Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Torture and knifing incident

Yesterday I added the following subsection to the article:

Torture and knifing incident

On the 28th of March, a video surfaced, which, shot in the entrance of a public building, has been said by Russian news outlets to depic[t] a trussed and battered Russian soldier being stabbed multiple times in the neck, head and face by a Ukrainian militant, leading to a prolonged death presently followed by the aggressor's enunciation of nationalist slogans. Alexander Bastrykin, head of The Investigative Committee of Russia, stated on the same day, that the matter would be looked into. Russian sources claim that the assailant can, based on the recording, be identified as Ruslan Mironyuk, a denizen of Vinnytsia.

It was soon removed due to unreliability of sources. As far as I am concerned, the opening sentence is well sourced: an article containing the video itself is referenced (which is surely reliable evidence of its existence), and the term 'Russian news outlets' is used towards the potentially biased sources which claim that the recording depicts the murder of a Russian prisoner of war, so that no direct proof of the aggressor's or victim's identity is necessary (see WP:INTEXT). The second sentence is indeed poorly sourced, and so is, perhaps, the third. However, better citations can be found; the revised paragraph would look like this:

Alleged torture and knifing incident

On the 28th of March, a video surfaced, which, shot in the entrance of a public building, has by Russian news outlets been said to depict a trussed and battered Russian soldier being stabbed multiple times in the neck, head and face by a Ukrainian militant, leading to a prolonged death presently followed by the aggressor's enunciation of nationalist slogans. Alexander Bastrykin, head of The Investigative Committee of Russia, stated on the same day, that the matter – characterised as 'the brutal beating and subsequent murder of a Russian prisoner of war' on the committee's website – would be looked into. Russian sources claim that the assailant can, based on the recording, be identified as Ruslan Mironyuk, a denizen of Vinnytsia.

The official website of The Investigative Committee of Russia is a reliable source for the second sentence, and REN TV is a major Russian news outlet which claims that the aggressor has been identified, substantiating the third sentence. Because media of considerable circulation or viewership such as Kommersant and REN TV have described the incident, and because, according The Investigative Committee of Russia, it involves murder of a prisoner of war, it likely deserves a mention in this article. I am open to discussion on whether the updated paragraph may be considered appealing, and what other improvements can be introduced. Maciuf (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this incident meets the standards for its own subsection based on notability and availability of reliable sources. I would just add a trimmed down version to the existing section about Russian POWs, stating clearly that this is an allegation of abuse made by Russian media. Shadybabs (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

News Break is a deprecated source, WP:DEPS, see also the 2020 RfC here, so I don't think that the opening sentence is well sourced. I agree that, if there were a RS, the section (a bit trimmed down, avoding excessive detail) would belong to "7 Treatment of prisoners of war". A RS is needed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I only used the Newsbreak article as a reference because, unlike the others I could find, it features the recording. Other than that, how is the opening sentence 'not well sourced'? The video itself is available, and descriptions of it by significant Russian news outlets as well as The Investigative Committee of Russia cited. Notability is an issue, and the extent of media coverage does not entitle the paragraph in question to a separate subsection, even if it potentially concerns murder. Maciuf (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is another instance where in addition to WP:RS, WP:DUE also applies. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Would the following, shorted version, be objectionable?

On the 28th of March a video surfaced, said by Russian news outlets to depict a trussed and battered Russian soldier being stabbed multiple times in the neck, head and face by a Ukrainian militant, to a fatal result, presently followed by the aggressor's enunciation of nationalist slogans. Alexander Bastrykin, head of The Investigative Committee of Russia, stated on the same day, that the matter would be looked into.

If yes, then in what aspect? Maciuf (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't object. Phrased in this way, it is veriafiable enough, and shows that Russian news outlets and authorities (Investigative committee) are concerned about a video which might depict a crime of war against a Russian POW. However, I would remove footnote n. 13. As I said, News Break is a deprecated source, and one of the reason it is deprecated is - I guess - that it publishes trash like that video, which we shouldn't let circulate further. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I will introduce the edit (without the deprecated source) if no demurral materialises by tomorrow. Maciuf (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No, best I can tell, none of these sources are reliable. Like vk press - that's a self publishing vanity press website, no? Sledcom is "The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation", a primary source at best. Etc. No go. Volunteer Marek 05:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Kommersant is a reliable secondary source; statements which appear in Russian media are described as being such. Maciuf (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Newsbreak.gr is not deprecated. Newsbreak.com *is* deprecated, but I don't think there is any connection between the two. Alaexis_¿question? 06:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if, "not deprecated" doesn't mean "reliable" and "reliable" doesn't mean "we must use it". Volunteer Marek 07:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is true. In general, I think we shouldn't describe individual incidents in this article, whether it's about the abuse of one Russian PoW or of a Radio France interpreter. Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that notability here might result from the relatively wide coverage that the Russian (apparently) media gave to the video. In general, one shortcoming of the article is that it doesn't inform the reader about if and how the Russians are made aware of war crimes in Ukraine; conversely, Western public opinion may be not fully aware of war crimes that get under-reported, e.g. this stabbing, but also the treatment of marauders, pro-Russian activists and Roma people in the territory controlled by Ukr government (see above the thread on "HRMMU on sexual violence", which didn't deliver a consensus). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

'The official website of The Investigative Committee of Russia is a reliable source' ???

What is your source?

There is informational war between Ruussia and Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Bastrykin has a number of issues (blood on his hands, Magnitsky).Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is hardly relevant. Maciuf (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well, The Investigative Committee of Russia is notorious for persecuting innocent people, making false accusations and promoting misinformation. So whatever it say belongs to other pages about propaganda and misinformation. The content does not become notable just because it was described in multiple unreliable sources. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I highly appreciate your exercise of neutrality and logic. Maciuf (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

In the section

Mass killings of civilians in Bucha

change the sentence:

Corpses of other killed civilians were left in the road, sometimes mined by Russian soldiers before they retreated.

to:

Corpses of other killed civilians were left on the road, sometimes booby-trapped by Russian soldiers before they retreated. 94.252.22.231 (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Was going to change it, but after checking the sources I am going to remove that section as it is direct quote from an unreliable source, Zelensky, and unverified by source ("The Post could not verify those claims"). Perhaps it could be added back as "President Zelensky claimed X", but I rather leave unverified stuff out. Also, I couldn't verify the first part of that text as source is behind paywall, if anyone has access could they do it? Thanks AdrianHObradors (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In this situtation it's better to attribute the claim rather than remove it entirely. If all claims without third party verification were removed, a good portion of the article - including essentially all allegations of war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces - would be removed. Shadybabs (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start another section to discuss it here, but I feel that if we start putting claims by Ukraine, shouldn't we also include all claims by Russia? That would make this article a mess.

I feel like a smaller, cleaner article with actually confirmed claims would be preferable than an article were actual war crimes get drowned by unconfirmed ones. AdrianHObradors (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That just won't be possible until the conflict is over, the dust has cleared, and third party investigators can safely collect evidence. Ultimately we have to make judgement calls based on what can be documented via hard evidence like video or photos, reported by reliable sources (third party, neither Russian or Ukrainian) and presented in wikivoice, then attributed claims for the plausible but unconfirmed, and removal of allegations made baselessly. Shadybabs (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

How to account for Bucha in the lead?

The text now on is "After Ukrainian forces retook the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, at the end of March, evidence emerged of a massacre in Bucha by Russian troops". There has been a bit of editorial conflict over this line, I guess. We have had "After Ukrainian forces retook the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, at the end of March, evidence emerged of numerous war crimes committed by Russian forces, including torture and deliberate killings of unarmed civilians", then someone added "including children", and finally it was changed into the present version. I understand that the episode is recent, but I think we can add a bit more content without departing from the sources and from the restrained and brief style of the lead. What about the following text: "evidence emerged of numerous war crimes committed by Russian troops, including torture and deliberate killings of civilians"? I'm now going to change it in this way and let's see if there's enough consensus on this formulation or on another, different one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all sources on the topic mention the killed children. Proooobbbbabbblllyy because it's kind of important. Volunteer Marek 02:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not think this is just about Bucha. The lead does not mention children, even though they appear many times on the page, from newborns to human shields. We must say something about children. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing against adding "including children" to the line (possibly with a different wording, so as to avoid the repetition "...including... including...") but I would like to first have an accessible reference supporting the claim. So far, if I'm not wrong, the RS is "The Times", which is paywalled. Besides, at this point in time our RS might have no sufficient evidence for claiming that the children were killed deliberately rather then in a shelling - or do they? what do they say about this? If we are to state in the lead that Russian forces were accused of killing children, I'd like this accusation to be made not by the Ukrainian authorities but by an independent source. The same applies to children being used as human shield: who said this? Here I don't find an answer ("say witness reports" "Russia has been accused by Ukraine..."). Is this an unsupported accusation made by a non-reliable source, or has there been some kind of investigation by independent journalists, with multiple witnesses being interviewed? War crimes allegations are a serious business because they may be used for propaganda purposes as they tend to sharpen the conflict, so we must be careful and always identify the source of the claim (we with wikivoice/multiple reliable sources/non-reliable, non independent sources). The fact that an anonymous witness and/or the Ukrainian authority claim that the Russian has done x is not sufficiently verifiable and notable to go in the lead section, in my view. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course these claims initially come from the people who are affected. Witnesses. The soldiers who move in after Russians left. Etc. But then they are verified and published in secondary sources. Which is what we use. The fact that a source is paywalled is not a legitimate reason to try and remove something (and honestly, I don't think it is, I have no problem accessing it, no special tricks needed - are you just repeating what another editor claimed?). Volunteer Marek 13:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I haven't been able to access that article by The Times, I've also tried using Archive.org with no success. The point is to check whether the RS says "this and that has happened" or rather "according to witnesses/Uk authorities, this and that has happened". In the latter case, I'd write in the lead and in the article "according to witnesses/Uk authorities, this and that has happened", without modifying or "improving" our RS's report. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly say "according to witnesses". I generally object to the phrasing "Ukrainian authorities" unless we're talking official spokespeople or such. Here's another source [1]. Here it's mentioned explicitly by UK Deputy Ambassador [2] Volunteer Marek 14:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So if you can come up with a short incisive sentence phrased in that way, "according to witnesses" instead of "evidence emerged", I personally wouldn't object to adding more details such as "unarmed" civilians and "children". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Then we must also remove the line with unconfirmed allegations from the pro-Russia side: "Authorities from the self-proclaimed republic of Donetsk and Luhansk have accused the Ukrainian armed forces of shelling populated areas." Shadybabs (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

But there's an important difference. With regard to Bucha, we are saying "evidence emerged of...". If we decide to rephrase as "Ukrainians authorities alleged that...", then we can add all the relevant contents, including the killing of children. On the other hand, we are not claiming that "evidence emerged" that Ukraine engaged in indiscriminate attacks but rather we are making it clear that that accusation was made by the authorities of the self-proclaimed republics. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I received a copy of the article. The expression "war crime(s)" is never used by the Times. Per Times " Down the road, territorial defence fighters said they had found a basement where 18 bodies, men, women and children as young as 14 lay dead, their bodies mutilated." "“We found 18 bodies in there,” [Torovik] said. “They had been torturing people. Some of them had their ears cut off. Others had teeth pulled out. There were kids like 14, 16 years old, some adults. They just took the bodies away yesterday.” Torovik is "53, a soldier with the territorial defence force, who lives in an area that was retaken a few days earlier.".Anonimu (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

:::::Actually, I've just noticed that the allegation by the self-proclaimed republic of Donetsk has been confirmed by the HRMMU with regard to a missile with cluster munitions intercepted over the centre of Donetsk killing 20 civilians. So basically it was not an indiscriminate attack - the missile was intercepted - and the IHL issue is with cluster munitions; and it's not an allegation by involved parties, it is documented by an independent body. We should rephrase that sentence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC) (victims were confirmed, not cluster munitions)

Request for quotation from Times paywalled article

Whoever has a subscriptions, please quote the relevant text from the paywalled Times article (whose first three paragraphs can be publicly read here) which support the text in this article. More specifically, these are the WP phrases this source is supposed to support:

• In the LEDE: "After Ukrainian forces retook the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, at the end of March, evidence emerged of numerous war crimes committed by Russian troops, including torture and deliberate killings of civilians."
• In the Bucha Massacre section: "According to The Times, in one instance 18 mutilated bodies of murdered men, women and children were found in a basement. The bodies showed evidence of torture; cut-off ears and teeth pulled out"

Thank you.Anonimu (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"Down the road, territorial defence fighters said they had found a basement where 18 bodies, men, women and children as young as 14 lay dead, their bodies mutilated." The title of the article is "Bodies of mutilated children among horrors the Russians left behind".

The first sentence you refer to just summarizes the article content. You can easily find sources through out this entire article to support it. Volunteer Marek 13:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What about the "The bodies showed evidence of torture; cut-off ears and teeth pulled out" ?

Could we have a quote specifically for "war crimes committed by Russian troops"? Cause for the time being other reliable sources (CBS, Washington Post) only talk about "allegations of war crimes".Anonimu (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I received a copy of the article as of early April 3, 2022. Relevant quotes can be found in this diff.Anonimu (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Spurious tagging

User:Anonimu, who previously tried to remove well sourced information from this article or downplay it by sprinkling various equivalents of "alleged" through out, now tagged - probably because they're under 1RR restriction which they already violated - "bad ref" tags throughout the article, claiming that sources are being misrepresented.

• This edit (taggin) claims that sources are being misrepresented but fails to specify which ones or how.
• This edit claims that WaPo is being misrepresented. Actually the text has TWO sources. The fact that the corpses were of children and that they were mutilated is right in the Times source [3] : found a basement where 18 bodies, men, women and children as young as 14 lay dead, their bodies mutilated.
• Same thing with this spurious tagging [4]. The sentence is After Ukrainian forces retook the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, at the end of March, evidence emerged of numerous war crimes committed by Russian forces, including torture and deliberate killings of unarmed civilians, including children'. There are two sources there as well and what exactly is being misrepresented? The fact that the children are among the murdered? The freakin' title of the article is, quote: Bodies of mutilated children among horrors the Russians left behind!!! The CBS source discusses the numerous war crimes and refers to a statement by Zelensky referring to the murdered children.
• Here [5] is another spurious tag which doesn't explain how anything is misrepresented. The purpose appears to be just cast doubt on the veracity of the sources. Hey, if you can't remove reliable sources, just pretend that they're being misrepresented!
• This [6] is just disingenuous since the source is NOT behind a paywall [7].

Taken together this seems like the kind of WP:NOTHERE edits that involve trying to WP:GAME rules and which probably warrant a topic ban from this (and possibly related) articles, particularly since the user has been warned/sanctioned/blocked exactly for this behavior before (even if it was long ago - they seemed to have reactivated in this topic area with the invasion of Ukraine) [8]. Volunteer Marek 22:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you are the one that wants to add in Wikipedia voice claims clearly attributed by reliable sources to Ukrainian authorities, which are obviously not independent in this context. It's important for readers to know that what they're reading is not actual facts, but allegations presented as facts through WP:POVPUSHING. The accusations that the tagging is spurious is ludicrous:

• There is no need to indicate which source is misrepresented, since the section has only one source.
• Ditto. When there's only one source any regular person can understand which one is misrepresented.
• The WaPo didn't support any of the preceding text, while the Times is under a paywall and I am unable to verify it. Note that the source was dropped altogether by Volunteer Marek when confronted, although nobody had issues with it's reliability.
• The CBS source is obviously misrepresented, as, beside the extensive reports regarding only the presence of corpses and talks about Ukrainian accusations that the Russians did it, with no endorsement of the claims as facts
• The Times is paywalled, and is a courtesy to provide a quotation for those of us (the majority) that don't have a subscription, especially considering two other reliable sources (Washington Post and CBS) have been misrepresented exactly in the same section.

Failing to understand the obvious, removing reliable sources when not fitting one's story and fake sourcing sound very much like WP: Tendentious editing.Anonimu (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop evading the question.

[9]. What exactly is being misrepresented?

This has two sources not one contrary to your assertion. What is being misrepresented?

Your inability to "verify" a source is not my problem, especially since it is NOT actually paywalled [10]. Here is an archived version [11]. Regardless, if you can't access to source for some strange reason that does NOT justify you tagging it as "bad ref"

Again [12] here you need to say WHAT is being misrepresented. You haven't. That's why this is spurious tagging.

The CBS source is NOT being misrepresented. There are two sources there. Please stop playing games. Volunteer Marek 00:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Lot's of staff! Maybe it would be better to have separate threads, unless the subject of the discussion is the behaviour of one editor or the other - in that case, please bring the discussion elsewhere. Here we deal with contents, and we should discuss them in an orderly and collaborative way. I myself am now opening two threads following My very best wishes's remarks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, Zelensky is not a RS. Specially not during times of war. AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We're not using Zalensky as a source. Don't be disingenuous. Volunteer Marek 00:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Many of the sources cited here are just reports of the Ukrainian government. I just clicked three of them randomly and they all were "Ukraine says".

And I am not saying that everything that Ukraine says is false, I am just saying that we need RS for what they are saying, and if we can't find it, it doesn't belong here. Because that dilutes all the real war crimes that are happening. AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

While some of these were originally reports from Ukrainian government, they have been reported and investigated by reliable sources. We DO have RS for "what they're saying". Please stop pretending otherwise or specify which text you're referring to specifically. Volunteer Marek 00:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has no definite subject, but more than one, so it cannot be productive. Anyway, with regard to this [13] I agree with Anonimu. It is not true that "According to Human Rights Watch in Staryi Bykiv Russian forces rounded up at least six men and executed them at the beginning of the invasion". HRW says: "Russian forces in the village of Staryi Bykiv, in Chernihiv region, rounded up at least six men on February 27, and later executed them, according to the mother of one of the men, who was nearby when her son and another man were apprehended, and who saw the dead bodies of all six.". So you should write something like "HRW has received allegations... ", "It was reported to HRW...", etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Claiming that something has been misrepresented is a serious accusation. Quickly looking at the edit [14] and cited source, one can see that the source has NOT been misrepresented. So, that was a misleading edit summary at best. Do not do it please. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to refer to each of the cases I tagged. Please see first message for diffs.

• The Guardian, as used in Use of children as human shields was misrepresented by presenting as facts in Wikipedia voice allegations reported by the Ukrainian authorities
• Washington Post was completely misrepresented, as it did not support ANY of the text. This was acknowledged even by Volunteer Marek when he removed the source from the article altogether.
• CBS was misrepresented by presenting allegations as facts; the source constantly refers to them as Ukrainian allegations, even in the title: "Ukraine documents alleged atrocities by retreating Russians".
• Human Rights Watch was misrepresented by attributing to it an allegation regarding killing. HRW is clear to note that this is a report it received and has not been able to verify it.
• The Times is paywalled, even in the archived link. Of course, there's also a very small chance that the article only has the three paragraphs publicly viewable, but then it definitely fails to verify ANY of the text it is supposed to. Providing a quotation for extraordinary claims supported by paywalled sources is common practice.Anonimu (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Update regarding the Times: no mention of war crimes, claims clearly attributed to Ukrainian soldiers, with the reporter unable to confirm since the bodies had been "just moved", the purported events did not even place in Mucha, but in a village to the south-west. The text in the WP article is clearly a misrepresentation of the source. Considering the abuse, I think it is necessary that any paywalled sources to be quoted on the talk page when added to the article.Anonimu (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

Summary

Changes

• Correct spelling of name
• Link decedent's Wikipedia article
• Remove claims unsubstantiated by cited sources
• Improve citations

Original

Murders and deaths of foreign citizens

[[[ ... unchanged paragraphs omitted ... ]]]

On 13 March, on the way to Irpen, the American journalist Brent Reno, who was collecting materials for the Time project about refugees, came under fire and was killed. Italian correspondent Annalisa Camilli told Associated Press that photojournalist Juan Arredondo, a colleague of the deceased whom she interviewed in a Kiev hospital, reported that he and Renaud were filming refugees fleeing from this area. According to Arredondo, their car came under fire as they approached the Russian checkpoint and the shooting did not stop even when the driver turned around. Arredondo himself, while stopping at a roadblock, was wounded in the lower back. At the same time, in her article in the Internazionale magazine, Camilli pointed out that Daniil Shapovalov, a hospital doctor, gave false information, saying that Renault “got a bullet in the back of the head and died instantly,” and also stressed that although the Ukrainian side accused the Russian side of the shooting, the however, “the further development of what happened is not yet clear”, since the shelling came from the side opposite to the checkpoint.

Revision

Murders and deaths of foreign citizens

[[[ ... unchanged paragraphs omitted ... ]]]

On 13 March, the American filmmaker Brent Renaud was killed by weapons fire near Kyiv. Italian correspondent Annalisa Camilli told Associated Press that photojournalist Juan Arredondo, a colleague of the deceased whom she interviewed in a Kiev hospital, reported that he and Renaud were filming refugees fleeing from this area. According to Arredondo, their car came under fire as they approached the Russian checkpoint and the shooting did not stop even when the driver turned around. Arredondo himself, while stopping at a roadblock, was wounded in the lower back. 74.137.133.109 (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Question, why is the first sentence removed (stating that Renaud was killed) removed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why it was removed but I also don't understand why the whole "Murders and deaths of foreign citizens" section should belong to this article. The subject here is war crimes and I don't see any allegation of war crimes here, so I'm now removing the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect one of us misunderstands something. I believe my suggested edit changes

On 13 March, on the way to Irpen, the American journalist Brent Reno, who was collecting materials for the Time project about refugees, came under fire and was killed.

to

On 13 March, the American filmmaker Brent Renaud was killed by weapons fire near Kyiv.

I merely linked his article, corrected the spelling of his name, changed "journalist" to "filmmaker" and removed the unverified claims that Renaud was traveling specifically to Irpin and that we was doing work to "the Time project," from the first sentence. 74.137.133.109 (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666 is correct here. There is Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for the topic of notable deaths of foreigners during the 2022 invasion. Have a look at Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is included at the bottom of most of the articles on the invasion, to navigate and find the most appropriate article for information that is off-topic to the war crimes article. Boud (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Evidence of torture in the area of Bucha

Hello @Anonimu, I see that you have just removed some contents from the "Bucha massacre" section, here, but I don't understand the object: "this does not even refer to Bucha, but a village nearby". If the text is well sourced, then I think that the location is a minor issue: we could simply write "in the area of Bucha" and everything would be perfectly correct, am I right? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It was not removed, just moved without any change towards the end of the section, to have a logical structure: Bucha (the titular location), then nearby locations (Zabuchchya and Vozel).Anonimu (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Domestic universal jurisdiction criminal proceedings

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article includes the following text:

Domestic universal jurisdiction criminal proceedings investigating potential war crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine have been opened in countries including Lithuania, Estonia, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

In Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022, IP user 31.209.52.211 added that France, Norway, and Ukraine can also be included in this list giving sources for each:

• France - https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/2022/03/16/france-opens-war-crime-investigation-into-death-of-fox-news-cameraman/
• Norway - [in Norwegian] https://www.politiforum.no/krigen-i-ukraina-kripos-kristin-kvigne/kripos-bidrar-med-etterforskning-av-krigsforbrytelser-i-ukraina/224244
• Ukraine - https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220323-ukraine-prosecutor-probes-war-crimes-in-fog-of-war

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article is probably too broad a topic to cover this information in much detail but it may be appropriate here if it's not already mentioned somewhere. --N8_wilson 13:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• The article is Universal jurisdiction investigations of war crimes in Ukraine.
  France cannot be included there (unless described separately as non-universal-jurisdiction) because its war crime case is under national law, since the cameraman was a French national, not under universal jurisdiction. Boud (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  @N8wilson: This is just to ping you in case you missed the followup. Boud (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Article opening text is too long, and opening (right side) really needs an Infobox, or "topical template" or at least a large picture

It just opens now with too much "extensive writing". The lead (British English: "lede") should be brief, followed by maybe two manageable (shorter) paragraphs. Three max.

The rest of the writing (now in the far-too long opening) should be in titled / sub-titled "Sections "below this. I see no need to delete anything.

Also, 98% of Wikipedia articles have something in the upper-right-TOP area-- Either 1) an Infobox, 2) a topic-related template ("expanded", not "collapsed") or at the very least, 3) a large picture.

Since 98% of Wikipedia articles have one of these (in the upper-right-TOP of article), this article looks odd without it. And un-Wikipedia-like in appearance.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I've nothing against shortening the lead. As the text has been the object of constant negotiations among editors, do you mind posting here the text you propose to replace it with, so as to reach a new consensus? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

HRMMU on sexual violence

@Anonimu: Re restoration of this text [15]. The source given is this one: [16]. There is absolutely NOTHING in that source about sexual violence, much less castration. If there is SOME OTHER source which discusses this maybe we can add it. But for now, please don't restore text which appears to straight up misrepresent contents of a source. Volunteer Marek 09:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, @Volunteer Marek, my mistake. The source is this one. I might have done a bit of a mess with quotes from OHCHR - I'll have look and correct the missing citations. But the main reliable source is the one above, cf "conflict related sexual violence" section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok but the castration thing is clearly UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 09:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop restoring text and falsely claiming that it's backed by a source when it clearly isn't. Volunteer Marek 09:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Above comment meant for @Gitz6666:. Volunteer Marek 09:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why the following text would be UNDUE.

The Monitoring Mission had received allegations of sexual violence committed by Russian armed forces, which it had not yet been able to fully verify, as well as an allegation against the Ukrainian forces, which allegedly had threaten a Russian prisoner of war with castration on camera. According to the Monitoring Mission binding stripped persons to poles or trees and beating them in public could also amount to sexual violence by Ukrainian police officers and members of the territorial defence.

This is a concise but faithful summary of what UN Monitoring Mission wrote under the heading "Conflict-related sexual violence" (CRSV) in its report (here above linked). We need a subsection on CRSV in the article, while a subsection entirely and exclusively devoted to "Rape by Russians" would be NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand you have a women who is brutally gang raped in front of her child. On the other hand you have a frustrated Ukrainian doctor who says he wants to castrate Russian POWs but quickly takes it back explaining he's just venting. THESE TWO THINGS ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!!!!!! And pretending they are is 100% textbook case of violating WP:UNDUE to push POV and whitewash the crimes. "Oh yeah look Russian soldiers committed gang rapes but this one doctor said something mean so they're both just as bad and they're both sexual violence"! I'm sorry but this is textbook UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 10:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as the tying of looters to lamposts - that's just a regular crime, possibly a crime by police or whatever, but it is not a "war crime". It's also undue. Volunteer Marek 10:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You meant not NPOV, I assume? Alaexis_¿question? 09:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep! thanks --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek@Anonimu. First of all, no edit warring please. We can agree on leaving my contested edit (here above) out of the article until consensus is reached. But we can also agree on leaving Volunteer Marek's contested title for the section out of the article until there's consensus. Ok? For the time being, no mention of allegations against the Ukrainians but no "Russian rape" online. And then we discuss. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, these two things are not the same. Gang rape during war is very clearly a war crime and very clear notable. The other two things which are being added in an attempt to "balance" (sic) or whitewash the rape are not. Hence they're undue. And if they're undue then section heading needs to accurately describe what the section is about.

You can't try to add some UNDUE stuff to the article so that you can change a (accurate) section heading just because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and then say, "ok, we'll leave the UNDUE stuff out but I still get to change the heading". How does that work? Volunteer Marek 11:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(conflicted) Now, on the merit. I'm not claiming that "the two things are the same". First of all, it is obvious that "ganged raped in front of her child" is much more serious than "PoW threatened of castration on camera". Secondly, it is also true that the former is less verified then the latter: on the one side, we have a RS reporting the alleged victim's testimony, on the other we have the UN Monitoring Mission qualifying the video as alleged conflict-related sexual violence - surely they had at least seen the video. But the important point is that it is not for us to rank the gravity and verifiability of the facts: we just need to report what RS say about conflict related sexual violance. We need a subsection in the article where one could read all verifiable (based on RS) information on (alleged) sexual violence committed as war crimes (i.e. as violation of IHL). Moreover, whether the alleged perpatrotors are the Russian or the Ukrainian is of no concern here - we shall mention the fact, obviously, but we shouldn't arrange the whole structure of the article on the basis of the nationality of the perpetrators. So "Russian rapes" as a title - no, please; and the info on the HRMMU report are entirely appropriate to the subsection. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The UN Monitoring Mission doesn't say anything about seeing the video. In fact it only says it "received an allegation". OTOH, at least one of the rapes is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. If we go by coverage in the source my point is only reinforced. The rapes were widely reported on in RSs. The doctor's comment about castration was reported in .... the DailyMail from where it took off on pro-Russian social media.

And if the crimes are one sided then yes, we do say which side is committing them. Volunteer Marek 11:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't really care what exactly the HRMMU saw or heard, we are here to report what they say, not to decide whether their reports are based on solid proofs. If you want to contest the neutrality of HRMMU, do it at the appropriate venues.Anonimu (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Have I contested the neutrality of HRMMU? No? Then why are you pretending that I am? You know very well - or you should since I've explained at length - what the problem is. Volunteer Marek 11:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There are not the same, but the source aren't the same either. On one hand we have a source whose neutrality is not generally contested, on the other hand we have a very much involved source (the Ukrainian govt) and one whose neutrality is contested by at least one side of the conflict. There's no "balancing" or "whitewashing", just starting with the "uncontested" claims (which also provides an overview of the section, as recommended by most MOS's out there, including ours) and then going on with the more detailed and problematic ones. Since rape is part of sexual violence, and the UN reports also has explicit allegations about rape, there makes no sense to have two separate sections just to avoid accusation of "balancing".Anonimu (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No. The rapes were reported on by reliable sources. The information about the doctor's comments about castration is UNDUE and for what should be obvious reasons - it's not the same as gang rape!!!!! - did not get the same coverage in reliable sources. NB, the HRMMU also states the allegation of rape. The idea that the rape allegations are more "problematic" is your own invention. And in fact it turns the whole question of extent of coverage in RS on its head. Volunteer Marek 11:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And User:Gitz6666, your edit summary here kind of illustrates the problem [17]. There are NO allegations of "sexual violence" against Ukrainian forces. There is an allegation that a doctor said something in frustration (not violence). Absolutely no one is alleging that any Russian POWs have been castrated so let's not do the whole slip from one claim into a stronger false claim thing. Volunteer Marek 11:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't done specific research on what is meant by "sexual violence" in IHL. To me, it suffices that the HRMMU qualifies those allegations as allegations of sexual violence. Anyway, I think that they are using the notion according to this definition by the World Health Organization: "any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person's sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work". Here a scholarly source. So yes, threatening of castration is no rape but still qualifies as sexual violence.
I was wondering: what about having a sub-subsection "Sexual assault" and a sub-subsection "Other sexual crimes related to conflict"? Would that solve the issue? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

By the way, unless HRMMU have phrased their report very badly (which is possible) I don't think they were referring to the news reported by DailyMail ("Ukrainian doctor tells TV interviewer he has ordered his staff to castrate Russian soldiers"). Here is what they wrote, verbatim: "HRMMU has also received an allegation of CRSV perpetrated by Ukrainian forces, when a captured Russian military member was threatened with castration on camera". I don't know if there's a news report on this incident.

I think we should have a subsection called "Conflict related sexual violance", divided into two sub-subsection, the first one on "Sexual assault", with the info added by Volunteer Marek, and the second one on "Other sexual crimes related to conflict", with the contents taken from the HRMMU Report. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No, unless you can come up with a significant number of reliable sources which actually cover this "threat of castration" or ones that describe the acts against looters as "war crimes" this is simply WP:UNDUE. All that the HRMMU reports says on its own is basically "someone contacted us and claimed such and such". It's UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 21:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard about the quantitative criterion you suggest: "a significant number of reliable sources". How did you come up with it? WP:RS says that "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". HRMMU is a reliable source, and I quoted it not as stating a fact, but as reporting an allegation, "The Monitoring Mission had received allegations..." There are dozens of videos of duct-taped civilians to poles and trees, sometimes without trousers and underwears, beaten and humiliated in public; and the video of the POW threatened with castration while they were forcing him to call his girlfriend at home, is clearly non a fake. Apparently HRMMU agrees. If BBC, The Guardian, New York Times and CNN don't publish these news, that's not a problem for Wikipedia: we have a report by the OHCHR Monitoring Mission and that's clearly enough. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It's literally WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

And no, if BBC, Guardian, NY Times and CNN don't publish "these news" then it is indeed a problem, not for Wikipedia but for those who wish to include that info. That's the Reliable Sources policy. We do NOT have a "report by the OHCHR". We have a single sentence in a report which is mostly about other stuff which just says that OHCHR is aware that such allegations have been made. That's it. Volunteer Marek 23:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:UNDUE is relevant here. There are not two different viewpoints: nobody has ever argued that the videos are fake, and that marauders don't get duct-taped to trees in Ukraine. The point really is quite simple. We have a RS saying "x", no RS saying "non-x", and you argue that we shouldn't publish "according to RS, x". Those videos are outside for everyone to see, and I don't undestand why we should wait for the imprimatur by New York Times and BBC before publishing an account of what OHCHR has already said about them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You said "I've never heard about the quantitative criterion". WP:UNDUE says "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"'. Having an RS is a necessary but not a sufficient condition (and like I pointed out this one particular RS only says that it's aware that such an allegation was made, that's it). If we're gonna go with "videos for all to see" as allowable then oh man, can I include some "videos for all to see" in this article. Bodies of women raped by Russian soldiers and and burned to cover up the evidence. Children murdered by Russian soldiers. Shooting fleeing civilians in leg just for fun to watch them try to desperately crawl away. Stripped naked bodies of civilians executed. Etc. etc. etc. Just because you think there are some "videos out there to see" that you believe doesn't mean we include it here, unless it's reported in reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek there are reports that children were also involved in rape by Russian forces according to witnesses daniil30012003 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)