allegations against Ukraine in terms of war crimes are by Russia itself. The Russian state doesn't qualify as WP:RS. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt we have sources saying Both Russia and Ukraine have been accused of war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the overwhelming majority of both alleged and verified war crimes being perpetrated by Russia or the like [1] .

If we don't, saying that in the lead is the violation of WP:BALANCE.

Quite the contrary, every source says
Moscow’s Disregard of International Humanitarian Law
Historical Soviet and Contemporary Russian Criminal Acts Against Ukrainians Under the UN Genocide Convention
Engaging Post-Truth in Shadowing Russian War Crimes
Russia’s War Crimes in Ukraine as a Tool of War

and so on The Russian-Ukrainian Conflict and War Crimes: Challenges for Document (routledge.com) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, where's "deliberately operating in highly populated areas" characterized as a war crime in your source [2] ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article body. See WP:LEAD. The article body describes a variety of war crimes the overwhelming majority of which are Russian, but also includes some by Ukrainians too. A lead paragraph exclusively describing Russian war crimes is propagandistic. As to your other question, Ukrainian fighting tactics were explicitly described as IHL violations by Amnesty International in the cited source: "Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure." JDiala (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

A lede paragraph which says “both Ukraine and Russia have been accused of war crimes” when the article itself, as well as all the sources pretty much say “almost ALL of the war crimes that have occurred have been perpetrated by Russia” is “propagandistic” and violates WP:LEDE. It’s simple false equivalence which violates NPOV. Volunteer Marek 07:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a false equivalence if the sentence I wrote expressly refutes the premise that there is an equivalence by using the qualifier "overwhelming majority" for Russian war crimes. One being an overwhelming majority compared to another, does not indicate an equivalence. You also concede your own argument by using the word "almost": the current version of the first paragraph of the lead doesn't suggest to the reader "almost"; it suggests "all." JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

About operating in populated areas: Not every violation of IHL is a war crime. In that same source Amnesty says that Russia committed war crimes so it is not that Amnesty chose to avoid that phrase in the report. Instead, they chose to write that Ukraine violated IHL, which shows that they did not view Ukraine's actions as war crimes. Sjö (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how your inference that this "shows that they did not view Ukraine's actions as war crimes" follows. Not stating something explicitly does not imply that they reject said thing. In any case, I'd be fine re-wording it to indicate that an IHL violation rather than a war crime per se. This is pedantry. JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic and you should not restore the reverted version until objections raised above have been addressed.
As to your other question, Ukrainian fighting tactics were explicitly described as IHL violations
So, why you added it to "War crimes" article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, this is pedantry. The term "war crime" colloquially refers to violations of the laws of war. This purpose of this article is to document violations of the laws of war over the course of this conflict. IHL violations fall within the scope of this, even if AI doesn't explicitly use the word "war crime." That there is a tighter, more specific legal description of the term "war crime" is besides the point. You are trying to exclude quality sourced material on the basis of what amounts to a technicality. This standard is not used for other articles on war crimes in other wars or even for Russian alleged war crimes enumerated in this article. JDiala (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: For now, I'll keep the first paragraph of the lead as is (your version). However, I've reverted your removal of the Amnesty source. You need consensus for this as the Amnesty report has been discussed extensively in the past and we've decided to keep it. I've also corrected your grammar much of which was very incorrect. JDiala (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read through the talk page archives. This has been discussed a few dozen times before. Volunteer Marek 07:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that matters. It's certainly not uncommon to restart discussions that have been had previously on Wikipedia. JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: @Sjö: I'm going to kindly ask that the two of you follow BRD. I have been cooperative and have chosen not to revert the first paragraph even though I disagree with it, per BRD. However, for the removal of the Amnesty report, it is long-established consensus that it deserves to stay in the current article. In light of that I'd ask you not remove the source without further discussion. JDiala (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The consensus version is here [3] (diff [4] ) and your newly added sentence "Allegations against the Armed Forces of Ukraine include deliberately operating in highly populated areas[13] and the torture and execution of Russian POWs.[14][15]" is not there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The objection you're bringing up is on the validity of the Amnesty report to the article itself. This is established consensus. Contesting the inclusion of the Amnesty report requires consensus. JDiala (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, in the message above it was pointed out that it's your addition that is contested. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You said earlier "So, why you added it to "War crimes" article?" indicating that you don't want the AI report in the article because it "merely" describes an IHL violation. JDiala (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

in the message above it was pointed out that it's your addition that is contested. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your objection is to the inclusion of the AI report. JDiala (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ask me about what my objection is. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The logic that you've articulated is clearly against the AI report itself, because you're objecting to the AI report's mention of IHL violations as opposed to war crimes. JDiala (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The logic is The consensus version is here [5] (diff [6] ) and your newly added sentence "Allegations against the Armed Forces of Ukraine include deliberately operating in highly populated areas[13] and the torture and execution of Russian POWs.[14][15]" is not there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the basis for your objection to the AI report, which I quoted above and you haven't engaged with. That was an attempt to change established consensus on that report. JDiala (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jdala. Last paragraph is not ideal, but you need WP:Consensus for your change [7]. I would say we should not include any disputed allegations in the lead. Let's focus on the facts that were proven, the most important ones, those that are repeatedly happening during the war and covered widely in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"the vast majority of allegations against...". No, these are not just allegations, that's the point. And we should not talk about merely allegations in the lead. Such wording is OK in official legal context (i.e. they investigate allegations), but speaking on the essence of this and based on the coverage in sources, there is no any doubt that actual war crimes have been committed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for not including disputed allegations in the lead. In fact, MOS:LEAD encourages us to "include prominent controversies"; the debate on the AI report is perhaps the most controversial thing in this topic. Even putting that aside, there is ample documented evidence of the torture and execution of Russian POWs in captivity, in multiple instances, documented by the OHCHR. These are beyond "alleged" for all intents and purposes. JDiala (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You say: These are beyond "alleged". Great. So you do agree with my point. But if they are actually beyond alleged should be established by RS. This maybe so in some examples, but not so in some others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that allegations should not be included in the body of the page. They should if they were notable and widely reported. I am only saying we should focus on the most important facts in the lead. I also agree that a paragraph about it can be added to the lead. I just do not think it was a good summary to reflect the general situation during the war. The Ukrainian side actually makes a huge effort to evacuate their own civilian population. But many people, especially elderly and sick, refuse to leave and became victims of the shelling by Russian forces. This is hardly "human shields" or intentional endangering of civilians by the Ukrainian side. By Russian side - yes, absolutely - if we are talking about general trends during the war (that is what the summary should describe). My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current version of the lead if you are. We can consider this discussion concluded if so. It's a good compromise: brief one sentence discussion of Ukrainian POW mistreatment in lead, but not the human shields stuff which is more contested. JDiala (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion everyone. It's obvious we have not come to an agreement here. I am strongly considering an RfC on this matter as I simply do not believe that the wholesale whitewashing of Ukrainian war crimes, documented by the article body, in the lead is consistent with the principles of neutrality and the purpose of a lead. I'd like to get the opinion of a wide variety of editors in this topic area to establish consensus. Does anyone have objections to this before I start it? JDiala (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

JDiala, you made 4 or 5 reverts (I don’t feel like counting exact time stamps) in last 24 hours. Volunteer Marek 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't consider this edit a revert, rather a normal copy-edit, but I'll admit this is probably an edge case, see this recent discussion involving many prolific editors and administrators on revert edge cases. In my judgement, adding in a clarifying adjective ("reportedly") to better reflect the source, and correcting grammar, without substantively undoing and reversing existing work, does not constitute a revert, but is rather just a normal edit. This and this edit count as a single revert since they're consecutive. Taking all of the above into account, 3RR was not violated.

At the same time, I do understand your concern on edit warring, even putting aside the technicalities associated with the definition of a revert. My goal is to be diplomatic, and I apologize if my conduct was not perceived as such. In the interests of diplomacy I will not make further reversions on the lead until we have a clear consensus for that (this might mean an RfC). JDiala (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine accusations

I started to check some pieces of the article.

For example, it says
On 4 August 2022, Amnesty International expressed concern that "Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians".[8], suggesting it somehow related to the article subject. While what the source says is -
Not every Russian attack documented by Amnesty International followed this pattern, however. In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, the organization did not find evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas unlawfully targeted by the Russian military. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So I checked the report [9] which is used as a source for On 7 March 2022, the Ukrainian armed forces reportedly occupied a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka ... paragraph and it does not characterize it as a war crime. What is the reason to have that paragraph in the article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. More generally, this article is too big, and some less significant content can be removed to make it more readable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is too big, so conveniently we'll remove one of the very few allegations against Ukraine to deal with article size, not the myriad allegations against Russia which is why the article is so large in the first place. (sarcasm). This has nothing to do with article size. JDiala (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is: this is not a well established case of human shields. Hence I removed it. What else? My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a couple of points. First, if we are going remove any and all sources that do not use the word "war crime" explicitly, then that means removing a number of the allegations against Russia too. Second, the AI report explicitly frames Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation. There is past consensus that the AI report stays; you need consensus to remove it. JDiala (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

frames Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation
That's not what our article about is.

Your first point is fair. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed this point in the previous thread. I don't think it's good faith conduct to dismiss allegations of IHL violations merely on the basis of them not being explicitly described as "war crimes." This is a pedantic distinction. People look at this article for violations of the laws of war in the conflict broadly, not some specific technical minutiae distinctions between "war crime" and "IHL violation." If not this article, then where would the AI report be best placed in Wikipedia? Should we create a separate article for IHL violations? This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation. JDiala (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation.
You are again violating the No Personal Attacks policy. Please stop.

We don't dismiss the report, it can be used where appropriate. We can be pedantic here. And we should be when asked. People may read the article and be mislead that Ukraine is committing war crimes with those actions, which is not what the source says. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider that a PA. At some point we have to call a spade a spade, and I think the logic you are using is highly tendentious. I'd suggest engaging with my argument. Please answer the question. If not this article, which Russia-Ukraine related article do you think the AI report should be located in? It's a very simple question. The AI report is well-known and highly debated by numerous reliable sources. The Ukrainian government itself made a point of responding to it, and in fact they themselves thought they were being accused of war crimes. It caused a major controversy at the time. Should readers of Wikipedia be completely ignorant of it on the basis of what is a pedantic technicality? To your other question on being "misled", that has a very easy solution. Just state in plain writing that it was an IHL violation which is not necessarily a war crime. JDiala (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The report talks about war crimes and very well can be used here. It's just that the sentence in question in both our article and within the report it refers to that is not about the war crimes. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It briefly discusses Russian war crimes, but that was not the reason the report attracted widespread attention from reliable sources. The reason the report attracted widespread attention from reliable sources (and governments) was the IHL violation allegation against Ukraine. JDiala (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The nursing home issue was discussed extensively back in July 2022, August 2022 and there was an RfC about it [10], which was disrupted by extensive sock puppetry by accounts which demanded it be included. IIRC a couple accounts/users gots blocked for trying to edit war it in. And now we are back with the exact same issue being dragged out again. The sources do not call it a war crime. It is fairly obscure by now. Putting it in same league as murdering POWs, raping children, carrying out massacres is just…wrong. Volunteer Marek 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Moralizing, as you are in the end, isn't a policy-based argument. There are gradations to these things, obviously. Also the OHCHR paper clearly specifies that fighting from civilian areas is an IHL violation, and from the context it is clear that they think it could be a human shields case which is just a flat out war crime. Since this was established by a past RfC I would say overturning the decision especially requires clear consensus. JDiala (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware that pointing out the difference between murdering civilians and raping children on one hand, and stationing your troops too close to civilian buildings on the other is just “moralizing”. The OHCHR paper does not refer to this as a war crime, which had been pointed out a dozen times. Two years ago. Year ago. Now. “From the context it is clear… is just a flat out war crime” is not in the source, it is not at all “clear” and it’s just WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Likewise it is absolutely not true that “this was established by a past RfC”. Where did you get that from? The RfC says the following:

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.

So no subsection. ONE or TWO sentences AT MOST. And there’s clear opposition to even including those one or two sentences. But of course you added even more than that. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 19:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH and OR don't apply to talk page discussions. It would only be a SYNTH/OR violation if I wrote (or proposed to write) on the main article that "AI accused Ukraine of war crimes" or something, which I am not doing. If you want the discussion on Stara Krasnianka to be one or two sentences you are free to reduce the length of that discussion. I would not be opposed to that. However, a wholesale removal of any and all discussion — which is what seems to be the intention — will be reverted by me, as I object to that. I feel it's imperative to get a strong consensus, possibly another RfC, for such a wholesale removal. JDiala (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

If you’re using SYNTH and OR on talk page to justify inclusion of some material in the article itself, then of course they apply.

And one more time. There already was an RfC. The result was “at most one or two sentences” if at all. Including a substantial chunk of text about it then is a clear violation of that RfC, hence of current consensus. It is up to you to obey consensus and fix the problem you yourself created by violating it in the first place. Volunteer Marek 01:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking about your revert [11], this is very simple. The section is specifically about human shields but the cited sources do not call it "human shields" (this term has a very specific meaning). "It is clear [to you] that" is WP:SYN. Hence, does not belong there. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Then make another section with a different name, "colocation of military facilities and civilian areas" or something. You cannot wholesale remove sourced material based on such a technicality. Or just make the current section name something like "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields" .... this is what the OHCHR does. JDiala (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It still doesn't fit into "War crimes". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This just takes us back to our original discussion above, which you haven't replied to. JDiala (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No viable arguments were presented against the main argument to refute. The press attention is not a valid argument to talk about it here. I agreed with your point to remove offtopic elsewhere. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A viable argument was presented. You just didn't respond to it. As I've mentioned, you're appealing to a technicality to get a widely discussed report removed entirely from the page it's most naturally suited for. I think the fundamental issue is that the article's title, when referring to "war crimes", isn't obliging itself to discuss exclusively crimes or alleged crimes which fall into the legal technical ICRC definition of "war crime" per se, but rather violations of the laws of war broadly, including IHL violations which could be war crimes. JDiala (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Human shields clearly belong to this page. However, just not being able to evacuate civilians by Ukrainian forces (as in this case) is not a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not engaging with the argument presented, just reiterating your own views. JDiala (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I forget about this. Yeh, that definitely belongs to page Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and might (or might not) be briefly mentioned on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So, I just made a shorter summary and moved it to another section per the old RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You really need another RfC, especially if you're trying to get rid of the AI report or the Stara Krasnyanka incident which have been points of contention for years. JDiala (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearly has been a contentious issue (been removed multiple times by multiple editors) since it was originally added by a now banned user ...... should be removed and you (JDiala) should move forward with an RFC. Simple courtesy advice.... don't get banned before you can justify your points of view. Moxy🍁 00:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That AI report does not appear directly in the RfC. Should the controversy about that old AI report be included to this page? I would say no. I doubt it even belongs to page Amnesty International. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Per administrator ScottishFinnishRadish you need to consensus to remove not keep established long-standing material. If you insist on making a radical contentious change to the established article you can start an RfC. This is the appropriate dispute resolution process in this case. Please do not continue to revert, the default standard is always to keep the status quo. Contentious changes in articles are made through the discussion process not edit-warring, thank you. JDiala (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, here is the edit, and it was completely consistent with the old RfC. To be clear, I did not remove this content, but moved it to another section and slightly modified. If you want to start another RfC (I am not sure about what), you are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The old RfC isn't even relevant (honestly having read over the old closer's decision it left more questions open than answered --- this is just another reason to have a new RfC). All that matters is that the material you removed was long-standing. This puts the onus on you to establish consensus to remove the established material, according to the administrator thread I linked. Since you're the one interested in making this edit, I would say it's your responsibility to create and advertise the RfC.

You are claiming you never removed content but this does not seem to be true. Here is the version prior to my reversion. I did a CTRL-F for "Amnesty International" or "nursing home" and failed to find the relevant allegations against the Ukrainian Armed Forces. JDiala (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, here is the diff [12]. The content was moved, not removed. Please do not make content forks. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are claiming you never removed content but this does not seem to be true. Here is the version prior to my reversion
On 7 March 2022, the Ukrainian armed forces reportedly took positions at a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka, near Kreminna, Luhansk Oblast, due to house's strategic location, with the evacuation reportedly impossible due to mining ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The Amnesty report was clearly removed, as were allegations that Ukraine violated IHL. You further tried to reword it to suggest Ukraine did nothing wrong, and the decision to move it to another section is suspicious because the implication with your move is that the only plausible war crime category the incident falls under is the targeting of civilian infrastructure, not the misuse of civilian infrastructure by Ukraine. Once again, please start an RfC for this rather than edit war. This is a long-standing matter of dispute. JDiala (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The Amnesty report was clearly removed
It's there under the ref #115 - "The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24 February to 15 May 2022". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: That's the OHCHR report, not the Amnesty report. JDiala (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala, regarding your edit [13] . As it was shown with sources [14] , the report didn't say that Ukraine used human shields but the report expressed concern about allegations of this occurring . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: If your concern is the section category name not properly reflecting the allegation, I agree with you, and there is an easy solution to this. Rename it to something like "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields." This is what the OHCHR report does. JDiala (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've BOLD-ly done this myself. JDiala (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an exact duplication, but nevertheless an obvious content fork you just have re-created again [15] (here is same text in another section for comparison: [16]). If you insists on using WP:BRD here, this your edit [17] was "bold" and can be reverted as such and as an obvious content fork within the same page. It was reverted already: [18]. Now, based on your edit summary, you are trying to "enforce" WP:BRD through edit war. This is exactly what I warned you against on your talk page [19]. If anything, you are making a WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And as I told you on the talk page, what's worse than trying to enforce BRD is the person actually violating BRD, which is you. I note that uninvolved editors took my side in the ANI discussion on that issue. On content fork issue, the solution is quite simple: remove the Stara Krasnianka incident from the "Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property" section altogether. The OHCHR report says Russia didn't commit war crimes, so I don't even know why this incident is here. I will take this step soon but I'll first give you a chance to respond. JDiala (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

When you say that the old RFC is not relevant, it appears you are the only one with that opinion. I believe that the RFC is still relevant, that there should be a new RFC if you want to change the consensus, and the inclusion of two lengthy sections clearly goes against the results of the RFC. It is not enough to remove one section, but what remains should be at most one or two sentences. I have no objection to adding several references to those sentences, including the Amnesty report. Sjö (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify that I don't mean the old RfC is entirely irrelevant. What I'm saying is that the old RfC cannot be used as an argument to, for instance, remove the Amnesty report or remove allegations the UAF violated IHL together. This is what the other user was doing with his edit. But old RfC made no such decision.

The only decision the prior RfC made on issues of length was that there should be at most one or two sentences on Stara Krasnianka. This does not have anything to do with the Amnesty report as the Amnesty report was not about Stara Krasnianka. If you'd like to shorten the discussion on Stara Krasnianka to be consistent with the RfC, I am open to this.

I ultimately believe the best path forward is another RfC. This has been a recurring issue for years and it's best to get it resolved hopefully once and for all. JDiala (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what "recurring issue" you are talking about or what an RfC might be about, but there are several participants who disagreed with you in discussions on this talk page, and no one agreed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The "recurring issue" is the extent and scope of content surrounding allegations that Ukrainians violated IHL by utilizing civilian infrastructure within the article, broadly construed, which has been discussed here ad nauseam since mid-2022. You are correct that within the context of the current discussion, I am the lone person arguing for my perspective. However, if you look at the history of the talk page, this has clearly not always been the case, and many others shared the perspective I have that even-handed inclusion of such allegations is generally a good idea per WP:NPOV, which is precisely why there were RfCs in the past. This historical context is important, and why I feel getting a complete community consensus (rather than just views of ~4 editors in the current discussion) is crucial here. Hence why an RfC may be a good idea. JDiala (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see what you are talking about. That was discussed on this page 2 years ago [20]. If anything, this story is hugely outdated. Do you have any new sources to support the inclusion? My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "outdated." There is no reason to exclude material from 2022. I also don't need "new sources to support inclusion." JDiala (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is why. The inclusion was disputed because this is not a war crime. Now, it appears this inclusion also has a WP:RECENTISM problem. If it has no long-lasting significance, the inclusion is even less "due". You will have a problem convincing anyone this should be on the page. And no, there is no any "recurring issue" with including or not including this material. My very best wishes (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not what WP:RECENTISM means. A given incident doesn't require constant ongoing discussion in reliable sources for it to be included in an article. Indeed, if that's the standard to be used, then the overwhelming majority of allegations against Russians would have recentism issues too. Furthermore, that is an essay, not a policy. This matter is clearly a recurring issue by definition as there have been numerous discussions about this. JDiala (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

How come? It says: "Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens." Yes, it is exactly what had happen 2 years ago. If there was nothing since then, this is arguably a low-significance info, a candidate for removal from a very large page, such as that one. And yes, there is a lot of other low-significance content that needs to be summarized more briefly or removed from the page, but it does not matter which "side". I have no time to fix it now, probably will be back later. My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an incorrect interpretation of the essay. The essay does not claim that all sourced claims require lasting impact to merit inclusion. The point is that the article shouldn't be overburdened by recent-but-ultimately-insignificant incidents. This may include, for instance, minor events in the war. But this was not a minor event; it was something reported on widely and even Zelensky commented on it. Unilateral attempts to change the status-quo will be reverted. I am going to reiterate to all reading that I am holding an eminently reasonable position here, namely that long-standing (several years) contentious issues such as this one should ideally be resolved by a proper dispute resolution process (e.g., an RfC). JDiala (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, Leaked Amnesty review finds own Ukraine report ‘legally questionable’. This is a controversy belonging to page AI. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

While this leaked review found "some" apparent shortcomings, the reality is that the report wasn't retracted, which is the clearest signal that the organization fundamentally stands behind the work. There is some criticism, true, but we can briefly touch on criticism too if you desire. This will be just 1-2 sentences. It won't take long. JDiala (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So, it appears that we all agree that the text about Stara Krasnianka should be at most one or two sentences, right? Sjö (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No objections, but we should be careful here. The Stara Krasnianka incident has nothing to do with the Amnesty report, which does not talk about Stara Krasnianka. Stara Krasnianka is rather mentioned in the OHCHR report. With this in mind, I have no objection to the Stara Krasnianka incident being at most one or two sentences long. However, within those 1-2 sentences, I believe there should still be a brief mention that the OHCHR indicated concern that the UAF violated IHL in their conduct.

To summarize in the clearest terms, my full position is that there should be 1-2 sentences on the AI report, and separately 1-2 sentences on the Stara Krasnianka incident, each of which discuss allegations that Ukraine may have violated IHL in their conduct. I also have no objection to discussing criticism of these claims from the pro-Ukraine side, assuming the criticism can be fit within the 1-2 sentences. JDiala (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So, everyone, including the Amnesty itself [21] admitted that the report was wrong or at least questionable, but you still insist on including it in this page, two years after the report. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is addressed in the comment above. It is a leaked review commissioned by Amnesty, not a formal retraction. The standard for inclusion here is notability, not that a given allegation is entirely uncontentious. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The widely criticized report by AI implied that on a systemic or general level, Ukrainian forces were primarily or equally to blame for the death of civilians resulting from attacks by Russia. (see the link to article by Guardian above) Now, AI itself employed a panel of experts who said that no, it was wrong/misleading. And you still insist on including it on this page, two years after the report... My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

not a formal retraction
What do you mean? Report of the legal review panel on the Amnesty International press release concerning Ukrainian fighting tactics of 4 August 2022 - Amnesty International
For allthese reasons , the Panel finds that the PR's insistence that Ukraine had violated its obligations to take passive precautions was too emphatic. Without input and insight from the Ukrainian military concerning whether its troops assessed the feasibility oflocating elsewhere and if so, what its feasibility assessments were, legal conclusions should have been caveated appropriately a conclusion echoed by some AI staffprior to the publication ofthe PR. Atthe very least, given the lack of input from the Ukrainian military, AIshould have used more cautious language in the PR, such as noting that Ukraine could or mighthave violated its obligations under Article 58 AP I and calling for greater scrutiny ofthe Ukrainian military’s decisions concerning where to locate its forces. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that both of you are again really refusing to engage with the point. I will just repeat myself. The report wasn't a formal retraction, and the quote you cited doesn't address that point. Furthermore, the standard for inclusion here is notability, not that a given allegation is entirely uncontentious. JDiala (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

both of you are again really refusing to engage with the point. I will just repeat myself. The report wasn't a formal retraction, and the quote you cited doesn't address that point.
No. This is a false point. We don't need a formal retraction. The point is - the Panel finds that the PR's insistence that Ukraine had violated its obligations to take passive precautions was too emphatic. Without input and insight from the Ukrainian military concerning whether its troops assessed the feasibility oflocating elsewhere and if so, what its feasibility assessments were, legal conclusions should have been caveated appropriately a conclusion echoed by some AI staffprior to the publication ofthe PR. Atthe very least, given the lack of input from the Ukrainian military, AIshould have used more cautious language in the PR, such as noting that Ukraine could or mighthave violated its obligations under Article 58 AP I and calling for greater scrutiny ofthe Ukrainian military’s decisions concerning where to locate its forces. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We do in fact need a formal retraction. Without a formal retraction, this is an indication that Amnesty still has confidence in the work notwithstanding the views of the inquiry they commissioned. Furthermore, the standard for inclusion here is notability, not that a given allegation is entirely uncontentious. JDiala (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

NYT report on Ukraine killing surrendered Russian troops

There is an NYT report on Ukraine killing surrendered Russian troops, see here. I think this should be included in the article. However to avoid another edit war scenario I thought I'd discuss here first. JDiala (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you already added recent Russian attack on Kyiv child hospital?
Russia’s July 8 Attack on a Children’s Hospital in Ukraine | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)
Russian Federation’s Attack on Ukrainian Children’s Hospital ‘Not Only a War Crime’ but ‘Far Beyond the Limits of Humanity’, Medical Director Tells Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
Attacking hospitals is part of Putin’s plan – POLITICO
Kremlin tries to cover its tracks in Kyiv children's hospital bombing (voanews.com)
Кремль запустил кампанию по дезинформации об ударе по детской больнице в Киеве с участием федеральных телеканалов • «Агентство» (agents.media) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone else has added that. JDiala (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

... and that is because sources clearly relate the event to the article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend staying on topic and being clear with what you want to say. The NYT report clearly indicates that the killing of surrendered soldiers is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. JDiala (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The NYT report
Why you say it's a report? If you try to give the article more weight then it is, other editors may think you are POV-pushing.

clearly indicates that the killing of surrendered soldiers is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, it does. But

• our article subject is different
• the article said that, but didn't went that far as to accuse Ukraine, but Russia: Killing prisoners of war is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Once soldiers clearly indicate an intention to surrender, they cannot be attacked and must be safely taken into custody. The Ukrainian government has repeatedly pointed at Russian troops killing unarmed and surrendering soldiers as proof of Moscow’s lawlessness.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The only POV pushing happening here is your usage of exceedingly tendentious reasoning to dismiss anything remotely critical of Ukraine on this and related articles, not me using the word "report." This passage you cite never accused Russia. It is stating that the Ukrainian government has accused Russia. From the context of the article as a whole, it is obvious that the allegation they are describing (the killing of surrendered soldiers) is being levelled principally at the Ukrainians and their allies. I think you are also confused as to what the standards for inclusion here are. There does not need to be a verbatim assertion "Ukraine has committed a war crime" to warrant inclusion. Demonstrably documenting criminal acts like the murder of unarmed captives and emphasizing that such conduct is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, is enough to warrant inclusion. JDiala (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Demonstrably documenting criminal acts like the murder of unarmed captives and emphasizing that such conduct is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, is enough to warrant inclusion.
Other editor may simply say No, and it would be enough to invalidate your thesis. As it has no ground, and their No is based on WP:OR This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic .

Will you please stop with discussing the editor, not the argument. This is personal attack. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not OR. It would be OR if I wrote in the article that "the NYT accused Ukraine of war crimes" but that's not what I'm doing. In talk page discussions OR doesn't apply. The question is how related the issue at hand is to the article subject which is a partly subjective judgement editors can and should make. JDiala (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

See a perfect description here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mr_rnddude-20240710192900-Manyareasexpert-20240710182500 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That's about dated and outdated sources. It's irrelevant to the current discussion (and in any case a fringe view among editors as I point out). JDiala (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't check the article (paywall), but all such individual cases belong to page Treatment of prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We just need to provide a brief summary on this page. We should not make every individual case a separate subsection on this page, excluding only most notable cases, such as Olenivka prison massacre. This page is enormous and should be shortened for readability. Fortunately, we have many sub-pages that allow doing this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've already indicated, I don't believe the length argument has merit. There were no complaints about this when adding dozens and dozens of alleged Russian atrocities but now conveniently it becomes a problem for the one or two Ukrainian allegations. I consider POV concerns to be of far greater significance than article length. JDiala (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not say anything about any specific "side". This needs to be summarized much shorter on the both "sides". As about "no complaints", you are wrong. Someone placed a template "This section should include only a brief summary" already, and it is present for a year. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If so, why is there not even a dedicated top-level section for Ukrainian war crimes? Every analogous article where 95% of the war crimes were committed by one side, that I’ve seen, has a big fat section about the bigger offender with lots of main links and a 500-1000 word section for the lesser offender

Does anyone really believe that a grouping of a couple hundred thousand males, many underprivileged, under stressful conditions, who often aren’t aware of the details of their IHL obligations, never ever committed a single war crime? Any human male who has ever been in a fight understands the nin-triviality of switching off aggression, whether it’s deciding when to stop throwing more punches or taking your finger off the trigger when someone surrenders.

This particular allegation, apart from being from the Gray Lady and subject to its fact-checking standards, wasn’t about Ukrainian nationals at all. It was about foreign volunteers who may or may not be subject to the definition of mercenaries. And with the exception of nationalities with a direct reason to hate Moskals (Georgians, Poles, etc.), the kind of person who is interested in going to Ukraine is not the sort of person I would trust around my wallet or my sister, put it that way.

Also, until very recently a number of Ukrainian volunteer units were banned by USG from receiving American-made weapons due to suspicions of systematic human rights violations. I myself lurk frequently on Ukrainian-language Telegram and have seen both things like “we suggest you think twice before taking prisoners from XYZ brigade” as well as interesting things like Tyr runes.

There’s no need to, as Cinderella157 once put it, gild the lily. S**t happens. In the larger picture, Russia is overall the bad guy. That shouldn’t prevent us here at the world’s greatest compendium of knowledge from documenting what we find in RS.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. While the Russian army has committed more war crimes, it doesn't mean we should ignore the ones committed by the other side. Alaexis_¿question? 19:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, virtually all newspaper paywalls can be bypassed via Archive.today. I find the .ph mirror to be the best.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

To what extent should allegations that Ukraine violated the International humanitarian law (IHL) by utilizing civilian infrastructure for military operations be discussed in this article? I specifically focus on two separate matters.

(1) The inclusion of the allegation that Ukraine may have violated IHL in the specific case of a nursing home in Stara Krasnianka, Luhansk, brought to light in this June 2022 OHCHR report. It is claimed that in March 2022 Ukrainian soldiers utilized this nursing home, populated by elderly persons and disabled people, for military purposes contrary to IHL.

(2) The inclusion of a controversial report by Amnesty International published in August 2022 that there is a "pattern" of Ukraine utilizing civilian infrastructure, including residential areas, for military activity, which they indicate may be a violation of IHL.

• Option A: Include both (1) and (2).
• Option B: Include only (1).
• Option C: Include only (2).
• Option D: Include neither.
• Option E: Other

The matter has been debated extensively immediately above, and in fact for a few years now in older discussions. Thank you for contributing. JDiala (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• D or E. Which RS call these or other similar incidents war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces and where? I do not see anything significant here, including this old OHCHR report (one should read what it actually tells). Hence, this is not on the subject of the page. In addition, the report by AI (published 2 years ago) has been criticized so much that AI has hired several independent investigators who came to conclusion that the report was questionable at best [22]. Why should we use a questionable report if there are many thousands other sources on the crimes committed during this war? Why should we include some info that arguably does not belong to this page when the page is already too large? Nevertheless, some info about the attack on the care facility can be placed to the section about attacks on medical facilities because the killing of the patients has been widely reported, except that their murder was committed by Russian, not Ukrainian forces. Placing this to a section about the alleged Ukrainian war crimes, as JDiala suggested, would be a miscarriage of justice. misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this content simply belongs to another page, Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• C, as unfortunately these instances are only a tip of an iceberg. Both sides have used civilian infrastructure for military operations, and there's heap of evidence. I don't really have time to comb thrpogh myriads of press reports, but I've seen it reliably reported on multiple occasions. The situation is much more abhorrent than in the case of Hamas, since unlike in Gaza, there's enough of uninhabited area across Ukraine for both militaries to bomb and shoot at each other at will without touching civilian structures. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • And this is why we need to rely on how reliable sources characterise things, because comments like "there's enough of uninhabited area across Ukraine for both militaries to bomb and shoot at each other at will without touching civilian structures" show a complete lack of comprehension of how wars work. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:7137:F5A7:2B4:BD87 (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• D or E. YBSOne (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• D The incident is not called a war crime by any reliable source that I know of, which means that it is out of scope for this article. Nor could you reasonably argue that it is a WP:BLUE war crime (WP:OR aside). The Amnesty source should not be used because the statements that Ukraine did violate IHL were retracted in a later report published by Amnesty. Sjö (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• D, as long as there are no RS calling it a war crime. As suggested by u:My very best wishes it should be included in the Attacks on civilians... article instead. Alaexis_¿question? 08:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• A These allegations should be included as they are relevant content from mainstream, reliable sources. I will briefly touch on some counterarguments. It is factually incorrect that the Amnesty report was retracted. The alleged "retraction" cited by others was an independent review commissioned by Amnesty which merely suggested that some of the conclusions be mitigated. None of this resulted in the formal retraction of the report. The other counterpoint (brought up by e.g., Sjö and Alaexis) is whether this is an instance of OR since the Amnesty report does not explicitly describe it as a war crime. This is a basic misunderstanding of what OR is. I have created a separate sub-section below which involves discussing this question. JDiala (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• A In fact, neither of the sources in question explicitly state that the actions taken by Ukraine were definitively war crimes. The first source says: "OHCHR is concerned that in the course of hostilities, both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups as well as Ukrainian armed forces took up positions either in residential areas or near civilian objects, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for the protection of civilians present, as required under IHL," and then goes on to list a couple of examples, but never said those examples constituted a war crime. All it says is that there were concerns that these examples violated international law. As for the second source, there was a review panel for the report, which can be found here. It concluded that "The Panel considers that AI lacked sufficient information to categorically conclude that evacuations were feasible in the circumstances and thus that Ukraine had violated its obligations under IHL. Such a finding should have been made in more conditional terms, such as that Ukrainian forces could or might have violated IHL," so this report only says Ukraine may have violated international humanitarian law. I think we should list both reports in the Ukraine section of this article as saying Ukraine might have violated international law, or that there were concerns about it violating international law (with respect to the information presented in the two sources). Gödel2200 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• B, 1. per the Guardian report linked by My very best wishes, the AI report was: “written in language that was ambiguous, imprecise and in some respects legally questionable”. In view of that, I don't believe it should be used as a source. 2. While the OHCHR report doesn't explicitly refer to the Stara Krasnianka attack as a war crime perpetrated by either side, it does refer to it as a example of reported violations of IHL with regard to the use of civilians as human shields (which is a war crime, per Medecins Sans Frontieres). Furthermore, the report states that Ukrainian forces had mined the surrounding area, which prevented evacuation, and entered the care home because of its strategic value. Warrants inclusion under the Ukranian section w/ clarification that Ukranian forces may have violated IHL preceding/leading up to the Stara Krasnianka attack. Sisuvia (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• C This pattern of behavior by both sides is extensively documented by primary sources of both sides, as well as incidentally through certain details in frontline journalism. The Russians are not going to expend Iskanders or even just FAB-3000s just to flatten some houses full of innocent civilians. The cover provided by built environments is extremely desirable, and it is not easy to remove every single civilian from a town of 50k.

In response to MVBW, I find the term would be a miscarriage of justice to be very telling, and contrary to policies. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Whether certain details of IHL need to be revised to cope with new military necessities is of course outside the scope of this RfC. But given that the attacks in critical infrastructure are being investigated as war crimes, and the widespread backlash from Gaza, it seems that the trend in IHL is to ignore that war is ipso facto hell and cruelty and that a certain amount of civilians are always gonna get hurt. (If war was merely a gentlemanly contest between professional armies, as some wish, the crime of aggression could not exist as such.) This implies for us as encyclopedists that, in my opinion, in general, academic theoretical views of IHL should not be elevated above state practice or international actions (e.g. the ICTY’s decisions). The law of nations is, after all, made by the consensus of nations, not enacted by NGOs and law professors. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The Russians are not going to expend Iskanders or even just FAB-3000s just to flatten some houses full of innocent civilians. Oh no, that is exactly what they did in a very large number of well documented cases. Some of the most famous cases include Hroza missile attack or the Category:Shopping mall bombings in Ukraine. Mass killing the civilian population was done on purpose in many wars, even in times of Genghis Khan. Yes, one can say that was inefficient use of ammunition from a militarily standpoint, sure, but Russia, with allies like North Korea and Iran, has a lot of ammunition. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

By some houses I obviously was referring to random large houses in various immediate-rear villages, which in context is a sound line.

I haven't read about all of the shopping mall bombings in Ukraine (although the standalone cat may or may not have sigcov issues) as war crimes don't interest me beyond the technical legal aspects, but the Kremenchuk one was probably not intentional, although an IHL case could be made for the use of AS-4 Kitchens being inappropriate, which would then be countered by a necessity argument re:ammunition shortages and devolve into a repetition of the ongoing discourse about broad vs. constraining construction of the pillars.

In any event, no one is claiming that the Russians haven't deliberately targeted civilians. That's pretty evident. The question was about the use of urban areas, which again leads into the interpretive issue, which is almost certainly the most significant one in IHL today. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• A This is the second RfC on the same subject. From the first one in August 2022 a consensus emerged that the article should cover the placement of military targets near civilian objects, and have at most one or two sentences about Stara Krasnianka. However, immediately after my t-ban [23] (now lifted), the relevant section was removed from the article without a clear consensus [24]. Since consensus can change, a new RfC is welcome.

As for the attack on the Stara Krasnianka care house, it was first included in the article when the Ukrainian authorities claimed in March 2022 that it was a Russian war crime [25]. As soon as the OHCHR published a report stating that the incident was emblematic of its concerns over the use of human shields and the placement of military objectives near civilian objects ([26], para. 35-36), Stara Krasniaka was removed from the article on war crimes in Ukraine. How can this be consistent with NPOV? Here you can find excerpts from at least one source (Washington Post) using the words "war crime" to describe the incident.

As for placement of military objectives near civilian objects, there's a recurring misunderstanding affecting this article with regard to the notion of "war crimes" and therefore the scope of the article itself. In common parlance as well as in reliable secondary sources, "war crimes" can mean two different things. First, violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) that give rise to individual criminal responsibility (strict concept). Secondly, any serious violations of IHL, regardless of whether they are criminal or not (broad concept: sources cited here; one source among many, ICRC database rule 156). Since the war is still ongoing and few trials have been concluded, it's best to adopt the broad concept and include all allegations of serious violations of IHL from reliable sources, regardless of whether they are couched in terms of "war crimes". Note that the best sources (OHCHR, Amnesty International, HRW, etc.) use cautious language and often avoid speaking of "war crimes", which (strictly speaking) would imply intent on the part of the perpetrators. If we don't take this approach, we risk a paradox: a tweet from the US embassy or a Ukrainian statement labeling an act a "war crime" is sufficient for inclusion in the article, while a well-documented report from an international agency cautiously stating "this could be a serious violation of IHL and perhaps even a war crime" is not.

Finally, even if we adopt a strict notion of war crimes, the placement of military objectives near civilian objects may be so closely related to the subject of this article as to merit inclusion, since it can lead to violations of IHL that qualify as war crimes, such as the use of human shields and indiscriminate attacks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

In common parlance as well as in reliable secondary sources, "war crimes" can mean two different things
Original research starts from here. No, we don't risk a paradox. We don' write our articles based on tweets. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If we accept @Gitz6666's point that there are two different understandings, one strict and one broad, as to what can be constituted as a war crime, wouldn't choosing to adopt the stricter understanding (as you seem to favour) also be the start of original research per your own argument? Sisuvia (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If we accept @Gitz6666's point that there are two different understandings
That's part of the original research. See how many uneven grounds and disagreements we are about to meet if we accept that. If there are disagreement if something is a war crime or not, we follow the source. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert, what do you mean by we follow the source? Do we need the RS to say, in its own voice, "this is a war crime", or is it sufficient that it says "According to John Doe, this is a war crime"? John Doe's qualifications (a legal expert, a government official, etc.) are relevant? And what about when the RS says "this may be a war crime" (dubitative, speculative) or even "according to John Doe, this may be a war crime"? The truth is, having the magic words "war crime" in the source does not solve all the issues. Arguably, if the subject of this article is understood as "serious violations of IHL", having the words "war crime" is not even necessary.

We don' write our articles based on tweets Actually, the whole section Nuclear power plants is included in the article because of a tweet by the US Embassy in Kyiv ("the Kyiv US Embassy described the Russian attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant as a war crime"), plus the article by a legal expert who explicitly denies that the attack qualifies as a war crime ("According to international scholars ... it is "less likely" that Russian forces have committed a war crime"). However, the attacks on the nuclear power plants are a serious violation of IHL, and a dangerous one, and it's likely that readers interested in war crimes (broadly conceived) in Ukraine are also interested in these incidents, so we rightly include the attacks in the article. Based on the same standard, we should also have "placement of military objectives near civilian objects", which is essential to understand the discourse on war crimes in Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the second RfC on the same subject. Yes, of course. I am not sure why JDiala started it. All participants followed that old RfC; nobody violated it.My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• E The editor that initiated this RfC themselves stated below that ″we have to ″look at what WP:RS″ say, well, none of them call this a Ukrainian war crime. This whole RfC is rather bizarre because of this, and I do not think it adds anything of value to the previous one held. TylerBurden (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I've explained below (and Gitz above) in detail why the allegations are appropriate to include even if they're not called war crimes explicitly. Either you're having a reading comprehension failure or you're deliberating misrepresenting, but regardless this isn't a good-faith engagement with an opposing view.

An RfC was started because there was an editing dispute above that was not resolved. The closer to old RfC did not adequately answer the question "should these specific allegations against Ukraine be included or not?" which is what led to the current dispute. The old RfC also had nothing to say about the AI report.

Finally, in my view there is a concerning dynamic that a handful of frequent editors of this page just so happen to have a particular strong opinion on these issues which is not necessarily reflective of that of the broader WP:RUSUKR community and established past consensus. A well-publicized RfC helps obtain the broader view which is important for a contentious topic. JDiala (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

And I don't buy your explanation at all, you're not consistent in your statements or edits. TylerBurden (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

(2) The inclusion of a controversial report by Amnesty International published in August 2022 that there is a "pattern" of Ukraine utilizing civilian infrastructure, including residential areas, for military activity, which they say is a violation of IHL.

Let me remind you that Report of the legal review panel on the Amnesty International press release concerning Ukrainian fighting tactics of 4 August 2022 - Amnesty International 42.In view ofthe limited information at its disposal, the Panel finds that conclusion that Ukrainian forces violated their obligation to take passive precautions by failing to evacuate civilians was not sufficiently substantiated .

So your RFC has a false premise in it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a "false premise" as my description does accurately describe the original 2022 report. The subsequent review does not retract the original finding. It just mitigates aspects of it and suggests the usage of less categorical language, which in the interests of fairness I will apply to RfC description too. JDiala (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly pushing anti-Ukrainian and anti-West agenda, with phrases such as: ""British lawmaker", "Ukrainian official", etc. are awful sources." and "parroting Ukrainian propaganda". I would suggest starting a topic ban against You. You don't have to edit Wikipedia. You don't have to edit Ukraine-related articles. You are just grasping at straws to clear Russia and condemn Ukraine. YBSOne (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please let me remind you that personal attacks are strictly forbidden in Wikipedia, especially in sensitive areas like this. We don't want R-U war within Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes Russian and Ukrainian officials are not good sources because they have bias. Frankly, I have no idea how to cover this subject without bias, because there is close to none foreign observers of reporters in the war zone. - Altenmann >talk 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, it was not my intent to attack the editor but to point out a clear-to-me bias. YBSOne (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Wartime propaganda exists. Pointing this out isn't unreasonable. I'm not here citing RT. We're looking at reliable, mainstream, indeed Western (AI is headquartered in the UK) sources which give a nuanced account of the conflict. JDiala (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please also avoid false equivalency when pointing out faults of a defending nation of unprovoked invasion and not pointing at a war-crime committing invader, diminishing it's offences whenever possible [[27]]. You do understand which country is an "evil axis" right? YBSOne (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is getting into NOTFORUM territory. If you can cite any specific policy violation, I'd be happy to discuss it, but otherwise moralizing isn't an argument. See e.g., WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. JDiala (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not an expert in IHL, hence my question: does "alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure" constitute alleged war crime, and if yes, then by which rule? - Altenmann >talk 00:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a lawyer, but an ex military officer with a special interest in the laws of war. No, it is absolutely not a war crime. It is not even a violation of IHL to use civilian infrastructure. What could be a violation of IHL is deploying in such a way that if the enemy targets the unit, it puts protected persons (civilians/wounded) or protected property at risk. It appears there is not enough evidence to support that the Ukraine forces did that, per the investigation of the original Amnesty report https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/org60/6731/2023/en/. Sjö (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to add to my !vote above, we should be consistent and avoid including content that doesn't explicitly mention war crimes. Alaexis_¿question? 08:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The question of OR

Perhaps the most prominent counterargument to inclusion is that inclusion is OR. This has been the go-to argument for years. The argument basically goes like this. These sources do not describe Ukrainian conduct as a war crime but rather merely as an IHL violation (or something similar). Since the term war crime is in fact not used by the sources, whereas this article is about war crimes, this is an instance of us engaging in OR.

In reality, this is a misunderstanding of OR. I addressed this in an ANI discussion where another uninvolved, highly experienced editor ended up taking my side. I will reproduce the explanation I provided below modified slightly for context reasons.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is perhaps an understandable misunderstanding if you have not been keeping careful track of the discussions on that page over the past few days (and just had a cursory glance) — but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless. At no point, at all, did I suggest stating any claim a source did not make. Thus, for instance, a claim like "Amnesty International said that Ukraine committed war crimes because..." is something I did not propose or suggest. I have no objection to stating plainly precisely what the AI report stated, namely that it views Ukrainian conduct as a potential IHL violation, rather than any stronger claim. Rather, the debate on the talk page was essentially this: given that the article title is about "war crimes", does any source we cite have to verbatim use the term "war crime" to even be included the article? Thus, for instance, if I have a reliable source Y that says "country X murdered a hundred a civilians in this massacre, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions", but said source Y nowhere uses the verbatim term "war crime", are we allowed to use source Y in an article titled "war crimes by X"? I argued yes because "Geneva Conventions" is sufficiently closely related to the topic of "war crimes" that inclusion would be worthwhile. I am not arguing that we can state "source Y said X committed a war crime" (that would be OR); I am merely arguing the far weaker position that source Y is worth including in the article at all, in a manner in concert with the OR policy (something like "source Y said X violated the Geneva Conventions"). Manyareasexpert objected to this and argued the opposite side, claiming that such sources should not be included at all. Briefly, the discussion had to do with standards for the inclusion of a source in a given article, not how we represent the source in our writing. Thus, it wasn't really an OR thing.

This has nothing to do with OR as we are not misrepresenting or making SYNTH-y inferences from a source. I am perfectly fine stating what the AI report said and nothing more, namely that it was a potential IHL violation. The question rather is whether it's sufficiently related to the topic of the article to warrant inclusion, and the answer to that, in my view, is a clear yes, because otherwise we run into absurdities like the one I illustrated in the discussion above, where a source that says "country X murdered a hundred a civilians in this massacre, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions" cannot be included in an article about "war crimes by X" because the source fails to use the verbatim term war crime. Furthermore, as brought up by Gitz6666 in the older discussion, this creates a scenario where we are forced to create separate articles like e.g., "Violations of IHL in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" to even discuss the allegation at all. This ultimately strikes me as an appeal to a technicality to avoid including a widely-discussed, well-sourced allegation in what is by far its most natural article. JDiala (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of attack on care home edit

A recent edit I made removing the Stara Krasnianka incident from the "Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property" section was reverted.

The primary source includes only the following paragraphs pertaining to the incident.

"OHCHR is concerned that in the course of hostilities, both Russian armed forces and affiliatedarmed groups as well as Ukrainian armed forces took up positions either in residential areas ornear civilian objects, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for theprotection of civilians present, as required under IHL.16 OHCHR is further concerned by reports ofthe use of human shields, which involves seeking to use the presence or movement of the civilian population or individual civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I"

"OHCHR does not have reliable numbers on these cases, but the case of a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) has been emblematic in this regard. At the beginning of March 2022, when active hostilities drew nearer to the care house, its management repeatedly requested local authorities to evacuate the residents. This was reportedly impossible as Ukrainian armed forces had allegedly mined the surrounding area and blocked roads. On 7 March, soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces entered the care house, where older persons and residents with disabilities and staff were located, as it had strategic value due to its proximity to an important road. On 9 March, soldiers from Russian affiliated armed groups, who were approaching from the opposite direction, engaged in an exchange of fire with soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces, although it remains unclear which side opened fire first. During this first exchange of fire, no staff or patients were injured."

There is no mention that the destruction of the care house was unlawful on Russia's part. Indeed, the paragraph we have in the current version of the article concedes this, saying the report "didn't find that Russia committed any war crimes." Therefore, the incident should not be included in a section entitled "unlawful destruction." There is no proof Russia did anything wrong or unlawful here in deciding to attack this place. JDiala (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That is because You have possibly mistaken "War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" as "War crimes by Russia in invasion of Ukraine" by edit descriptio: "Report says Russia didn't commit war crimes here, so why is this in this section". The alleged war crime is under investigation, therefore it is warranted to be in this article. Civilians died because of military activity. Just because in Your opinion it was not Russia's doing does not mean it should not be here, as under investigation. YBSOne (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You had absolutely no issue adding this text [[28]] under Ukrainian-war crimes even though it was debunked as false for their use as human shields, and yet when the same text was added as destruction of hospital with both points of view, You hurry to remove it. This is not NPOV. YBSOne (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

What alleged war crime is under investigation? The only alleged legal violation cited by the OHCHR in this report with respect to the incident at Stara Krasnianka is that of the Ukrainian armed forces utilizing civilian infrastructure. This has nothing to do with the unlawful destruction of property, which is the section title this is placed under.

The second part of your response isn't relevant to the current discussion and in fact there's an ongoing RfC devoted to it. JDiala (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"especially given the fact that the Commission for Ukraine has indicated that war crimes have been committed by both Russian and Ukrainian armed forces, including at the institution housing persons with disabilities in Stara Krasnianka." Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2024 YBSOne (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

it is also under investigation by Ukraine's Prosecutor General's office. YBSOne (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

For the first source, I think this is just a reading comprehension error. The author is stating that war crimes were committed by both sides, and Stara Krasnianka was one place in which war crimes took place; it doesn't mean that both sides simultaneously committed war crimes in Stara Krasnianka. You can read through the primary sources cited in the footnotes 1, 2, 3 and none of the reports state that Russian soldiers committed or may have committed war crimes in Stara Krasnianka.

In the second source, the WPost article, this is a bit better, but it is still just Ukraine accusing Russia of a war crime. I don't think that's a high-quality source. We ought to have an independent or at least semi-independent source. The prosecutor general of a belligerent state doesn't fall into that category. The independent source we do have does not accuse Russia of anything in this incident. I think if nothing else it should be reworded to indicate that this is purely a Ukrainian allegation which is not supported whatsoever by the independent third-party. JDiala (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all You are attacking a strawman. I did not state Russia commited war crimes here. I am stating that civilians were killed by fire caused by artillery strike from pro-Russian separatists. Sources do not accuse Ukrainians of war crimes, You do. You wanted this part to be included here as Ukrainian war crime, but when this does not pan out You want it hastily removed as it may cast a shadow of doubt on Russia. This is bias. YBSOne (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The question I'm asking is why this is placed underneath "unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property." No one is talking about Ukrainian war crimes here which is a separate discussion in the RfC. We're talking about the "unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property." Where is this accusation? Who made this accusation? If you cannot substantiate this from an independent source, the allegation should not be here. JDiala (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This incident is a destruction of a medical facility and therefore should be mentioned here, especially when both sides accuse each other of war crimes. After either the war end or some sort of a verdict, this section can be updated. Right now it should stay as is. YBSOne (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm again asking you a simple question. The section this is placed in is "unlawful destruction of property." Which source says that unlawful destruction of property took place here? JDiala (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

All of them. YBSOne (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC) When there is an illegal separatist military, backed by a terrorist state, there is no such thing as "lawful destruction", no matter how much You want it to be. It is beyond my comprehension that this simple fact has to be explained to grown people today... YBSOne (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think your comment is just WP:SOAPBOXING at this point (and this is not the first time). Personal views on the war cannot impact content disputes. JDiala (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Personal views on the war cannot impact content disputes". Please start with Yourself and stop riding a dead horse. WP:dead horse. YBSOne (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"There is no proof Russia did anything wrong or unlawful here in deciding to attack this place" other that invading a sovereign country and murdering civilians with artillery shells that is... YBSOne (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Anyways, it's not our judgement to make, we have to look at what RS say. JDiala (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• That was correct revert by Ybsone for a couple of reasons. First, this should be included per the previous (old) RfC. Secondly, that material is also about the new (current) RfC, and it was there when the RfC started. Please do not change it during the standing RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not engaging with the argument presented. Explain why this should be listed underneath "unlawful destruction of property" when exactly no source describes the incident as an unlawful destruction of property or anything similar to that. JDiala (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the subsection "Attacks on medical facilities" should not belong to the section on destruction of property. This must be a separate section. But this is a reason for re-titling the sections, not for removal of content on attacks on medical facilities. Also see my previous comment. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence the "attack" was the war crime which is what the section title implies. There is no evidence Russia committed any crime here in "attacking" this nursing home. Please explain what exactly the alleged war crime is and who the alleged perpetrator is. If you are unable to do this, I believe I am well within my rights to remove this material as an OR case. JDiala (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been told already that there is an allegation of war crime and therefore it stays in War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article under destruction of medical facilities, sourced under note number 114. If You remove this content I'm starting a NOTHERE report to administration against You. Enough is enough. Drop the stick. YBSOne (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Ukrainian prosecutor general, an employee of the Ukrainian state on Zelensky's payroll, a reliable source for an allegation of a war crime? They are literally a party to the conflict. They are a belligerent. They are inherently unreliable. Wartime propaganda is a thing. This incident was analyzed by a third-party, the OHCHR, which found no evidence that Russia committed a war crime. That suggests the allegation is highly dubious.

Here is what I am going to do. I won't remove it entirely for now. Rather, I am going to reduce the length of the discussion of this incident to 1-2 sentences, pending the outcome of the ongoing RfC. This is a reasonable compromise, and it is consistent with the past RfC which states that the Stara Krasnianka attack should warrant no more than 1-2 sentences. JDiala (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

How come? You just argued yourself that it was a war crime and should be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I argued it was a Ukrainian war crime (misuse of civilian infrastructure), not a Russian one (the attack). The sensible status-quo position (until the RfC is decided, which will take a long time) is to stick to the past RfC consensus which is 1-2 sentences. JDiala (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You said: There is no evidence Russia committed any crime here in "attacking" this nursing home.. Wow! Killing innocent patients together with military by invaders who had no business in Ukraine whatsoever was not a crime. But I understand what you mean here: the Ukrainian military located in the facility (and being unable to evacuate the civilians) made it a legitimate target, hence it was not a war crime. But this is not so simple. For example, Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war by Israel forces were claimed to be a war crime in a large number of RS, even though these facilities were used by Hamas as a base of their military operations, and even holding and executing the hostages (which is a lot more than Ukrainian military did in this example). My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can You provide a reliable source that Ukrainie's Prosecutor General is on "Zelensky's payroll" and therefore unreliable? If not, You are just spewing hatefull propaganda towards Ukraine without any basis. I didn't quote Prosecutor, I quoted Washington Post, and that parts stays as it is reliably sourced, no matter Your opinion on the matter. YBSOne (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

WPost attributed the claim to the prosecutor general. Editors are allowed to independently assess whether a given source is reliable, although I agree this discussion is better for WP:RSN rather than here. JDiala (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ybsone, you reverted my edit again. I reverted that even though it is admittedly a WP:BRD violation (remember that is an essay not a policy) as I really do not think you are remotely acting in good-faith. My initial position was to remove the paragraph. You reverted that. I agreed on a compromise position to shorten it. This is something in concert with the past RfC which clearly says the discussion should be no more than 1-2 sentences (it was, in your version, much longer than that). You revert that regardless indicating in your edit summary that you don't care what the past RfC says. This is all in addition to your obvious BATTLEGROUND mentality claiming I'm "pushing anti-Ukrainian and anti-West agenda" and should be topic banned merely because I started an RfC rather than acquiescing to you. Please cut this out. This is not good-faith conduct. JDiala (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

JDiala, it is clear by Your edit history, topics chosen and gaming the system attitude You are pushing particular and personal agenda contrary to neutral point of view, of which You are incapable. Wikipedia is not the place to force those views on readers. You are requesting a comment and then changing the disputed content under the umbrella of "prevvious RfC". You are gaming the system to suit Your current agenda, which is putting as much blame on Ukrainians and as little on Russians. You are not interested in improving the article, just on changing it's narrative, one section at a time. YBSOne (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

To the contrary, the edits I am proposing are intended to promote neutrality. This article is currently extremely anti-Russia. The edits myself and a few others here are proposing, using sourced reliable content, are intended to shift that balance ever-so-slightly --- still very much anti-Russia, but a bit more balanced with a few more sourced allegations against Ukraine too. In other words, something closer to neutral. Yet this attempt to promote even a slightly more balanced perspective is getting extremely aggressive reception from others. So I do find it ironic that you're accusing me of not being neutral. JDiala (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"article is currently extremely anti-Russia" no it is not, it is neutral. Not Your neutral. You are spending weeks of discussions, involving half a dozen editor's time just to redact half a paragraph? This is not productive. You have also not provided any sourced allegations other than twisting might into did or allegations into war crimes. YBSOne (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"article is currently extremely anti-Russia". Yes, of course, because it describes war crimes committed by Russian army and government. Is it wrong per WP policies? No, because that is what RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is that RS also accuse Ukraine but editors here use tendentious reasoning and technicalities to remove that. Meanwhile allegations against Russia are included even with minimal or dubious evidence, as in this case where the Ukrainian state is accusing Russia of committing a war crime when independent third-parties established that the incident was targeted at military personnel and also did not claim Russia committed a war crime. Systemic double standards abound. Anyways I don't want to debate this anymore since I have accepted your version for the time being, thanks. JDiala (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with My very best wishes here. The reverted material in question is actually exactly the topic of consideration of the current Rfc. What this means is that discussion regarding whether or not this should be included is ongoing, so we should not be having this separate discussion in the first place. We should leave as is until consensus is reached on the Rfc. This discussion could be interpreted as containing violations of WP:NPA, so it needs to stop now. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll self-revert in the interests of diplomacy and stop engaging here further. I still feel it was best to have kept the temporary stopgap version to have been in concert with that of the past RfC, until the current RfC is done. But I'll respect that I'm outnumbered here and cooperate. Let's just wait for the RfC to be decided first. JDiala (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank You for acknowledging this. YBSOne (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

In the section which mentions Dmitry Budnik, his name should be linked to the Wikipedia page about him. 42manako (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Gödel2200 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024 (2)

In the section that mentions Suren Seiranovich Mkrtchyan, a link to his Wikipedia page should be added. 42manako (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Attacks on nuclear plants

The sources cited in the "Nuclear power plants" section do not establish that the Russian attacks constitute a war crime. The basis for the war crime allegation is a tweet from the US embassy in Kyiv, widely reported by the press but subsequently disavowed by the US State Department. [29] Additionally, the Pentagon has declined to label the attack a war crime [30] and a legal expert from the Lieber Institute at West Point has questioned whether the attacks meet the legal definition of a war crime [31].

This is not OK - the article is about war crimes in Ukraine, not "allegations of war crimes", let alone allegations by a single, unsupported US embassy. Note that the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was attacked in April 2024, and while the Ukrainian side denies responsibility, the Russian allegations have been reported by many RSes [32][33][34][35] - so the choice is between removing the whole section or updating it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it was debated if these events represented a war crime, with more or less uncertain conclusion, i.e. if it was a violation of article 56, e.g. [36], and as such I think this deserves inclusion. That was not just US embassy. Note that other articles on such subject include a lot of sourced allegations, e.g. page Israeli war crimes, hence this should not be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

According to the cited source, there was a violation of article 56 Protocol I but no violation of article 85(3)(c), which establishes a war crime properly called (involving individual criminal responsibility) Given that there was in fact no radioactive leak and that there seems to have been relatively little collateral damage, it does not appear that those who engaged in the attack would have known at the time that excessive civilian loss would arise from it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. The correct standard for inclusion, from my perspective, is whether a relatively independent, reliable third-party source makes the claim. The US Embassy fails both the reliability test (embassy staff don't know anything about international law) and the independence test (the US government is openly on the side of Ukraine in this conflict). JDiala (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"embassy staff don't know anything about international law" embassy work is literally based on international law knowledge... YBSOne (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if the guy who wrote the tweet for the US Embassy was actually a learned and respected international lawyer (which I doubt) that's irrelevant. Per WP:TWITTER, we can only use this source to verify the statement "The US Embassy said it's a war crime", but it doesn't support the statements "it's a war crime", "it's probably a war crime", "it might be a war crime". For that we need a reliable secondary source, and the sources we have say that it's not a war crime. So the section should be removed from this article, unless WP editors agree that, for the purposes of this article, any serious violation of international humanitarian law qualifies as a war crime. That could be said in the lead per MOS:FIRST:

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine encompass any serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022 by the Russian Armed Forces, pro-Russian separatist groups, mercenaries, Ukrainian Armed Forces, territorial militias, foreign volunteers, or any other military or paramilitary groups involved in the conflict.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, this has nothing to do with WP:TWITTER. The claim by US embassy was widely published and debated in a large number of strong secondary RS, some linked just above. If something was widely debated as a probable/possible war crime, then it belongs to the page. This is just one of many types of important civilian facilities, attacks on which are regarded as war crimes. Others are dams, etc. Looting of Chenobyl by Russian army also belongs there. And no, not just any violations of international humanitarian law, but something that was claimed/debated as a "war crime" in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"claimed/debated as a "war crime" by the US Embassy? And what about analogous claims routinously made by the Russian authorities? Shall we include them because they are "claims"? The title of the article is not "Allegations of war crimes (by whomever)", it is not "Claims and debates about war crimes in Ukraine", but simply "War crimes in Ukraine", so to include an incident we need an RS saying that it is (or at least, may be) a war crime. Do we have such an RS? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Not by US embassy, but by multiple secondary RS on the subject. "Secondary" is the key because different authors conduct their own analysis of the claims (like here [[37]), hence this is not just a claim by US embassy. Same applies to claims by Russian "authorities". If we have strong secondary RS discussing such claims as something serious, rather than outright lies/disinformation, they can be included, and such content is already included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If I understand your comment correctly, it implies that we should include the claims by Russian authorities that the Ukrainian side has repeatedly attacked the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. These claims have been reported by numerous RSes (Guardian, BBC, Reuters, UN press release, and others) as detailed in my OP. Am I right? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

These are just standards you're creating in your mind. A random allegation made by a belligerent in the conflict was analyzed by a third-party which came to an ambiguous conclusion. Why does this warrant inclusion? JDiala (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)