Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

any attempt to equate Ukraine to Russia in the article on war crimes is wrong and should not be done

Russia is SYSTEMICALLY is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. Ukraine investigates it and doesn't tolerate violations by its military while Russia encourages and allows war crimes to happen. this is not like the War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war it is completely different. there is only a few reported instances that were even verified on the Ukrainian side while Russia openly talks about its genocidal intent in Ukraine. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have the name of the Ukranian soldiers punished with war crimes ? Desaibsiaidepikiw (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There haven't been any convictions yet but it is notable that Ukraine has launched investigations of alleged abuses of POWs https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-investigating-torture-video/31774747.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-22/ukraine-videos-alleged-war-crimes-russia-prisoners-makiivka/101682018 while Russia has launched no investigations on war crimes and crimes against humanity it has committed against the civilian population of Ukraine. It would be a false balance to insinuate that. while Ukraine isn't a state party of the Rome statute they do accept its jurisdictions to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in its territory. and this does include its own soldiers https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/ukraine-accepts-icc-jurisdiction-over-alleged-crimes-committed-20-february-2014 Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I can only assure you that the citizens of Russia are absolutely sure of the opposite situation, that the armed formations of Ukraine have been committing numerous crimes since 2014 and bear no responsibility for their crimes. I could give you links to Russian sources. But of course you will not believe them because of the negative attitude you have formed towards Russia. 95.25.12.0 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Even in the war in Donbass the vast majority of war crimes committed were done by the Russian backed proxies and there were only a few verified instances of Ukraine committing human rights violations in the regional war dear IP Monochromemelo1 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand you to believe in what you write. But I and other Russian citizens also believe in what I write. That the armed formations of Ukraine commit numerous crimes for which they bear no responsibility. 95.25.12.66 (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If that’s not obvious for some reason, I believe there are facts and statements by reliable sources cited in this article or easily located to support that Russia systematically commits war crimes, denies them, doesn’t prosecute them, and has committed the vast majority.  —Michael Z. 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless you did the counting, it's only your belief. We call it politely, "original research". — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

There is a typo, with "found" having been written as "foubd". This should be corrected.

" Ukrainian investigators foubd beheadings, mutilation and incinerated corpses, and the next day three more bodies in a glass factory, The Washington Post reported. " FakeNoid (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Corvette ZR1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2024

Change "cluser" (in "cluser munitions") to "cluster". Lexxieisnthere (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. The rule I use for revert assessments is the one suggested by Nableezy in that discussion: whether the edit still relays the same information. It was my judgement that in this case that standard was met. This was simply adding in a clarifying adjective, and correcting grammar, without removing or undoing an existing 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)