Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11

Migrants
I removed this. So, basically, the Ukrainian authorities were unable to protect people in their custody from attacks by Russian forces (just as they were not able to protect their own people). How that can be a war crime by Ukrainian authorities? My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * thank you for having opened the thread. We have some independent human rights organisations (HRW and Global Detention Project) arguing that the behaviour of Ukrainian authorities (not letting detained migrants flee) qualifies as a violation of Protocol 1, Article 58C, of the Geneva Convention: "The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible ... take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations". That view of theirs is notable enough, as it has been reported by several reliable sources: "The Guardian" and "Al Jazeera" (quoted) plus "Der Spiegel" (which I didn't quote because it's firewalled). So I believe it passes the thresholds both wof WP:N and WP:F. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You wrote, "This could be a human rights issue, but not an alleged war crime." Violations of human rights carried out by military forces during war are by definition war crimes. In any case, we let rs determine what are alleged war crimes rather than Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. And yes we let RS determine what are alleged war crimes. The point is that in this case none of the RS call this a war crime.  Volunteer Marek   08:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian forces should of released the migrants so they could escape. They did not so they breached Protocol 1, Article 58C, of the Geneva Convention, as stated by RS, so it could be found to be a war crime and we should include in this article Ilenart626 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which RS say that was a "war crime" by Ukrainian government? Perhaps I missed it after looking at sources? And if the source does not say it, then just arguing about international law (as above) qualify as WP:SYN. Do these sources even say that was an illegal detention by military forces? After quickly looking, I understand that was a lawful detention by civilian authorities, pretty much as it would be in the USA. Not a good practice and possibly a human right violation, but not a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the reason you gave for removing the text, either in your edit summary or when you set up this discussion thread. Did you just automatically delete text you didn't like without reading the sources and provided the first excuse you could think of? TFD (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the page not the editor.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think all these reasons are applicable here, or perhaps they are different ways to say the same: that content does not belongs to this page.My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, if you want a source to also explicitly state that it is a war crime to be included in this article, then we would need to delete a number of other sections. For example the "Intercepted conversation about killing of Ukrainian prisoners" would have to be deleted as it does not explicity state this is a war crime.  I also had a quick look at "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" and could not see any explicit claims that this were war crimes, by your logic this section would have to be deleted.  My very best wishes, do you also support deleting these sections and any other sections that fail to explicity state it is a war crime? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not talking in this thread about other sections. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not? Why shouldn't policy should be enforced the same whatever side we are discussing? TFD (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This thread as about 'Migrants'. If you want to discuss an another subject, please create your thread.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As the editor who's likely to know better the contents of this article, I can confirm that if we were to apply MVBW's criterion to the article, circa 1/3 of its contents would be removed. That criterion has never been used in the past: if RS don't use the words "war crime" but describe the wilful killing of civilians or cluster bombing in highly populated areas, we've always published so far. Besides, in this case the decision for inclusion is even easier because the RS themselves qualify what they describe as a violation of IHL, and they even provide us with a specific reference to a source of law (Protocol 1, Article 58C). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree some content in some other sections should be removed on the very same policy-based grounds, while most of the content on the page is fine, but this should be discussed on a case by case basis. My very best wishes (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, we need to be consistent accross the article, it is obvious you are pov pushing, have reverted your change Ilenart626 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And that is your argument. So far I saw ZERO RS in this thread above which would call it "war crimes". Hence this is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * MVBW's criterion, "do RS call it a war crime?", has never been used in this article. If adopted rigorously it would destroy almost half of the article, and if adopted selectively it would destroy only those parts that report allegations against the Ukrainian authorities. Note that if we were to apply MVBW's criterion rigorously we would lose (if I'm not wrong): "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", "Detention camps", various subsections of "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" (e.g.the bombing of Odessa). I'm afraid that even clear cases of war crimes (if verified) such as "Abduction and torture of civilians in Kherson" and "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children" wouldn't pass MVBW's criterion! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC) truth be told, MVBW's criterion has already been used once in this article: to prevent the publication of a section on torture and killing of marauders and Russian supporters by Ukrainian authorities... Q.E.D.
 * This is not my criterion, but a policy. If something was not directly defined in RS as a war crime (in this example), then this is not war crime and does not belong to this page. Same goes for any other pages. There is no any policy specifically for this page. All arguments above in this thread are as follows: I think this is war crime because... Well, that can work for something which is plainly obvious for everyone to be a war crime. But that one is not. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your arguement does not make any sense. You cannot selectively argue that a certain criteria can apply to one section that does not apply to the rest of the article.  Gitz has provided a detailed response, you need to address what he is saying and justify your position.  Ilenart626 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I said above that the same criteria should be applied to different pages and of course to different sections of the same page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pot calling the kettle black here - you and Gitz have repeatedly held different sections to different standards to give relatively excessive detail to incidents committed by Ukraine. Shadybabs (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is false equivocation. Nobody disagrees that bombing schools or raping civilians is a war crime. But there is a dispute as to whether the conditions of foreign nationals who end up being trapped in a territory that’s been invaded and who are held for one reason or another (in one case because they crossed into the country illegally and in another because it was unclear what their status was) is a “war crime”. That’s why you need to provide sources for the stuff that’s disputed.  Volunteer Marek  08:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And btw, this whole “well, this *might* be a violation of Geneva convention so it’s a war crime” is indeed pure original research as, putting aside the “might be” part, not all violations of Geneva convention are “war crimes” (“grave” breaches are). So yeah, find sources that actually support what you want to add or stop trying to cram this into the article.  Volunteer Marek  08:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * We cannot adopt ad hoc criteria for inclusion based on the party (Ukrainian or Russian) against which war crimes allegations were made; that would be a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Volunteer Marek filled this article with various contents where no RS claims a war crime has been committed. So I invite them to share their views on how to better define the subject of this article (war crimes "stricto sensu", according to legal scholarship and sources of law, or war crimes "lato sensu", according to common parlance, as serious breaches of IHL and HR violations connected to war) here above in the thread Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. I'm confident that once we've settled this fundamental issue co-operation among editors will be much easier. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously going to claim that shelling schools or raping civilians is not a war crime (and no, I didn't "fill this article" with that content)  Volunteer Marek   09:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it does not matter if something was Russian or Ukrainian. It only matters if we are including massive and well documented in RS war crimes as opposed as anecdotal and poorly documented cases, such as a single video of something which is opened to interpretations. The latter should be arguably removed from the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition we should not include pure propaganda to this page, it belongs to other pages. For example, putting : Putin appealed directly to Ukrainian troops and urged them not to allow "neo-Nazis and Banderites to use your children, your wives and the elderly as a human shield in section about the alleged Ukrainian war crimes is nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I beg to disagree. On the contrary it shows how war crimes discourse works "on the other side" of the conflict, which is indeed very interesting (that is, notable) and fully within the scope of this article. I very much doubt that anybody could fall prey of Russian propaganda by simply reading that according to Putin the whole Ukrainian population is used as human shield by their own government..., and if they do, well, there's nothing we can do about it, can we? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this info worth including, but not on this page. It belongs to Russian information war against Ukraine, public opinion in Russia, whatever. This page is already very large, and want to focus on real war crimes please. Actually, all this section should be removed. If the claim was baseless, as this section tells, then why include? My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks 1
Many contents in this section are not supported by RS qualifying the incidents they report as war crimes. To facilitate an orderly discussion, I'd start from the beginning and move on: "Donetsk Oblast. On 24 February, the Russian Armed Forces, working together with pro-Russian rebels, besieged the port city of Mariupol, leading to heavy casualties as supplies were cut from the locals". Source: Reuters. No mention of war crimes. Let's drop? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the "widespread destruction of people’s homes" [together with people] by the military forces, as had happen in Mariupol, qualify as a war crime (see citation above). My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you need to find a source that describes “ …besieged the port city of Mariupol, leading to heavy casualties as supplies were cut from the locals.” as a war crime. Otherwise the sentence should be deleted Ilenart626 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes you're wrong: "widespread destruction of people’s homes" [together with people] by the military forces" doesn't necessarily qualify as a war crime. It's a war crimes if that destruction isn't justified by sufficiently important military objectives. If there's a weighty military reason, then it isn't a war crime - so for instance it is still controversial whether the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and the bombing of Dresden during WW2 qualify as war crimes. It is not obvious and uncontroversial that the bombing of Mariupol belongs to this article based on the criterion you provided - which, let me say it again, is a bad criterion, which will have disruptive consequences not only for the incidents involving the pro-Russian supporters and the migrants, that you don't want in this article, but also for other contents that you (and I as well) would like to retain. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I am not wrong, simply because this is not my opinion. I plainly cited a source and it is directly on the subject. On the other hand, what you say above about Dresden is not on the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't beg the question. You need a source saying that the siege of Mariupol, "leading to heavy casualties as supplies were cut from the locals", was a war crime. A generic source saying that "widespread destruction of people’s homes" is a "possible war crime", without even mentioning Mariupol, is of no use, you need something specific on the use of siege warfare in the case of Mariupol (we already have the a section on "Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol). To put it more clearly: the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare is a war crime according to IHL; is that what happened in Mariupol? Has anyone ever argued that that war crime was committed by the Russians? I don't know. By the way, I've just noticed that the quoted source, Reuters, doesn't support the statement "leading to heavy casualties as supplies were cut from the locals", which therefore is entirely unverified. Therefore I'm now removing it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * id suggest removing stuff about the Sumykhimprom ammonia leak and the bombings of factories and armored plants in zhytomyr instead, due to these being Legitimate military targets. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is entirely correct, but as many contents in this section must be removed because they no longer qualify as "stricto sensu" war crimes, I suggested we proceed in order, starting from the beginning of the section. I personally don't subscribe to that very restrictive criterion for notability (war crimes as defined by sources of law) and for verifiability (they must be qualified as such by a reliable source) and I think it's going to have serious affects on the article. I'd suggest we create parallel articles on "Violations of international humanitarian law during the 2022 Russian invasions" (for violation of IHL that don't qualify as war crimes: targetting nuclear plants, maybe "disrupting humanitarian corridors" (?), maybe interviewing POWs and sharing their personal information, etc.) and "Human rights violations during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", as you yourself proposed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @IP. You are mistaken. Sumykhimprom is not a military target. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know on what basis you say that. Any reliable source at hand? I'm not a military person but I'm inclined to think that chemical factories (as well as airports, pipelines, steel factories, highways, etc.) qualify as military objects: they have military value, there can be good military reasons for wanting them destroyed. On the other hand, schools, hospitals, apartment blocks don't qualify as military objects unless they are used for military purposes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, civilian manufacturing facilities do not qualify as military by default. You need some RS saying that it was a military facility and what kind of military equipment it produced. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong: per WP:ONUS it's you the one who needs to achieve consensus for inclusion and, and based on WP:V and the criteria for inclusion we have agreed upon, you need to find a RS qualifying this as a war crime. By the way, we have a dedicated article on this, Sumykhimprom ammonia leak, which doesn't even mention war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. If a facility was described in RS as a civilian facility, then it is a civilian facility per WP policies. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Civilian facility" and "protected object" are two different concepts in IHL. I could point at a few scholarly references on this point which however is quite obvious: a bridge, a steel factory, a highway are all civilian facilities but they are not protected from attack: in a war there may be sound military reasons for destroying them. Anyway it's not up to me to prove the point. Based on YOUR criterion of inclusion (stricto sensu) you need to provide us with a source explicitly qualifying this as a war crime; anything less (e.g. speculations about what follows from certain targets being civilian facilities) is OR. There's no rush, but I'm now removing these contents until a source is found. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should be probably qualified as an environmental crime per sources like . Is it also a war crime? See here: Environmental destruction is a war crime, but it’s almost impossible to fall foul of the laws. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

add the Borodianka
in addition, add more about the massacre in bucha per the page, and put the war crimes in the city in order like it is on the page.

also, can someone also add more images to the page? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * can someone please add the content i mentioned to the page? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Bombings of Belgorod and Bryansk are war crimes? Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Because evidence of that no so much, like bombing of Borodyanka Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At first it seemed like, but after closer inspection, they dont really seem like a war crime, but more like normal collateral damage. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Naimark, Ukraine And The Cloud Of Genocide
https://www.hoover.org/research/ukraine-and-cloud-genocide Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have a page Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sure, that is a genocide, exactly as Putin elaborated himself in his speech (see your ref.). My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece by Norman Naimark, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. While you might find it persuasive, it only becomes fact when it gains consensus support among genocide experts. According to a U.S. intelligence official speaking to NBC News, "Genocide includes a goal of destroying an ethnic group or nation and, so far, that is not what we are seeing." Not all wars, whether just or unjust, are motivated by genocide. TFD (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But that MSNBC ref is dated April 15. Right now, after some investigations, this is different. And these crimes are indeed currently described as genocide in RS . According to a report by "leading experts" on genocide, the following qualify as genocide :


 * With regard to discussion above on this talk page, all these examples of the genocidal destruction/genocide during the war also qualify as war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Naimark is a genocide scholar, and others have been commenting and writing reports too, so why don’t you quote them, instead of an anonymous US intelligence official who gets the UN definition of genocide wrong? —Michael Z. 20:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You certainly can't blame me for not referring to a report that was published after I posted. I will see what reception it has had. And while Naimark is a genocide scholar, he was writing for the Hoover Institution, "a conservative American public policy institution and research institution that promotes personal and economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited government." Not exactly a mainstream, neutral source. TFD (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * New Lines Institute says it is "the first to address one of the more contentious and consequential questions of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: whether the war is genocidal in character." I assume that means that no report has called it genocide before. I cannot find much about their parent body, the Fairfax University of America. It has 65 students, has low entry standards and was almost closed down for its poor academic rigor. So we will have to wait to see if it gains any acceptance. TFD (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * it's a novel argument btw. Nazi Germany considered Austrians to be Germans, absorbed Austria into Germany and killed people who thought Austria should remain independent. But they were never accused of genocide for this. TFD (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is link to their report, see pages 41-47 with a long list of experts who contributed to the publication. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that Anschluss itself was similar to Russian annexation of Crimea (no one calls it genocide either). This war is very much different. Moreover, right after Anschluss, Nazi did commit actions that can be viewed and probably have been described in sources as a part of their genocide of Jews (although I did not check it now). My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have seen the report. The only recognizable expert is Naimark. It may be that the conclusion was predetermined. I realize at the time, people compared the annexation of Crimea with Anschluss. However, the the current invasion has much more in common. Putin claims that both Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. Hitler claimed that both Germans and Austrians were the same people. This is different from their position on the Jews. The Nazis did not claim Jews were German citizens, they claimed they were not. Similarly, in North American, aboriginals were not considered citizens. Putin's justification for invading Crimea was different in that he claimed its land had been part of the Russian republic inside the USSR, while Austria had never been part of Germany Empire.
 * Putin also claims that Belarus is part of Russia, but that has not attracted any genocide claims either.
 * My point is that situations similar to Ukraine have never been described as genocide in the past and we have to see what degree of acceptance they have in future. And before you claim that this is OR, we are able on talk pages to assess to what extent a novel claim should be treated as a REDFLAG.
 * TFD (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, authors are experts, see this thread . Yes, Putin said (incorrectly) that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. But he also said that Ukrainians have no right to exist. That's why sources above say about incitement of genocide. Furthermore, his military forces, paramilitaries and FSB has actually accomplished the genocide (as these and other sources say). My very best wishes (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not see how the discussion above can justify removal of the brief mentioning of genocide on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Is genocide a war crime?
Shortly put: no, it isn't. No point in looking for RS qualifying it as such because none can be found. So given the stricto sensu and strict verifiability approach we've decided to follow, the section needs to go. Not a big loss anyway because its contents are already covered in the dedicated article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The UN distinguishes between war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. TFD (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course not every genocide is also a war crime. No one said that it was. For example, Holodomor was a genocide (according to many), but not war crime. However, certain war crimes can be also a genocide, for example Srebrenica massacre. Same according to citation in the previous thread. The source lists specific war crimes during this war that may also qualify as genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the genocide hypothesis, Russians are committing horrible war crimes because they intend to wipe out the Ukrainian culture, language and people. War crimes would be the means and genocide the end. However none argues that genocide itself is a war crime because it isn't: that would be sloppy terminology. So since genocide is not a war crime I suggest we write about genocide in the dedicated article instead than here. Where is the RS qualifying this pavented genocide as a war crime? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * According to cited sources, the "well-documented massacres and summary executions in Bucha, Staryi Bykiv, and in Sumy and Chernihiv regions, Russia's deliberate attacks on shelters, evacuation routes and healthcare facilities, as well the indiscriminate targeting and bombardment of residential areas, rapes, sieges, grain thefts and forced deportations to Russia all amount to "genocidal pattern of destruction." Same things have been described as war crimes. Obviously, there is an overlap of these subjects, and it should be reflected on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * if the conclusion of the sentence you quote were "... all amount to an attempt to terrify the Ukrainian people and weaken their resistance", would you have created a section "Attempt to terrify and weaken"? I don't think so. Why? Because the subject of the article are war crimes and not their rationale and underlying purpose. I don't see the point of this as we already have a dedicated article on genocide - I'm not maintaining that we should suppress contents but jus organise them in a consistent way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course genocide can be a war crime! Wth? Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram here? Genocide can happen internally when a country is not at war. Then it's not a war crime. Genocide can happen while a country is being attacked, invaded, occupied by another country. Then it is a war crime. The argument appears to be that because there are cases of genocide out there which aren't a war crime then genocide can never be a war crime. Jesus. This isn't hard and removing this info looks insanely bad faithed.  Volunteer Marek  15:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Why do you talk of bad faith? Consistency is the best proof of good faith. I can provide dozens of sources that distinguish between genocide and war crimes, starting from the ICC Statute (article 6 is on genocide, article 8 is on war crimes) and from the Oxford Handbook of IHL (with a chapter on "The Criminalization of War Crimes versus the Criminalization of Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide"). So instead of ranting about my "insanely bad faith", you should try to find a reliable source on the point you're making, for the sake of consistency. Alternatively you should concede my point and admit that the "stricto sensu" approach to war crimes isn't viable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure, certain types of war crimes are also genocide (consider Srebrenica massacre as a famous example). This already quoted from scholarly and journalistic sources in section just above . Hence there is an overlap. This is something page must briefly mention, and it already does just that. If needed, such section could be clarified/expanded on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have an article on genocide allegations: it's called Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. As this article is about war crimes, and you yourself have on many occasions argued that its subject is war crimes, and war crimes only, there's no point - and it's openly inconsistent - that you insist on retaining a section on genocide allegations: genocide is not a war crime. Obviously "certain types of war crimes are also genocide", as well as certain types of war crimes are also military actions; we don't have a section on "military actions" and we shouldn't have a section on "genocide". Alternatively, let's change our approach to the article subject matter, let's say that any gross violation of human rights associated with the war pertains to its subject, and let's include genocide and other stuff. But we cannot have a case by case approach: sometimes war crimes stricto sensu, other times things that are not war crimes, but that are related to war crimes and that MVBW and Volunteer Marek want to have in the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is an overlap of two subjects. This is very common. In such cases we have separate pages, but each such page should briefly mention another page/subject and explain the overlap. That is exactly what this section does . My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

On the subject of this article, and ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals
@Alsee as promised, my arguments on the point you've raised. As the point is of general interest, I open a new thread. The subject of this article is "war crimes", including genocide and crimes against humanity. Do we mean "war crimes" according to the legal terminology and sources (crimes "stricto sensu") or do we mean "war crimes" according to common parlance (crimes "lato sensu")? The former are the ones defined by the Geneva Conventions, the ICC Statute and its Elements of Crime, and by customary international law. The latter are "crimes" (serious violations of human rights) committed during war and in strict connection to the war, plus any other violation of IHL, even if it doesn’t amount to a war crime "stricto sensu".
 * 1) If we adopt the notion of war crimes "stricto sensu", then ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of pro-Russian supporters fall within the scope of this article. It is true that article 4 Geneva Convention IV defines "protected persons" as those who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict "of which they are not nationals". But the Elements of Crime  state: "With respect to nationality, it is understood that the perpetrator needs only to know that the victim belonged to an adverse party to the conflict". Knut Dörmann, War Crimes Under the Rome Statute, explains that art. 4 Geneva Convention IV had already been interpreted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia as implying that "allegiance to a Party to the conflict", rather than nationality, may be regarded as a crucial test, and quotes the Tadic Judgment, IT-94-1-A para. 166. The same point is explained by Alexander Schwarz, "War Crimes", in Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law, 2014.
 * 2) The war in Ukraine is not only an international armed conflict but also an internal one . In a civil war both parties share the same nationality, yet war crimes can be committed, and this reflects both customary international law  and treaty law, in particular Common Article 3, which prohibits, among other things, "cruel treatment and torture" of persons not taking active part in the conflict. Based on this, ill-treatment, torture and wilful killing of marauders, bootleggers and curfew violators qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu"; the same applies a fortiori to pro-Russian supporters.
 * 3) Finally, let's get to war crimes "lato sensu". When in March I was arguing that we shouldn't cover every attack with civilian casualties but only "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate" ones, because only these qualify as war crimes under current IHL, some editor – I don’t remember who – told me: why should we stick to the law, if the law is bad and allows for the killing of civilians? I don't object to this, it's an interesting point, and anyway it justifies the editorial line which de facto prevailed, so that we are now covering many crimes that our RS don’t explicitly qualify as war crimes "stricto sensu": see sections "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", "Bombing of Kyiv", "Bombing of Borodianka", bombing of "Zhytomyr Oblast", "Bombing of Odessa", "Chemical weapons", " Kidnapping of Ukrainian children". Is this a problem? Maybe not. It seems to me that the rationale is that any violations of IHL as well as any violations of human rights which is closely related to the war fall within the scope of this article: crimes committed during the war and because of the war, strictly related to the war, but not necessarily prohibited by IHL as war crimes. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This is another example, the latest one, of what one could call human rights lato sensu: . Does this pertain to this article's subject? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * None replied to my comment here above, but the subject of this thread always re-emerges as a constant issue. What is the topic of this article? War crimes "stricto sensu" (serious violation of IHL giving rise to individual criminal responsibility - basically those defined by art. 8 ICC Statute) or war crimes "lato sensu" (any violations of IHL, plus any violations of human rights which is closely related to the war)? On this we need to make an editorial choice. One caveat: if we go for war crimes "stricto sensu", we are likely to loose "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", various subsections of "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" (e.g. "Bombing of Kyiv", "Bombing of Borodianka", bombing of "Zhytomyr Oblast", "Bombing of Odessa"), "Detention camps". Moreover, if we agree that the label "war crime" must be used by the RS we are quoting, or otherwise we would be engaging in WP:OR, as proposed by User:My very best wishes, we would also loose clear cases of war crimes "stricto sensu" (if verified) such as "Chemical weapons", "Abduction and torture of civilians in Kherson", "Kidnapping of Ukrainian children".
 * I ping the editors who have been most active on this article: @Boud, @Chesapeake77, @Volunteer Marek, @Ilenart626, IP 187.39.133.201 (on their talk page), plus I ping the editors who have recently discussed the issue, @My very best wishes, @The Four Deuces. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I already responded below: this should be decided on a case to case basis. In many cases, these are just typical war crimes (such as summary executions, abduction and torture of civilians, and especially children by military forces, use of chemical weapons against civilians); there is no any dispute that they qualify as at least potential war crimes. In other cases, this is not clear or there is a disagreement about it. Then, one must provide RS saying that a specific action X by military forces A in the war has been investigated as a potential war crime or qualify as a potential war crime (at least). For example, the subject of this thread, i.e. "ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals" (by whom?) belongs to the latter category, where one would need a direct confirmation in RS that a specific incident might qualify as a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * i really think we should follow stricto sensu on this page, although id support making a separate page documenting other human rights abuses during the war like the ill treatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters, detention camps (both Russian and Ukrainian ones (in the case of Ukraine that would be the use of detention camps for immigrants)), targeting of nuclear power plants and humanitarian corridors, as well as several bombings (kyiv, odessa, borodianka, zhytomyr, etc), the page could be called something like "Human rights violations during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something similar. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility but note that "Human rights violations during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" would run the risk of both being over-inclusive (most of the war crimes here reported consist of HR violations - should we duplicate the contents?) and under-inclusive ("targeting of nuclear power plants" is a violation of IHL that doesn't qualify as war crime but doesn't imply a violation of HR either). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will suggest another thing, we could turn parts like detention camps, mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters, etc into other pages, in that case, mistreatment of pro-Russian supporters could be called "Mistreatment of pro-Russian supporters during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and the detention camps of both Ukraine (in the case of immigrants being kept in camps) and Russia (filtration camp system in ukraine) could be merged into a single article, called "Detention camps during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and we could link these articles in the "see also" section of this page. as i think we should follow strictu sensu on this page, we could merge the content about targeting of nuclear power plants into the impact of nuclear plants article, and, as always, link this page in the "see also" section. now, about some of the indiscriminate attacks part, we should take a close look and see which do qualify as war crimes, and, the ones that do not should be instead moved to their respective articles, or removed if the content already exists in these articles, the same with alleged disrupting of humanitarian corridors, that content should, instead, be moved to Siege of Mariupol or other articles, although i still support keeping the sections about use of chemical weapons, kidnapping of ukrainian children, as well as abduction and torture of civilians in Kherson. now, about the intercepted calls about alleged killing of Ukrainian POWs, i think we should wait until something else happens to either prove ACTUAL murder of POWs, or for it turn out to be either propaganda or just a random Russian soldier talking about killing them, the same could go for the alleged "Overt command to kill civilians" section. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposition. I don't know how "Attacks on nuclear power plants during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine" coordinates with Battle of Enerhodar - @Ilenart626 knows better. Maybe we could just create a section there. I could start working on "Mistreatment of pro-Russian supporters during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". "Targetting humanitarian corridors" has been recently renamed "Denying free passage to civilians" by @My very best wishes, but that's frankly ridiculous: what war crime is that, MVBW? I've never heard it. "Denying free passage" is something you'd expect to read in Emer de Vattel, Le Droit des gens, not in an article on war crimes. So I'll try to see if that can moved to Siege of Mariupol. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * good, also, there is already a article on nuclear power plants during the invasion, i had forgotten that, so i proposed that we merge the contents here into that article, in addition, if you start making a draft or something for the articles that i mentioned, i could help on making it. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 there is a Redirect from Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant attack that goes to the “Battle of Enerhodar” page, I think that is the reason for the link on this page.  The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant also has a section on the attack.  When I last did a major edit on the “Targeting of nuclear power plants” section on this page I copied some of the info accross, however some of this info has been deleted.  I believe this page has the most detailed description. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just realised the “See also” is going to Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast page.  No idea why, see my comments below in the “Targeting of nuclear power plants” for an alternative  Ilenart626 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would generally support "stricto sensu" however the reality is that it will be months if not years before we know what is determined to be War Crimes by the international courts. Therefore I believe we need some general rules of what "stricto sensu " means and helps to determine what should be included / excluded from this article.  Some of my thoughts include:
 * There is a massive propaganda war going on at the moment with both sides accusing each other of war crimes. Therefore we have major WP:VER and WP:NPOV issues. Initially I believe we should be fairly open with including information, so long as they are supported by RS as per the WP:reliable sources list.  Some qualifiers to this:
 * any information based on Ukraine or Russian primary sources should be qualified ie "alleged" or similar wording;
 * the initial sources should be supported and / or replaced by Secondary sources detailed in point 2 below, say within a month or two. If these secondary souces do not include the allegations they should be removed. This complies with WP:SECONDARY and means questionable / unsupported allegations will be removed.
 * Also need to comply with points 3 and 4 below.
 * Where Secondary sources such as the UN Human Rights Commission, United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Committee of the Red Cross, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe or similar report serious violations of and / or grave breaches of International Humanitarian Law, then they should be included. They will also provide a cross check as detailed in 1.2 above.
 * Sometimes it is simple where a RS states that it is a War crime, and we include. However even in the above sources detailed in 2 above there are examples where a source does not explicity state that it is a War crime. We then need some criteria to assess and this United Nations page provides a list of war crimes. I would suggest this list could be used as rhe basis of deciding whether to include or exclude. Gitz, note that reference to this list would resolve some of the concerns you have raised with excluding "Disrupting humanitarian corridors", "Targeting of nuclear power plants", "Bombing of Kyiv", etc as a quick review appears to show most of these items are included in the list.
 * We also need to ensure that we are talking about a "crime" ie "..an illegal action or activity for which a person can be punished by law. We need to ensure we only include "actions or activities" which are potential war crimes. For example, to commit the crime of murder you need to physically kill someone, talking about murdering someone is not a crime of murder.


 * Overall consensus by Editors determines what should be included. However I believe having some rules will assist in shortening some of the ongong discussions, so we can all focus on improving this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gitz6666 @Gitz @Ilenart626, @187.39.133.201 @My very best wishes, @The Four Deuces @Mathglot @Boud @Staberinde @Shadybabs @187.39.133.201 @Symmachus Auxiliarus @BilledMammal @Alaexis @187.39.133.201 @Xx236 @Ixtal @Georgethedragonslayer @Xx236 @TFD @Q.E.D. @187.39.133.201


 * I think you use both "stricto sensu" (strict legal) and "lato sensu" (NOT-strict legal definitions from notable sources) of what a "war crime is" but take the time to explain what each "definition" is-- in the article.
 * FOR EXAMPLE: The Mariupol mass-shelling super-massacre will need time to develop "legally" but has already been called a "war crime" by many sources. Do we delete it all from the article because it hasn't developed legally to the level of "stricto sensu" yet?
 * I think not. But what you can do is appropriately state in the article the different meanings of "war crime" being used.
 * For example, When a President calls something a war crime, that is notable and should be included, when a human rights organization calls someting a war crime that is also notable, ditto for other notable sources. However each may have different definitions of "war crime".
 * Don't exclude any-- Instead provide the specific definition of war crime provided (or not provided) by each notable source.
 * We are not human rights lawyers. I suggest that we provide all of the information and let the reader decide. So long as accusing sources are notable (by Wikipedia standards).
 * The only standard should be that a "war crimes accusation" should come from a notable source. And the sources definition of a war crime should be included (or lack of definition should be noted in the article).
 * Rather than restricting information-- we should be providing more information-- (regarding various "War Crimes definitions" being used - or not used).
 * We shouldn't be evaluating cases here, we should be reporting things that happen combined with how notable sources define them.
 * (Boldface only used here to emphasize key points)
 * Respectfully,   Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  21:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * while i agree with some points, i have already proposed to move content from here to other articles and link these articles on this see also section, that way, we can keep this article clean while not removing important information. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like just to say with regard to Mariupol that indeed many RS qualify the siege of Mariupol as a war crime - especially the theatre airstrike (600 killed) but also the hospital airstrike and the shelling of residential areas. All these contents shall stay. We were just discussing about the section formerly (wrongly) called "targetting humanitarian corridors", then "disrupting humanitarian corridors", and now "denying free passage to civilians", ie. the failed evacuations of 5 and 7 March. We don't have a RS qualifying those episodes as "war crimes". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You said: "We don't have a RS qualifying those episodes [Russian blocking of humanitarian corridors] as "war crimes". There are many.
 * No "legal standard" is required because we are not lawyers.
 * The only requirement is that a notable source called it a war crime. It can also be noted what their definition is, if provided.
 * Readers, not us, can look at the "strictly legal" War Crimes accusations and the other War Crimes accusations and make their own decisions.
 *  Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  22:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From the Voice of America News: ***Ukrainian officials accused*** the Russians of purposefully shelling the civilians, saying Russian commanders knew they were non-combatants trying to use an escape route as Russian drones had been flying over the area just moments before the thump and crump of mortars turned a road leading from a buckled bridge into a killing zone. Here is the link-- https://www.voanews.com/a/kremlin-accused-of-using-ceasefires-humanitarian-corridors-as-war-tactic-/6473226.html
 * Respectfully,   Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  23:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Civilians began to evacuate from Mariupol along a humanitarian corridor to the city of Zaporizhzhia. As civilians entered the evacuation corridor, Russian forces continued shelling the city, forcing evacuees to turn back.
 * Here is the link-- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60629851
 *  Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  23:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Civilians had been unable to evacuate the city [Mariupol] due to repeated ceasefire violations, attacks on agreed-upon evacuation corridors, and direct attacks on civilians attempting to evacuate.
 * Here is the link-- https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/07/russia-ukraine-war-us-collecting-evidence-of-possible-war-crimes-nbc-reports.html
 * Respectfully,   Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with this article is that notability has not been established through reliable sources. I would expect to see an actual article about war crimes in this war, instead of numerous articles about individual cases. If we wanted to create an article about Nazi War crimes for example, we could use the book The Scourge of the Swastika: A History of Nazi War Crimes During World War II and similar sources to establish notability.
 * While I should not have to explain why notability is essential for good articles, the existence of sources helps to establish context and hence objectivity. The Scourge for example explains how Nazi war crimes were "on an unprecedented scale." It compares them with other war crimes and explains their connection with Nazi ideology. This article should explain the extent to which war crimes by both sides compare with war crimes committed by belligerents in other wars and how the ideologies of the respective states affect this. For example, were war crimes committed on a higher level than by U.S. troops in Iraq? What is the culpability of the Russian government? Instead, by presenting a rapsheet without context it implies that Russian war crimes were extraordinary and are a result of either Russian nature or the current government.
 * Are there any sources that establish notability? If not, the best course of action is deletion.
 * TFD (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say "the best course of action is deletion", are you referring to all contents that don't qualify as "stricto sensu war crimes" based on RS (hum. corridors in Mariupol, targeting of nuclear power plants, most of the contents in the indiscriminate attacks sections, etc.) or are you just replying to Chesapeake77 and referring to hum. corridors in Mariupol?
 * Anyway, I agree with the point you made in principle, but as this article deals with recent events, we don't have truly secondary sources, and we're basically summarising info reported my mass media. That's an inevitable constraint and there's not much we could do about it. Hopefully in the future someone will be able to add some perspective to all this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If we do not have truly secondary sources and are merely summarizing mass media, then we have not established notability, which is a requirement to create an article. The only policy based action is to delete the article.
 * At some point, I expect that there will be serious studies of war crimes in this conflict and we can write a neutral article. By neutrality I mean the Wikipedia policy, which means we use expert opinion to determine the scope of the article, what qualifies as a war crime and the extent of coverage we would give to various incidents. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will agree with the weight used in the article, just that it will reflect the weight used in reliable sources.
 * I recommend that editors read the beginning of The Scourge of the Swastika, which shows how articles of this nature should be written. If we had similar sources for this article, we would not have reams of discussion.
 * TFD (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed also that the original version of the article mentioned that the former Ukrainian prosecutor Gyunduz Mamedov was building a case for war crimes prosecutions. If there are adequate sources about this, there might be a reason for an article. TFD (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have already made a detailed comment above and I see a few other editors have also made detailed replies. Have also been reflecting on how this page has been working, particularly some of the recent discussions. There are a number of editors with strong views on this war, which means achieving consensus has been very difficult. Therefore I now believe we need to keep it as simple as possible and Glitz's suggestion of "stricto sensu" would be the best way of achieving consensus. Therefore I support a requirement that we need a reliable source to explicity state that the particular incident was a war crime. If it does not it should be removed from this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd rather have had a more inclusionist criteria (maybe because I'm lazy and don't want to throw away the good work done) but I see that there's an overwhelming consensus among editors on the "stricto sensu" approach. If that's the way we intend to go then we need to create new articles and/or split the contents of this article into other already existing articles. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Speaking on the original subject on the top, i.e. "ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals", that could be decided on a case by case basis, but something like this is totally unrelated to any war crimes whatsoever. People in Ukraine are punishing (in a very peculiar manner) their own people who were caught red-handed while looting. They are not pro-Russian supporters, and even if they are, that's irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm now creating an article on "Vigilante and summary justice during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine". HRMMU says that they are believed to be thieves, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters or curfew violators. I would particularly benefit from MVBW's help: "Caught red-handed", you say, how do you know that? How do you know that they are not pro-Russian supporters, and why would that be "irrelevant"? Clearly MVBW has lots of information on the topic which I lack. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Vigilante and summary justice...". OK. So it is indeed not on the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * actually, when the victims are punished because they are Russian supporters, it's definitely a war crime, but I don't have a source that says so explicitly. Given the criteria for inclusion we've agreed upon, I accept that it doesn't belong to this article until we'll have such a RS on the point. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the article could have another name, although i do think that the current name is good, because, "Vigilante and summary justice during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine" quite makes sense when the targets are both thieves, curfew violators, bootlegers AND pro-Russian supporters, im open to discussion about that though. about the detention camps thing, can someone start working on merging the contents of Filtration camp system in Ukraine with some content we had on this page about "Irregular migrants in detention centres" by ukraine, and possibly name it "Detention camps during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something similar? now, about the targeting of nuclear power plants, the attacks on humanitarian corridors and most of the stuff in indiscriminate attacks, as i said before, put this content in the respective articles (example: bombing of Kyiv to battle of Kyiv) and remove the content if it already exists in the article in question. in the topic of putting war crimes only if RS claims it is a war crime, while i do not think it would be the right choice, if we are in fact breaking a rule, then, it would be better to do that, although that would require too much analysis and judgement. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, coming back to this article a few days after my last response, and i see that most of the stuff i suggested still isn't implemented, so, im willing to revive this discussion here, do we do what i suggest (moving detention camps and illegal migrants to detention centers, as well as mistreatment of marauders, pro-Russian supporters and stuff into separate articles (Detention Camps during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Vigilante and summary justice during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine), move sections about denying free passage of civilians to siege of Mariupol, move stuff about attack on nuclear power plants to Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants, and move some of the indiscriminate attacks sections to their respective battle or bombing articles)? in addition, i still think we should move "bombing and capture of kremmina" to the killing of civilians section, as it doesnt talk about a shelling or bombing, but a tank or troops firing into civilians; i also think we should remove the section about the "overt command to kill civilians" as 1- its already covered in the intercepted calls section, and 2- inews.co.uk is owned by daily mail, a unreliable source; for the section about "intercepted calls about killing of Ukrainian prisioners", we could move it into the section above and rename it "Killing (or murder) of Ukrainian POWs", maybe also move the content about mistreatment of ukrainian POWs to a section of their own below the "Killing (or murder) of Ukrainian POWs) section. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Re Detention camps, I'm afraid the two things (Ukr detention camps for irregular migrants and Russian detention camps for Ukrainians who are either fleeing from the war or being forcefully deported) are too much different one from the other for being the subjects of the same article. Maybe I'm wrong but the risk of WP:SYNTH is high. 2) I've started to gather sources and materials on "Vigilante and summary justice" here. I'm not sure there's enough for a self-standing article. If you want to improve/complete, be my guest: I'm now abroad and I will not work on this in the next few days. 3) Re Mariupol, I agree. There's been a discussion with no apparent consensus. I moved the subsection to "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks". I still think it needs to be dropped as no war crime is alleged. 4) Re nuclear plants, I agree entirely. There's a discussion on this talk, "Targeting of nuclear power plants". 5) Re Kremmina, when I looked into this I had the impression that there were allegations of indiscriminate attack (indiscriminate attack can also be a tank firing too hastily on an object they don't know if it's military or civilian). Maybe I'm wrong, I'll check again later. 6) Re overt command to kill civilians, RS are CNN and the Guardian and the topic is not covered in the intercepted calls section, which deals with POWs. Here the intercepted officer said something like "it doesn't matter if they're civilian, fire", and so it belongs to wilful killing of civilians rather then torture of POWs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * well, makes sense, although this content (irregular migrants in detention centers) needs to go somewhere, maybe make a separate page about it or something, about the mistreatment of pro-Russian supporters, new stuff was added, so i will move it to this article you are talking about, and, sorry, i misread the section about the overt command to kill civilians thing. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should follow your original proposal, "Human Rights in Ukraine during the 2022 invasion", and place there both migrants + marauders and Russian supporters. Apart from migrants, also cases of discrimination against people fleeing from Ukraine were reported which could be stuffed there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * true, although it could maybe be named "Human Rights Abuses in Ukraine during the 2022 invasion" or something similar like you proposed, and, ive added more content to your sandbox, although i removed a part that seemed a bitch sketchy, as 1 of the sources itself claimed that the accusations were false, if you want to, i can begin moving the content i mentioned about the migrants to your sandbox page. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * what about the sections about humiliation of POWs? if its not going to be restored, it surely should have its own page or something and be linked here, as, even though according to you guys its not a war crime, its still a violation of the geneva conventions, maybe the page could be called "Treatment of POWs during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something like that, the genocide part though, its already talked about in a separate article, so, if there's no new information that can be added, it could be removed, because, isn't genocide a separate crime? (not a war crime but a separate thing like certain violations like the crime of aggression)? same should go for the nuclear power plants and the "denying free passage to civilians" part, they should instead be merged with their respective articles, although we could link them here in the see also section so, incase anyone wants to check in on that, they could go to that page and read about it. 177.181.244.248 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)