Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

@JDiala I do not believe it is in the Wikipedia editing community's capacity to come to a reliable verdict on this which offers readers a trustworthy overview. Too messy, too contentious, too unknown. No more than allegations of misuse by some sources — to then labour on any further would be arrogant for lack of a better word, really. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• D or E. Which RS call these or other similar incidents war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces and where? I do not see anything significant here, including this old OHCHR report (one should read what it actually tells). Hence, this is not on the subject of the page. In addition, the report by AI (published 2 years ago) has been criticized so much that AI has hired several independent investigators who came to conclusion that the report was questionable at best [1]. Why should we use a questionable report if there are many thousands other sources on the crimes committed during this war? Why should we include some info that arguably does not belong to this page when the page is already too large? Nevertheless, some info about the attack on the care facility can be placed to the section about attacks on medical facilities because the killing of the patients has been widely reported, except that their murder was committed by Russian, not Ukrainian forces. Placing this to a section about the alleged Ukrainian war crimes, as JDiala suggested, would be a miscarriage of justice. misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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

As a note of order, this RfC is a repeat of another RfC that was conducted 2 years ago and the outcome of which no one has challenged. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The previous RfC did not adequately resolve the dispute as I've previously pointed out, as it did not address whether the allegations against Ukraine were to be included or not and also reached no consensus on several of the key points it did address. It also did not include the Amnesty International report. JDiala (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the previous RfC did not request to use that specific controversial and two year old report. In my view, one should generally use most recent and indisputable/reliable publications. To insist on including a single outdated controversial "outlier" source looks like a POV-pushing to me. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  Then it behooves us to say exactly that in the article. AFAIK, the Amnesty report was widely discussed in RS, making its inclusion (and it's criticism) WP:DUE in this article. We shynot shynaway from describing controversies about war crimes allegations. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  But then, if the original report is included, the follow-up report with criticism should also be included. Sjö (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A This is the second RfC on the same subject. From the first one in August 2022 a consensus emerged that the article should cover the placement of military targets near civilian objects, and have at most one or two sentences about Stara Krasnianka. However, immediately after my t-ban [2] (now lifted), the relevant section was removed from the article without a clear consensus [3]. Since consensus can change, a new RfC is welcome.

As for the attack on the Stara Krasnianka care house, it was first included in the article when the Ukrainian authorities claimed in March 2022 that it was a Russian war crime [4]. As soon as the OHCHR published a report stating that the incident was emblematic of its concerns over the use of human shields and the placement of military objectives near civilian objects ([5], para. 35-36), Stara Krasniaka was removed from the article on war crimes in Ukraine. How can this be consistent with NPOV? Here you can find excerpts from at least one source (Washington Post) using the words "war crime" to describe the incident.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what do you mean by we follow the source? Do we need the RS to say, in its own voice, "this is a war crime", or is it sufficient that it says "According to John Doe, this is a war crime"?
See WP:OR: To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The truth is, having the magic words "war crime" in the source does not solve all the issues. Nobody said it did, but having Wikipedia editors deciding what actions are war crimes or serious violations of IHL will create an even bigger set of problems. Sjö (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. In fact I'm arguing that we don't need RS to explicitly qualify something as "war crime" (using these exact words) to include it in the article, but we do need them to qualify that something as at least a possible violation of IHL/Geneva Conventions/laws of war, and similar expressions. Once we know that something is an international wrongdoing, so to say, DUE WEIGHT applies and we include it only if it received widespread coverage in RS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option A: we should include both reports but also include sources that criticize these reports. Both Amnesty international and OHCHR are credible organizations who regularly provide reports relating to war crimes in a variety of contexts. The Amnesty report in particular was so widely discussed (both praised and criticised) that it would be a violation of NPOV to omit that POV from the article. Secondly, even if the reports themselves don't directly make the allegations of one side committing a war crime, they definitely provide additional context to the war crimes, in particular attacks on civilians. Placement of military objectives near civilians is clearly related. Such discussion is also something we have seen in the Israel-Hamas war.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"even if the reports themselves don't directly make the allegations of one side committing a war crime" - yes, they do not.

The Amnesty report in particular was so widely discussed (both praised and criticised). Criticised - yes. Praised - I did not see much. Why can't we just use the most recent reports by Amnesty which were not criticized, instead of this outdated and controversial report published 2 years ago?

"they definitely provide additional context to the war crimes, in particular attacks on civilians." - hence this belongs to the page Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please also avoid false equivalency when pointing out faults of a defending nation of unprovoked invasion and not pointing at a war-crime committing invader, diminishing it's offences whenever possible [[6]]. You do understand which country is an "evil axis" right? YBSOne (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The question of OR

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

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

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

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

The Amnesty International report has been updated: Amnesty commissioned an independent review into the report, that was leaked to The New York Times in mid-April 2023 and was published publicly by Amnesty in mid-May 2023. The review found that the "principal factual finding" of the report was "reasonably substantiated by the evidence presented," but that the report had a number of shortcomings, including overstating the legal interpretation that Ukrainian forces has violated humanitarian law, using "ambiguous, imprecise and in some respects legally questionable" language in the press release, and that there was a "failure to proactively seek Amnesty Ukraine’s viewpoint and contextual understanding.", therefore this source can no longer be used on it's own as flawed and outdated argument, especially trying to push it as a war crime, when it's not even an IHL violation. Newer sources will always take precedence. [7] [8]. Report itself is already present in two articles where it belongs: Attacks_on_civilians_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Placement_of_military_objectives_near_civilian_objects and Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Report_on_placement_of_Ukrainian_forces_in_civilian_areas. Forcing it here is OR and POV-pushing. YBSOne (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Attacks on nuclear plants

The sources cited in the "Nuclear power plants" section do not establish that the Russian attacks constitute a war crime. The basis for the war crime allegation is a tweet from the US embassy in Kyiv, widely reported by the press but subsequently disavowed by the US State Department. [9] Additionally, the Pentagon has declined to label the attack a war crime [10] and a legal expert from the Lieber Institute at West Point has questioned whether the attacks meet the legal definition of a war crime [11].

This is not OK - the article is about war crimes in Ukraine, not "allegations of war crimes", let alone allegations by a single, unsupported US embassy. Note that the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was attacked in April 2024, and while the Ukrainian side denies responsibility, the Russian allegations have been reported by many RSes [12][13][14][15] - so the choice is between removing the whole section or updating it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it was debated if these events represented a war crime, with more or less uncertain conclusion, i.e. if it was a violation of article 56, e.g. [16], and as such I think this deserves inclusion. That was not just US embassy. Note that other articles on such subject include a lot of sourced allegations, e.g. page Israeli war crimes, hence this should not be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not by US embassy, but by multiple secondary RS on the subject. "Secondary" is the key because different authors conduct their own analysis of the claims (like here [[17]), hence this is not just a claim by US embassy. Same applies to claims by Russian "authorities". If we have strong secondary RS discussing such claims as something serious, rather than outright lies/disinformation, they can be included, and such content is already included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Yes, they did conduct some warfare at the territory of the plant, and I think it is already included. Was it a war crime by Ukrainian forces? Do these secondary RS (rather than Russian MoD) claim that it was? Not to my knowledge. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No, secondary RSes do not claim that the (alleged) attacks by Ukrainian forces constitute war crimes. But secondary RSes do not even claim that the (undisputed) attacks by Russian forces constitute war crimes. So AFIK no RS claims that the attacks on the nuclear power plants constitute war crimes; on the contrary, they say that it's unlikely that Russian forces committed a war crime when they attacked the Zaporizhzhia power plant in February-March 2022. So, should we include the "nuclear power plants" section? Why should we? And if we include it, why shouldn't we mention that there were many other attacks from March 2022 to April 2024, when the nuclear power plant was controlled by the Russian forces? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Why does this warrant inclusion?
This is strange how you haven't asked this question yourself when you were argumenting for sources which do not talk about war crimes to be included into the article before. There should be a consistency in your arguments. No, these aren't "just standards you're creating in your mind", the editor above has described inclusion criteria correctly and consistently. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The standards I have for inclusion are coherent: a reliable third-party source describes a given incident as a plausible or likely violation of the laws of war. I apply this consistently to Ukrainian war crimes and Russian ones. JDiala (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

source describes a given incident as a plausible or likely violation of the laws of war
Such an approach will omit sources which describe the event as NOT a war crime and is against WP:NPOV as all the opinions should be included. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was attacked in April 2024, and while the Ukrainian side denies responsibility, the Russian allegations have been reported by many RSes [32][33][34][35] - so the choice is between removing the whole section or updating it
So, let's summarize. You are argumenting for the text with secondary sources which talk about war crimes to be removed from the article, and the sources which do not talk about war crimes to be added. This approach of yours should be changed. You should argument for the contrary, instead. For the sources which talk about war crimes to be used in the corresponding article, and the sources which are not on topic to not to be used. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

US is not a beligerent in this war, so their allegations are viable. (belligerent - engaged in a war or conflict, as recognized by international law) YBSOne (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's live in reality. They are aggressively arming the Ukrainian state. Putin would have been drinking in Kiev years ago if not for American weapons. JDiala (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Show a proof of "aggressively arming". This is not a forum. Ukraine is not Putin's for the taking it is a sovereign state. Thanks to NATO involvement Ukraine stands a chance to DEFEND it's borders and people from AGGRESSION. YBSOne (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Choice was made by Ukrainians if they want to live in authoritarian or neo-totalitarian regime, or if they want to be free and democratic. They are paying with blood for that choice and we, NATO, EU, US and others, will support them. YBSOne (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I obviously failed to explain myself clearly. Your summary of my OP misinterprets it. The gist of my OP is correctly summarised by Gödel2200 in their comment. I'd formulate it more precisely like this: the main point of concern is whether this article should only include things that RSes explicitly say are war crimes, or are likely to be war crimes, or whether it should also include things that the RSes explicitly say do not constitute war crimes, or are likely not to constitute war crimes, even though they were described as war crimes in a tweet from the US embassy in Kyiv immediately after the event. In the latter case, if inclusion is warranted, I suggest we update the "Nuclear power plants" section, as there have been new attacks since March 2022. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

To me it seems that the main point of concern is whether this article should only include things that RS's are explicitly saying are war crimes, or if it should also include things that RS's say could have constituted a war crime. The section in the article about Russia's attacks on the nuclear facilities does not say they definitively committed a war crime, in fact saying it was "less likely" they committed a war crime in this case. I would be in support of condensing the section into a brief paragraph in the Destruction of energy infrastructure section. All it needs to say is that Ukraine accused Russia of committing a war crime, but that RS's do not definitively say that. The information about Ukraine allegedly striking the plant should not be included, as it is only allegations, and none of the RS's presented say that Ukraine was responsible (whereas there is no question of Russia striking the plant). Gödel2200 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree this can be condensed, but it should be at least briefly noticed. Impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants is a hugely notable issue, and we have a number of sources discussing if it was a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone claiming it was a war crime, or are they just analyzing a random embassy tweet? JDiala (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

adding pejorative "random" before a statement does ot make it less official. YBSOne (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the discussion did not result in a consensus to remove the section, and editors feel that a section on nuclear power plant attacks is warranted in this article, I have just updated it with information and sources on the recent incidents. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The section is there because there are sources talking about war crimes. Are your new sources mention war crimes? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Once we've decided that we want to have a section on "Nuclear power plants" (because some sources have debated whether attacks on nuclear power plants qualify as war crimes), NPOV dictates that we include all attacks on nuclear power plants in Ukraine, whether carried out by Russia, Ukraine, or unknown entities. Analogously, once we've established that looting is a war crime (many RS say so), we include all episodes of looting in the dedicated section, even if the sources don't claim that each one of them qualifies as a war crime. The same applies to the "Destruction and theft of cultural heritage" section and to many other sections: if we require RSes to state "this is a war crime" for every single incident included in a section, then 3/4 of the article would be dropped. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not establishing anything. Please avoid using a strawman. If your new sources don't discuss war crimes, they have no place here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that this section should go. There was literally one tweet 2 years ago that was retracted by the State Department. If there are RS that describe this as a war crime we should add them. Alaexis_¿question? 19:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I second that. Primarily, all the available evidence points to the fact that the power plants were captured by the Russians, not "attacked". There were no attacks against nuclear power plants – only attempts to capture them with reasonable force and obvious care not to cause a nuclear incident. With no independent reporting available from the ground at the time, all we have is war propaganda on both sides and mutual accusations of IHL violations. However, this is an encyclopaedia, not a press clipping service. Contrary to MVBW's claims, not all that's found in the press belongs to Wikipedia. Since the mainstream view among IHL experts doesn't seem to uphold the US embassy tweet, I support not including these claims in Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nuclear power plants are important civilian facilities. Disabling them on purpose (that is what had happen) qualify as a probable war crime according to RS. There is no question that taking over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant by Russian army has created a significant risk of "the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population", as explained here fir example [18], even if there was not significant release of the radiation yet. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)