Super ninja2 (talk | contribs) →The lead: Reply Tag: Reply |
→The lead: keep |
||
Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
:'''oppose''' removing it. I think it is very important to mention all war crimes including the Ukrainians'. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 10:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
:'''oppose''' removing it. I think it is very important to mention all war crimes including the Ukrainians'. [[User:Super ninja2|Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2]] ([[User talk:Super ninja2|talk]]) 10:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The lead must ''first'' summarize and ''second'' make the summary proportional. Removing a viewpoint altogether jeopardizes the summary for the sake of proportionality. [[WP:DUE]] is just a ''method'' by which WP helps maintain [[WP:NPOV]] but NPOV first requires that all significant viewpoints are presented. Removing this significant viewpoint from the lead risks violating NPOV in a more serious manner by completely omitting a significant viewpoint. ([[wikt:Significant|Significant]] here meaning ''notable'' or ''carrying meaning'' rather than ''large in extent''). Furthermore, quantity of text is just one of several methods of assessing due weight. The relative placement after Russian accusations, and juxtaposition between a list of accusations and the single concern on the Ukrainian side makes clear to readers that the two viewpoints are not treated as balanced issues. In any case, if the quantity of text is a nonetheless a concern here, the proper fix is to elaborate further the accusations on the Russian side in the lead, '''''not''''' to entirely omit the Ukrainian accusation. --[[User talk:N8wilson|N8<sub>wilson</sub>]] 12:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==Discussion: Article needs an Infobox, or something like that. What should it include and omit?== |
==Discussion: Article needs an Infobox, or something like that. What should it include and omit?== |
Revision as of 12:34, 25 March 2022
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Synthesis tag
Are there any objections to removing the {{synthesis}} tag, currently in the Distinction (law) section? If there are objections, then please explain the reasons for keeping the tag and explain which paragraphs/sentences appear to be WP:SYNTHESIS. Boud (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did not add the tag, but pretty much everything is synhesis, in the whole article, except for the general background and the materials related to application to ICC. In addition, some editors do not understand the difference between killing and murder. Ideally, not every incident which some media called "war crimes" should go here, but the article must be based on reliable secondary sources covering the topic. On the other hand, I fully realize that creation of anything reliable with this title is currently impossible, and I am not interested in any way to contribute to this article at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added and re-added the tag and it was twice removed. There is still a lot of synthesis, i.e. detailing of events for which no connections to "war crimes" are made in the sources. The shelling of the civilian merchant ships is one example. I don't have the patience to keep re-adding the tag every few days, but it should still be there. Letcord (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that we necessarily need the words "war crimes" in the sources, but we do at least need the information that is the plain English information that reasonably and uncontroversially matches the definitions, without OR or SYNTHESIS. I removed the merchant ship section just now, with a brief explanation in the edit summary. Try discussing particular paragraphs/subsections with the editors (mainly one?) who don't seem willing to come to a compromise between the limits of including anything that seems like it might be a war crime or is vaguely related to the topic, to the other extreme of requiring the specific words "war crimes" in the source. (Just for the record: it's not me who removed the tag.) Boud (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- My view is that in an article on such a serious type of crime like this one, every incident detailed should have to have been alleged to be a war crime by at least one source, even if just in a casual way by non-subject-matter experts for now, and with the allegation reported by a WP:RS (i.e. no referencing tweets). This is quite a low bar to set, but it at least prevents Wikipedians from playing lawyer to decide what "reasonably and uncontroversially matches the definitions" of crimes (this is not a slight on you, you've done good work on this article).
- A perfect illustration of what can go wrong if WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:RS aren't followed in articles like this is the tank incident. Info on a "Russian tank deliberately swerv[ing] into [a civilian car]" was added early on with "no solid proof" [1] of its veracity, and it stood as a key example of a Russian war crime for over two weeks [2], i.e. over 50% of this article's lifespan, without there being a single allegation that the incident constituted a war crime made in the (very weak) sources, and even more damning, there being "no evidence to support" the story's fundamental assumption of the tank being Russian, with, on the contrary, "several indications that it [was actually] a Ukrainian tank"! [3][4]. A textbook example of online misinformation if there ever was one, and as a trusted source of information for many people, Wikipedia has a responsibility to be more careful about what it publishes, otherwise it will fall into disrepute. Letcord (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- The 'tank swerving to hit a car' incident is a good example of your point - I agree. And you're probably right overall. My difficulty with this article is that if I intervene too much (such as removing content not added by me), then it risks looking very much like I think I WP:OWN it, and I risk violating formal constraints such as 3RR. A bunch of experienced editors are needed to keep an eye on the article and be willing to delete or fix weak material.If nobody else does it, then sooner or later I might start the broader article with a name such as International humanitarian law in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the understanding that the scope is not especially the law itself (which is not modified for this case), but mainly suspected violations of the law. In that case anything that is not well enough justified as war crime by the sources, but is reasonably claimed by the sources (not WP:THESUN or WP:NYPOST...) to violate international humanitarian law, can be shifted to the broader article. Boud (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that we necessarily need the words "war crimes" in the sources, but we do at least need the information that is the plain English information that reasonably and uncontroversially matches the definitions, without OR or SYNTHESIS. I removed the merchant ship section just now, with a brief explanation in the edit summary. Try discussing particular paragraphs/subsections with the editors (mainly one?) who don't seem willing to come to a compromise between the limits of including anything that seems like it might be a war crime or is vaguely related to the topic, to the other extreme of requiring the specific words "war crimes" in the source. (Just for the record: it's not me who removed the tag.) Boud (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added and re-added the tag and it was twice removed. There is still a lot of synthesis, i.e. detailing of events for which no connections to "war crimes" are made in the sources. The shelling of the civilian merchant ships is one example. I don't have the patience to keep re-adding the tag every few days, but it should still be there. Letcord (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Changing this articles name to "Alleged" war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would solve a lot of these problems.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I meant "Allegations of"
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Infoboxes
@RteeeeKed, Buidhe, Cameron Dewe, and Chesapeake77: (people who have edited this talk page). The ICC and ICJ infoboxes do not have links to the articles on the ICC and ICJ cases, and they do not sumarise key features of war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This gives the false impression that this article is the main one covering those two cases. But it's not the main article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes explains why there is no obvious place to link to the relevant articles. It's because an infobox about an article, which "summarizes key features of the page's subject
", is normally placed at the top right of the article itself, and only rarely (if ever?) placed in other related articles. Since there has been difficult reaching consensus about keeping this article on-topic (war crimes), I'll let others remove the infoboxes and/or comment here. Boud (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please provide a link to the ICC related Wikipedia article about investigation into war crimes in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
- All I can find is an overly-general article about alleged war crimes in the "Russo-Ukrainian War".
- 1) On 3 March 2022, the ICC announced a specific investigation into the 2022 invasion-related alleged war crimes.
- 2) The 2022 invasion war crime allegations are highly notable and should not be buried in a blind rush to obscure, bookish efficiency.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. The ICC is not going to make a separate investigation into the 2022 invasion. Please read the ICC official information:
On 2 March 2022, the Prosecutor announced he had proceeded to open an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine on the basis of the referrals received. In accordance with the overall jurisdictional parameters conferred through these referrals, and without prejudice to the focus of the investigation, the scope of the situation encompasses any past and present allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide committed on any part of the territory of Ukraine by any person from 21 November 2013 onwards.
(bold added) Boud (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. The ICC is not going to make a separate investigation into the 2022 invasion. Please read the ICC official information:
- Then why (two days after the invasion) did the chief ICC prosecuter say that he needed a country to file a referral request re: the Russian invasion of Ukraine so he could accelerate the initiation of the investiagation of events occuring during the invasion?
- And then why did 39 countries then enjoin petitions to request the ICC investigate the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?
- And also why did the ICC chief prosecuter then respond to these petitions to announce the commencement of the investigation of the invasion on 3 March 2022?
- Because the 2022 invasion of Ukraine has unique investigative importance, that's why.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the direct quote I gave above is sufficiently clear. You're probably trying to say that the Feb 2022 further Russian invasion of Ukraine gave extra political motivation to the ICC to advance from the preliminary examination stage to the investigation stage; in which case, yes, that's a reasonable interpretation. It doesn't override the RS'd information that we have, and it doesn't override the WP:MOS for infoboxes. There is a single ICC investigation into the Situation in Ukraine dating from 21 November 2013 onwards, concerning suspects of arbitrary nationality. Boud (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the infobox. I didn't check who added it. Please see the above discussion. The infobox is about an ICC investigation that covers war crimes by all parties in Ukraine from 21 November 2013 to an open-ended future; summary information about the ICC investigation is not summary information about the war crimes of the 2022 invasion. Boud (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia have a page where infoboxes are made? I think I saw something like that in the last several days.
- Maybe there could be a discussion about what an infobox for this page should look like / include.
- This article really needs something like an infobox.
- I forgot to sign this. Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing is an informal term
Just a reminder for when more sources come in on the ethnic cleansing of Mariupolans by Russian forces 'cleansing' them from Mariupol. See the lead of ethnic cleansing: the formal legal term is crime against humanity. For the moment, a Telegram headline in the left-column/News Feed of Kyiv Independent is not enough of a reliable source, but this will presumably get to WP:RS soon. Depending on the sources, we'll probably have to start with terms such as forced displacement or deportation or population transfer. Over the past week, thousands of residents have been moved to Russia, Mariupol city council reported. The civilians were allegedly taken to camps where Russian occupiers checked their phones and documents and forcibly moved some of them to remote cities in Russia.
Boud (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have to agree, in the interests of good honest editing.
- It is as you say, not indicative of ethnic cleansing, but is forced displacement (and mass-abduction in the case of the forced relocation camps for Mariupol survivors).
- Despicable of course, but we must nevertheless keep our editing neutral or the article won't be believable. No indication of ethnic cleansing to date.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Changed my mind. Here's why.
- The Russian argument for this invasion has very significantly included that "there is no Ukraine", "Ukraine is just a part of Russia" and "Ukrainians are really Russians" (even though most Russians cannot understand the Ukrainian language).
- Therefore the very basis of this war has been war on the Ukrainian people, their identity and their freedom to choose their own identity.
- Therefore yes, this war INCLUDES genocide.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I personally agree with you, but you need RS saying that was a "genocide" or at least RS discussing if it was a "genocide". Same with ethnic cleansing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Universal jurisdiction EE+LT+DE+PL+SK+SE?
The Prosecutor General of Ukraine claims in a tweet that Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden have started universal jurisdiction war crimes cases in relation to Russian war crimes. The info is credible, but a tweet is a weak source. There should be media announcements or announcements on court websites in these various countries sooner or later, once these get to the stage of formal investigations or charges. Feel free to add good sources here, or start a Universal jurisdiction subsection in the article directly. Boud (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's because any article / website can now be translated in seconds.
- Even better than "Google Translate"-- many browsers will now instantly translate foreign language websites, with only a few clicks. Use Google to find out how.
- I would go to the top newspaper in each country. Did you know that you can cite a foreign language source on a Wikipedia article as long as you note the particular language in the "Language=" parameters for your citation?
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Browsers do not work by magic, they work by software run on your local machine and on servers; see GAFAM for privacy violations and security risks of using the oligarchs' servers. Not all oligarchs are having their wealth confiscated. One of the best guides for switching from walled gardens to the free world, https://switching.software, does not currently have any recommended auto-translator. We can't just "click and believe". Boud (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think translation programs can be exploited as you suggest. The translator would have to instantly "rewrite" things to become an instrument of misinformation. There are no computers that can "write" propaganda.
- Not in 2022.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Crime of aggression ≠ war crime
Russia's invasion of Ukraine may well constitute the crime of aggression under international law. However, the crime of aggression is not a war crime; the latter relate to to the conduct of warfare, regardless of the legality of the broader war itself. This is explained in the introduction to the article Crime of aggression. I suggest that all discussion of the crime of aggression be moved to Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Atchom (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- That might make sense. "War crimes" are often distinguished from "crimes against peace" (such as the crime of aggression) under Art. 6 Charter of the Nuremberg Charter; moreover, Art. 5 Statute of Rome distinguishes between the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. RS is here. So if we stick to the legal jargon, we should avoid mentioning the crime of aggression in this article. That would also imply that we would stop duplicating the information provided in Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, one could also argue that in common parlance "war crimes" are all crimes related to war and to international criminal law, including genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression/crimes against peace. Between the two options I am undecided and neutral. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and made the necessary edits to this article, with a link in the lede to Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Given that this article is about international law, we should stick to what is legally correct as opposed to a mistaken common usage, albeit flagging the issue so that others will know where to find the information. Atchom (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I find the current lead and the mention you made appropriate. Thanks! --AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and made the necessary edits to this article, with a link in the lede to Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Given that this article is about international law, we should stick to what is legally correct as opposed to a mistaken common usage, albeit flagging the issue so that others will know where to find the information. Atchom (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Placement of bodies of Russian soldiers in 'Z' shape by Ukrainians
Bodies of soldiers have been placed in a 'Z' shape and recorded by Ukrainians (sorry, reddit source for the second one, I haven't been able to find it on an article yet), which would constitute a war crime (rule 113) and (rule 90) for “committing outrages upon personal dignity”. I have been unable to find a source yet that addresses this, so I haven't written it up on the article. Please let me know if you can find anything. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that this would ammount to a war crime. Rule 113 refers to dead bodies being despoiled or mutilated, and Rule 90 requires that the victim of torture and degrading treatment is alive. In any case we must avoid WP:OR: as you rightly said, we need source, so thank you for not having published. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, cases like this I won't publish without discussing it before. And about the sources, you are absolutely right.
- On the other hand, Rule 90 does say it applies to dead bodies: "The Elements of Crimes further specifies that degrading treatment can apply to dead persons and that the victim need not be personally aware of the humiliation".
- Unless I am mistaken, that would make it a war crime. Now, there are sources reporting the act, but I haven't found any reliable source reporting it as a war crime, and I don't think it will be easy to find. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Straightforward allegations vs indirect, cautious language
Maybe here we are a bit too cautious: "A number of interviews of Russian soldiers taken prisoner have been circulated on social media, often seemingly filmed under a degree of duress and used for Ukrainian propaganda purposes. These videos have raised concerns [one could even add a tag here, "who is concerned? specify"] about potential violations of the Geneva Conventions. On 7 March, Amnesty International released a statement saying that ... and saying that ... Human Rights Watch criticized the Ukrainian treatment of prisoners of war, which it described as intentional humiliation and shaming" (emphasis mine). The circumlocutory. indirect language contrasts with the bold opening statement of the article: "The invasion of Ukraine... constitutes a crime of aggression according to international criminal law" – straight to the chase. Something doesn't sound right to me: I think we should strive for a more coherent approach. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Whole beginning of the article should be reworked.
- "According to many specialists" -- What specialists?
- "the invasion of Ukraine, part of the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014, violated the Charter of the United Nations prohibition on aggression and constitutes a crime of aggression according to international criminal law" -- Source is needed here, if it even belongs. A crime of aggression is a different thing from war crimes. Perhaps should be mentioned somewhere else? But not so sure it belongs at the beginning of the article.
- Also, Wikipedia must remain neutral WP:NPOV and all war crimes from both parties should be recorded. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've changed the lead so as to make clear that the article deals also with alleged crimes committed by the Ukrainian army (explicit reference to exploiting Russian PoW for propaganda purposes). Plus, I've strengthened and qualified the statement on the crime of aggression by providing more sources and by adding "According to experts and human rights organizations". The article should now be more balanced and reliable, and the lead section more informative. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Gitz agree that reads better, Also note that in the Irpin refugee column shelling Human Right Watch stated that Ukrainian forces have an obligation to avoid or minimize civilian harm, include avoiding operating where civilians are located and preventing civilians from entering areas of active hostilities. In this incident Ukraine forces were firing a mortar 200m from the intersection. Not sure if this is a potential Ukraine war crime? Ilenart626 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- It might well be but we need a WP:RS to that effect. HR Watch suggests that "Russian forces violated their obligations under international humanitarian law" and doesn't blame the Uk. army. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- What could help could be a broader article such as International humanitarian law in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, to mainly focus on suspected violations of IHL that are not clearly sourced as likely war crimes, leaving only a very brief link to this page for war crimes. Particular items could be shifted in one direction or the other depending on how the sources evolve. Boud (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- It might well be but we need a WP:RS to that effect. HR Watch suggests that "Russian forces violated their obligations under international humanitarian law" and doesn't blame the Uk. army. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, it is looking much better. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Gitz agree that reads better, Also note that in the Irpin refugee column shelling Human Right Watch stated that Ukrainian forces have an obligation to avoid or minimize civilian harm, include avoiding operating where civilians are located and preventing civilians from entering areas of active hostilities. In this incident Ukraine forces were firing a mortar 200m from the intersection. Not sure if this is a potential Ukraine war crime? Ilenart626 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've changed the lead so as to make clear that the article deals also with alleged crimes committed by the Ukrainian army (explicit reference to exploiting Russian PoW for propaganda purposes). Plus, I've strengthened and qualified the statement on the crime of aggression by providing more sources and by adding "According to experts and human rights organizations". The article should now be more balanced and reliable, and the lead section more informative. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Human Right Watch Report - Ensure Safe Passage, Aid for Mariupol Civilians
The Human Right Watch (HRW) report dated 21 March available here highlights the current situation in Mariupol based on interviews of evacuated citizens and analysis of photos and other records. HRW come accross as impartial and independent, particularly their reporting of Russian and Ukraine activity. From the report it is obvious that most of Maripol is a warzone with Russian and Ukraine forces fighting everywhere. The report is placing emphasis on both Ukraine and Russian forces to ensure safety of civilians, for example: "Both Russia and Ukraine have obligations to ensure access for humanitarian assistance to civilians and to take all feasible steps to allow the civilian population to evacuate safely, if they choose, whether or not an agreement to establish humanitarian corridors is put into effect." At the moment the article is placing all the emphasis on Russia with very little emphasis on Ukraine's responsibilities, for example the "Targeting of humanitarian corridors" subsection. Would suggest that we include Ukraine's obligations in the article based on the attached reference, particularly the "Targeting of humanitarian corridors" subsection. I'm happy to make the changes but would like consensus first. Comments / opinions? Ilenart626 (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note that one of the reasons I suggested the HRW inclusion is that the actions of the Ukraine Military could mean that a Russian response would not be a war crime. For example, a shopping mall in Kyiv was recently destroyed by a Russian missile attack as the Russian claim it was storing rockets. This was denied by The Ukraine ministry, however the Russians have released drone footage showing a Ukrainian multiple rocket launcher entering the shopping centre for shelter after firing and reloading of missiles. The Russian report also stated the shopping centre was non-functional. This all suggests that the destruction of the shopping mall would not be a war crime, the Laws of War would deem this a military object due to Ukraine using it to launch rockets. There are lots of articles about the shopping mall, for example [1] [2]3 Ilenart626 (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- You should use better sources such as that one. However, none of these sources explicitly say that the deliberate missile attack on a shopping center "was not a war crime" for the reasons above (sure, the Ukrainian military is protecting the city). This is your assertion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is a lot of (and understandable) bias on western media against Russia, so it is hard to find reliable English sources. I think that is affecting some articles on Wikipedia about the invasion, and WP:NPOV is not being followed 100%. Which I find especially important when talking about affected civilians lives.
- Same subject actually came out on the thread before this one.
- You do have my vote to do so. Let me know with anything I can help with. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see how we could do what you are suggesting. We need a WP:RS stating either that the Ukrainian armed forces have deliberately committed a war crime, or that their reckless negligence raises the suspicion that they might have committed a war crime. If we have reliable sources explicitly linking Ukraine with war crimes, then we publish; but it's not for us to "include Ukraine's obligations in the article", unless we can also include that those obligations have been breached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the many things I've read, there is no factual basis for the Russian claim that Ukrainian forces are firing on civilian corriders. However their allegations can be reported as "claims", along with the large number of credible and notable claims to the contrary.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Would suggest that we include Ukraine's obligations'? No, because the cited source does not accuse the Ukraine side of committing war crimes (the subject of this page). It said clearly that it were Russian forces who killed civilians. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I meant other sources that I have seen. Such as Tass (Russian government controlled online "newspaper") and also claims by Lavrov and his ilk. I personally don't believe a word of it. But this article has posted and can post such claims. When there are lots of other sources in the article, this is not so concerning, because propaganda then has a way of revealing itself.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Assume you mean an article such as this one, which states “… placing military objects and equipment in densely populated areas and near civilian objects and using such objects for military purposes, endangering lives of civilian population in violation of international humanitarian law.” Ilenart626 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that is typical Tass. Disinformation, propaganda for sure. But when a Wikipedia article has tons of sources it becomes immune to any Tass-like sources that are also included.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok to close out this discussion I will add the above TASS reference to the Attacks on civilian areas subsection Ilenart626 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Castration of Russian soldiers
I've heard ukranian ministry of defense said they will castrate Russian PoWs, which constitutes a war crime. 2800:AC:4001:836E:808E:99EE:3117:CE91 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't the ministry of defense but the owner of a war-zone hospital who claims he told his doctors to castrate captured Russian soldiers: [5], [6]. There are multiple sources but, unless the order was executed, this doesn't qualify as a war crime but rather as war talk and war propaganda. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's very clear that Russian abuses are in the vast majority in this invasion. But if solid sources of any occurances of Ukrainian abuses do occur at some point, they should certainly be included in the article.
- I'd say this guys claim that he gave such orders could be included because he has notability as a hospital owner. But only if it is also stated and cited that no sources are known to be found to date, that his orders were carried out. Unless contrary notable sources ever arise.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I understand that was a bad joke. There was no Russian prisoners in the hospital, no one to castrate. The guy even apologized for his joke: "He said his hospital "does not castrate anyone and is not going to. Those were the emotions. I'm sorry. We are saving lives. Period" [7]. Also, none of these sources is particularly reliable. There are numerous discussions like that in social media. They do not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like he was joking, it looks like he responded to pressure to back off. Both his original statements and his later retraction could be included in the article.
- The huge and well-cited abuses by the Russian forces dwarf his comments, of course, but this still could be mentioned.
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- According to all these sources, that doctor or his colleagues did not castrate anyone. What crimes? My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you would like to add in the article statements about violence threats to the other side, then you should first add tonns of ukrainophobic statements from Russian TV which promote ethnic purges of Ukrainian as nationalists - and it would be a whole article not on war crimes, but on threats. The episode is not notable per se. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead
Unless the lead will be significantly expanded, I do not think this info [8] belongs to the lead because this has described only in a very short subsection of the page. Remember that the lead must summarize content proportional to its appearance in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's a whole section dedicated to this, and the lead section doesn't dwell upon the matter but limits itself to mentioning the mistreatment of PoW by the Ukrainians authorities. The subject of the article is "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", not Russian war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- This section is only around 2% of the page. Including such info to the lead is a violation of WP:DUE. So, no, absolutely not. You can start an RfC about it if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Let's wait for other views, then. I feel it is important that any war crime, no matter the nationality of the perpetrator, can be repored in this article, provided that there are reliable sources. The images of Russian prisoners of war have circulated around the world for quite a long time, making their way through the news on a variety of media - press, TV, blogs. Mistreatment of PoW is a serious breach of international humanitarian law and should not be passed over in silence. Note that currently the section is close to 5% of the text of the article, and that the article includes much content that doesn't fit sqarely the notion of war crimes (the killing of civilians is a war crime only if it is deliberate) and that is not supported by reliable sources (e.g. this). Finally, if I'm not wrong WP:CYCLE would require the article to be brought back to the wrong version that was online before @My very best wishes's edit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, the default would be the version before you included this info recently to the lead [9]. Such inclusion should be done per WP:CONSENSUS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- There was consensus: see this discussion and the comments by @AdrianHObradors and @Ilenart626, who expressed their views on the matter. But you don't agree and consensus can change, so let's wait for the others. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- That was mostly about section in the body of the page (which is fine), not specifically about this phrase in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right, we'll see what they think. I just want to add to my "Mistreatment of PoW is a serious breach of international humanitarian law and should not be passed over in silence", that that applies especially when it's the deliberate product of an official state policy. Images and videos of PoW were posted by the Ukrainian Minister of Interal Affairs for a protracted period of time (more than two weaks) notwithstanding the warnings they had received by Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross: [10], [11]. I understand the scale of the serrounding catastrophe, but each rule of IHL is a trench that should never be abbandoned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- We now have 8 sections in the page (some of them are much bigger than this section). If each of these sections will be summarized in the lead, then including summary of your section to the lead would not be a WP:DUE problem. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- But that's already the case, isn't it? Please read again the lead section. What's missing? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, "deportations" is missing. If I'm not wrong, that's because it was added today. Anyway, everything else is accounted for:
Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, part of the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014, Russian authorities have been accused of starting a war of aggression [SECTION 1], as well as using cluster munition and thermobaric weapons in residential areas, attacking humanitarian corridors [SECTION 2], medical care facilities [SECTION 6.1] and other civilian targets [SECTION 3 and SECTION 6.2-6.9], shooting at unarmed civilians [again, SECTION 6], and of looting houses, stores and banks [SECTION 4].
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, there is only a brief summary of the whole page in a couple of phrases; none of the sections was summarized. Basically, one would have to write one-two phrases about each section. Why only the section you want to include was summarized in this way? My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of exploiting Russian prisoners of war for propaganda purposes." is overly descriptive. But I'm happy with making it even shorter dropping the "for propaganda purposes" part. In that case, however, "exploiting" needs to be replaced with "abusing" otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- But that's already the case, isn't it? Please read again the lead section. What's missing? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- We now have 8 sections in the page (some of them are much bigger than this section). If each of these sections will be summarized in the lead, then including summary of your section to the lead would not be a WP:DUE problem. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right, we'll see what they think. I just want to add to my "Mistreatment of PoW is a serious breach of international humanitarian law and should not be passed over in silence", that that applies especially when it's the deliberate product of an official state policy. Images and videos of PoW were posted by the Ukrainian Minister of Interal Affairs for a protracted period of time (more than two weaks) notwithstanding the warnings they had received by Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross: [10], [11]. I understand the scale of the serrounding catastrophe, but each rule of IHL is a trench that should never be abbandoned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think we are and will be facing a big problem with the lack of reliable sources. Not only do we have a huge propaganda war between Russia and Ukraine, but I don't think media will want to portrait Ukraine in a bad light. I remember reading an article about some reporters that were shot at, after arriving to an Ukrainian checkpoint, by people in civilian clothes. And while signs point to it being done by an untrained Ukrainian militia, it was still reported as undercover Russians.
- I will keep looking for RS and share them here. And I find the way the current lead right now appropriate. I do think it is important to mention Ukraine, they should under no pretext be given carte blanche to commit war crimes, so the ones (hopefully few) they commit, of course should be registered. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- That was mostly about section in the body of the page (which is fine), not specifically about this phrase in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- There was consensus: see this discussion and the comments by @AdrianHObradors and @Ilenart626, who expressed their views on the matter. But you don't agree and consensus can change, so let's wait for the others. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, the default would be the version before you included this info recently to the lead [9]. Such inclusion should be done per WP:CONSENSUS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Let's wait for other views, then. I feel it is important that any war crime, no matter the nationality of the perpetrator, can be repored in this article, provided that there are reliable sources. The images of Russian prisoners of war have circulated around the world for quite a long time, making their way through the news on a variety of media - press, TV, blogs. Mistreatment of PoW is a serious breach of international humanitarian law and should not be passed over in silence. Note that currently the section is close to 5% of the text of the article, and that the article includes much content that doesn't fit sqarely the notion of war crimes (the killing of civilians is a war crime only if it is deliberate) and that is not supported by reliable sources (e.g. this). Finally, if I'm not wrong WP:CYCLE would require the article to be brought back to the wrong version that was online before @My very best wishes's edit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- This section is only around 2% of the page. Including such info to the lead is a violation of WP:DUE. So, no, absolutely not. You can start an RfC about it if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I basically agree with the OP. It is disproportionate in the context of the size of the lead and the coverage given in the article. Improve the lead and it would then be more appropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- While the lead should probably be expanded, I don't see the article including enough information about war crimes committed by Ukraine to merit any mention in the lead, even if expanded. It would place undue weight on such a thing. Fieari (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- oppose removing it. I think it is very important to mention all war crimes including the Ukrainians'. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The lead must first summarize and second make the summary proportional. Removing a viewpoint altogether jeopardizes the summary for the sake of proportionality. WP:DUE is just a method by which WP helps maintain WP:NPOV but NPOV first requires that all significant viewpoints are presented. Removing this significant viewpoint from the lead risks violating NPOV in a more serious manner by completely omitting a significant viewpoint. (Significant here meaning notable or carrying meaning rather than large in extent). Furthermore, quantity of text is just one of several methods of assessing due weight. The relative placement after Russian accusations, and juxtaposition between a list of accusations and the single concern on the Ukrainian side makes clear to readers that the two viewpoints are not treated as balanced issues. In any case, if the quantity of text is a nonetheless a concern here, the proper fix is to elaborate further the accusations on the Russian side in the lead, not to entirely omit the Ukrainian accusation. --N8wilson 12:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion: Article needs an Infobox, or something like that. What should it include and omit?
There is a Wikipedia "project" or "page" where Infoboxes are custom-made (or can be self-made). This article needs one.
Discussion is encouraged. If not an Infobox, then some kind of template should be in the top-right space of the article.
Suggestions? Thoughts?
Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- You would need to make something like template on page Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
What amounts to a war crime? Lack of mention in sources and WP:OR
I have been going through the sources. Lots of sections on this article make no mention of war crimes. Instead they mention how something happened and then mention an article from the Geneva Convention or IHL. Should we be determining what is and isn't a war crime? I think that gets very close to WP:OR.
So I say we either find better sources that do make the connection between the facts and a war crime, or we remove them and clean this article a lot. War crimes are a serious accusation, and not one that we should be doing.
Also, there is the targeting of nuclear power plants, which is in this article only to afterwards shortly mention that it isn't a war crime. I would clean that a lot as well. We could keep it, as it was talked about a lot in the news, but clarify how it isn't a war crime. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- With regard to the attack against the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, I think it should stay. The best RS available agrees that that attack constitutes a breach of Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention; they are less sure ("It is less likely") that the attack qualifies as a war crime under Article 85(3)(c) of the Protocol. Had the attack had serious consequences, it would likely be a war crime under Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment". I think we should leave the section and qualify the war crime allegation by adding "according to the US embassy in Ukraine" (which is a non-indipendent third party) based on this RS.
I agree, however, that there might be a problem with RS in this article. I've started and not yet finished a review of the sources, and I'd like to share a preview here. Please have a look. Anybody is welcome to complete this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)