Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 15

Denisova's dismissal
On 16 June I made an edit (diff. not available) adding the following text: On 31 May, the Ukrainian Parliament removed Denisova from office after a vote of no-confidence accusing her, among other things, of making insensitive and unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes, particularly those involving children and minors (Wall Street Journal and Deutsche Welle). Today @My very best wishes removed it explaining this page is about war crimes, not about dismission of officials. I agree with MVBW that this article is about war crimes, obviously, but it's not only about "deeds", it's also about "Legal proceeding" and "International reactions" (we have two dedicated sections on this) and it's about political reactions as well - we report what Boris Johnson, Joe Biden and other political leaders said about war crimes. Therefore I believe that Denisova's removal belongs to this article as an important event in the political discourse on war crimes in Ukraine. Moreover, the way Denisova reported on war crimes was mentioned among the reasons for her dismissal. Her allegations have been a major source of information for us: we quote Denisova by name at least 5 times in the article, and we quote her by office ("ombuds-") at least 5 more times. So her dismissal is obviously relevant here. If for some reason my fellow editors don't want to maintain my edit on Denisova, I feel that we should remove the text the precedes that edit: In April 2022, Ukrainian ombudswoman Lyudmyla Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant. On 19 May, after Russian forces were pushed out of north of Kharkiv, she reported multiple rapes of children, some very young. The existence of credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops was also reported by the British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward on 13 May. Given that Denisova was removed from office because the information on sexual crimes she provided were deemed not verifiable enough, it's quite likely that these information are pieces of (bad) war propaganda we'd better get rid of. AFIK they haven't been verified or documented by reliable sources, which always say "Denisova declared". But she cannot be taken as a reliable source anymore (if she ever could). Also reference to undisclosed evidence by a British ambassador is not verifiable enough and should be removed. Finally, a slightly off topic comment: her dismissal shows that it is not at all clear that overemphasising war crimes committed against the Ukrainian people is always in the best interest of Ukraine and her military effort - think about this; accuracy is much more important. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is very simple: we follow WP:RS. Consider Veracity of statements by Donald Trump as an example. If any specific claim or a number by Denisova was described in RS as incorrect, we must reflect this on the page, either by labeling the specific claim by Denisova as disputed, or by replacing it with new data. But I do not see anything specific of this nature. For example, she said there were at least 25 victims of rapes in Bucha. Did any RS disputed this number? If not (and other sources say the same in this case), we should keep it. What exactly was "not verifiable enough"? We do not know. And again, it is common that the information has not been independently verified, for example by journalists. But we can use it if it was reliably published. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When Denisova got the sack, Ukrainian politicians explicitly mentioned the fact that she had released unverified claims about infants being subjected to rape. So if they think that this is unverified, it's quite likely that the info doesn't pass our WP:V threshold. If we want to do reliable editorial work here we should simply drop any claim about infants being raped by Russian troops, unless a reliable source publishes an article on this. We can avoid publishing contents about Denisova dismissal, but then I suggest we immediately drop On 19 May, after Russian forces were pushed out of north of Kharkiv, she reported multiple rapes of children, some very young. Moreover, I think we should also drop In April 2022, Ukrainian ombudswoman Lyudmyla Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant because no other source, apart from Denisova, made that allegation, as far as I know, and I don't think Denisova is reliable enough. Finally, I think we should drop The existence of credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops was also reported by the British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward on 13 May. The British ambassador is not a reliable source, and evidence of sexual violence on children has not yet been released. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, some sources say "unverified claims". Meaning claims that have not been independently verified by journalists, members of Rada (who say it), etc. I assume they indeed can not be independently verified because these cases are under investigation and because there is an existential war in the country. There are also privacy concerns, especially with regard to such crimes. But it does not mean that the claims were false or even unreliable. Every claim of such nature just needs an explicit attribution to the source. Yes, some of these claims are not covered in other sources. That is because she had a unique position in the government and had a unique information. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you are using the word "assumption" ("I assume they indeed can not be independently verified because these cases are under investigation") in the sense of "a thing that is accepted as true or certain without proof". What you're basically saying is "I trust Denisova". While I don't have a personal opinion on that, I also think it's irrelevant. We don't publish what we believe it's true without proof and investigation. We have a policy: WP:V. Are you suggesting we should set it aside and, if so, could you explain why? I think we shouldn't publish unverified claims even if investigations were under way. But if and when the outcomes of the investigation will be released, I think we will publish them. Would you and our fellow editors agree on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I do not trust Denisova. I do not trust anyone, myself including. I simply refer to our policy like WP:NPOV, according to which a reliably published official statements/info by a Ukrainian Ombundsman must be included to relevant pages, with appropriate attribution. It does not matter if she/he is currently in charge if her previous statements were made in her official capacity. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What you mean is "made when she was in office": those statement were not made "in her official capacity", they were interviews and posts on Facebook and Telegram. But even if they were made "in her official capacity", as you say, they still wouldn't belong to this article. The subject of this article is not Denisova, it is "war crimes"; which means that information about war crimes needs to come from a reliable source. And Denisova is not a reliable source. Analogously, we have dozen of statements about war crimes made by the Russian political and military authorities "in their official capacity", duly reported by TASS, which we don't publish because they don't qualify as reliable source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no, these interviews and posts are her official statements as a state government official. The only problem they are WP:PRIMARY. However, when discussed by independent secondary RS, they deserve inclusion with a reference to the secondary RS. Speaking about statements by Russian military and politicians, we do provide them on many pages, with attribution! As about TASS, this is a different matter, see Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. My very best wishes (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I wouldn't call them "official statements" but rather "statements by an official" - an official who was dismissed for having made unverified statements. They were not reports published by a government agency AFIK but interviews and posts on Facebook and Telegram. Secondly, they were not "discussed by RS" but simply reported by them: "according to Denisova, A B C happened". Thirdly, Denisova is not a reliable source  . So we need to get rid of that stuff. Honestly I don't understand why you are resisting to this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the secondary RS did not just "report" her claims. They provided some degree of verification. For example an article in Politico :
 * . My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't remove that source, there's nothing wrong with that, and I also would leave Denisova's allegations about 402,000 Ukrainians forcefully taken to Russia. "Cases of Russian soldiers using Ukrainian children as human shields" can also stay, I believe, as an unverified allegation, because it comes also from witnesses and from the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine's Ministry of Defense. But we should drop the contents I highlighted above, all about rape against young women and children. Also the undisclosed evidence by a British Ambassador is not worth mentioning because of WP:V concerns. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just commenting on 3 sources you gave above. First one is a letter in Ukrainian, and it does not say she lied. Second source is an incorrect and grossly incomplete translation of 3rd source from Ukrainian. Third source is an article by Sonya Lukashova (no one knows about) posted in Ukrainian Pravda. I am not sure how reliable it might be and would prefer better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you are very picky with sources MVBW! good, it's good to be picky, otherwise one could get lots of filth in our articles. But note the following: the first source is an appeal signed by over one hundred journalists and human rights activists asking her to "disclose only information for which there is sufficient evidence; check the facts before publication". So I guess she doesn't pass the threshold of verifiability. Do you really want to go to RSN and argue in front of everybody that she is a reliable source? Couldn't we just end it here and get rid of all her statements concerning sex crimes involving minors? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And the request to publicly disclose information about rape victims in cases under investigation is plainly ridiculous. Further, after reading these sources, I have an impression that no any criminal cases were even open for many victims. This could be private information received by Denisova through her "hot line" and during on-site visits (a common situation for rape cases). I also think you misunderstand the policy, namely what is the source. The source is an article in Politico, for example, (i.e. place of publication (Politico), the author and the article itself in Politico. And we simply summarize what this source say about Denisova and everything else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't simply summarize what the source says because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE: if we report what the source says Denisova said, it's because we believe that what Denisova said has some bearing on the subject of this article, which is war crimes, and not Denisova herself. So you can put it in terms of WP:V - what Denisova says about sexual crimes involving minors in not verifiable, she is not a reliable source on that - or you can put it in terms of WP:E and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - what Denisova says about sexual crimes involving minors in not worthy of notice. The result is the same: we are an encyclopedia and we need to inform, not disinform, the public about verifiable and notable contents. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "not verifiable"? Please check WP:Verifiability: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Such as Politico, BBC, NYT, and so on. That is what we do here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for other editors to comment on whether to include this fully verifiable and highly notable contents. Unless there's a clear consensus for inclusion, as per WP:ONUS I'll remove all the info I've mentioned, which honestly I think are just garbage. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This information was already in the page for months. You need WP:CONSENSUS to exclude. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I notified this discussion at RS/N: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 raped in Bucha, held captive in a basement, nine became pregnant
We're now reporting this info twice: Lyudmyla Denisova, outlined the case of a group of women and girls who were locked in a basement for almost a month, and reported that nine of them had become pregnant (source NYT) and Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant (source BBC). Digging a bit deeper one also finds that Denisova said that "a telephone helpline offering support had received at least 25 reports of rape of women and girls" (BBC). AFIK the info has not been independently verified so far, and Denisova was recently dismissed because, among other things, she was criticised for have made unverified claims about sexual violence against minors. So I think that these contents do not pass the threshold of WP:V and I suggest we remove them entirely until an independent reliable source verifies them. Reporting unverified and possibly false claims might risk to undermine the credibility of well-documented and highly notable information, and possibly that's the reason why some Ukrainian politicians thought that Denisova's communication approach was a liability to their cause. Anyway we shouldn't publish unverified claims. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That was discussed already (see above ). What you refer to (i.e. woment in the basement and 25 reports) are different things/claims that both should be included to the page. NYT and BBC are excellent RS, and of course we can used them, with an attribution to the source. A lot of statements by public officials were not independently verified by journalists or others. That does not mean much. Of course if a specific claim (e.g. the incident with a group of women being raped during many days in the basement) was explicitly disproved in some RS (saying there was no in fact such incident), that would be a different matter.My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ukrainska Pravda published major new details-
 * in russian;
 * https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/articles/2022/06/27/7354838/
 * meduza's english lang summary-
 * https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/06/28/we-work-on-the-information-front
 * i would be skeptical of anything she said in april, i think Cononsense (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw this article but have concerns. First, the translation to English is grossly incorrect even for the title. Speaking about the Ukrainian language source, who is the author? I did not find anything about her. However, if it qualifies as RS, it does cast doubt on certain claims, especially about the infant rapes (it does not specifically mention the case in the title of this thread). But it is just that: casting a serious doubt, without providing a single example of any statement that was proven to be wrong. Things like that are typical for "yellow journalism". I wound not use this source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah, Ukrayinska Pravda ended up changing the title and adding other text after a media firestorm
 * some criticisms here:
 * https://detector.media/community/article/200585/2022-06-30-ukrainska-pravda-vs-lyudmyla-denisova-shcho-krashche-rozyatryty-ranu-chy-zamesty-smittya-pid-kylymok/
 * i think the prosecutor general's office is likely to comment, so I would wait for that Cononsense (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Apparently, some claims came from the anonymous calling hotline established by Denisova; no criminal cases was opened. If so, then even the prosecutor general's office can verify little. But the claims were so widely published in many highest quality RS, so in my view, they should be included unless explicitly disproved or retracted (this is not the case). Looking at other most reliable and more recent sources about rapes, they say "The Ukrainian prosecutor’s office has not released its own case counts. Officials say they have only a partial picture of sexual assault in the conflict and don’t want to underplay the issue... The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has been working to corroborate accounts. Of the 124 allegations of conflict-related sexual violence it has received, it was able to confirm 24 — 12 involving Russian armed forces or affiliated groups, five involving Ukrainian armed forces and seven involving unidentified individuals in territory controlled by Ukraine. The United Nations determined that another 44 were impossible to verify and that eight were false or highly unlikely. It continues to investigate another 48 allegations. Pramila Patten, the U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, called that only the “tip of the iceberg” of “the most constantly and massively underreported allegation.”. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But these numbers are misleading. Basically, there are no meaningful statistical data. The best one can say is like Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said: “There have been multiple reports from survivors of Russia’s soldiers breaking down doors to basements where women were sheltering and raping them … done in front of their children” and “filmed by Russian soldiers,” (from article above). My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also this source can be used for updating the section on sexual violence. . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * in March and April quality press outlets were relying extensively on her statements and often reported them (usually with attribution to the source) without verifying them. Denisova should not be taken as reliable source; what she says doesn't pass the threshold of WP:V unless it has been independently verified. We should identify contents exclusively supported by Denisova's statements and remove them from this article and elsewhere. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * With regard to this revert @My very best wishes I don't know if you can claim consensus. All the editors who took part to the discussions on this have expressed the view that Denisova cannot be considered as a reliable source on sexual crimes in Ukraine during the invasion. Although in April her statements were still reported by reliable sources, it then emerged that they were not verified enough: it's quite likely that she was just repeating what had been said to a telephone helpline without applying any check whatsoever. There's no reason why we should retain in this article this kind of allegations as we are committed to "strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources" WP:5P2. Are you sure you want to go down this road? No other editor (as far as I know) agrees with your assessment on the reliability of this kind of statements by Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No one disputed that BBC and NYT are reliable sources, and we simply include what these sources say. The specific claims reported in these and other RS (as appears on the page) were not retracted or disproved in other RS. Hence they should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Publishing a statement without verifying its accuracy is just like publishing an interview, and interviews are a secondary source on the facts that are stated in the interview (and a primary source on those facts related to the views, feelings and experiences the interviewee). As any secondary source they need to be reliable to be published here. If NYT were to publish a declaration by Trump about the Confederacy having won the American civil war, that information would be verifiable enough for the article on Trump, but not verifiable enough for the article on the American civil war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes, I notified this discussion at RS/N: . I ping also @Volunteer Marek, who recently reverted my last attempt to remove this (mis)information: . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we use reportedly?
We shouldn't site news agencies as sources. If we want to stay neutral, we must use "reportedly" before any claim. Nothing is confirmed until the fog of war clears up. Can we practice neutrality like the Good old days? 103.58.74.214 (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It means that the invider commits crimes reportedly. Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reportedly" is weaselly. It gives no useful falsifiable information. Better attribute and NPOV and the reader will judge based on the various attributed claims. Boud (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

OHCHR situation of human rights in Ukraine, 24 February to 15 May 2022
A summary is Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this attack on a university in Kharkiv constitute a war crime?
I searched and could not find any reference to this particular incident, which took place just this month. Are intentionally directed attacks upon schools, colleges and universities considered war crimes? Source: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/07/06/ukraine-Ukraine-Volodymyr-Zelensky-Kharkiv-university-artillery/4981657148721/ 2601:644:301:D0B0:61B8:28AB:DE43:F463 (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * there's very little media coverage (also  ) but personally I wouldn't doubt that this qualifies as a war crime (unless the University was being used for military purposes, in which case it would qualify as a legitimate military objective). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only victim of the attack is the concierge/security of the university, so I doubt it. --Cannibal Rat (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems likely that it is a war crime, yes. But in light of the relatively narrow coverage, this would likely be WP:UNDUE for the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the coverage was quite wide in the Ukrainian sources. However, there is a tendency that artillery and missile attacks on the regions that are close to the frontline (Kharkiv region, Donetsk region, Mykolaiv region) do not make it to the international news, because they are too regular. E.g. Kharkiv was shelled literally every day except for two since the beginning of the war. I am not sure how to define the weight of an event such this case. --Cannibal Rat (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian sources can and should be used also for establishing the notability of an event. In this case, as there was only one victim and coverage seems scarce, I suggest to add one or two lines at the end of Bombing of Kharkiv, so as not to disrupt the chronological ordering of the section. Having a self-standing subsection on this incident would not be justified, but IMHO a couple of lines are appropriate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this definitely seems like WP:UNDUE if only one person died (remember, we're talking about Europe's biggest country here! Let's not get bogged down in small details), unless there are other major factors which makes this specific case worth highlighting. Mathmo Talk 02:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See Synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Whether or not something is a war crime is a matter to be determined by experts reported in reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Legal proceedings reorganised
I took the liberty of reorganising the 'legal proceedings' section, especially as I'm the person mainly responsible for having created a lot of the content there. It could probably still be improved further. The main thing I see in organising the material is that Maybe someone has a better idea than. A meaningful structure is better than a long list. Boud (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * there are three components to actual war crimes investigations+trials:
 * ICC
 * Ukraine + supporting international teams (including US lawyers even though the US has not ratified the Rome Statute - the US reserves its citizens' "right" to carry out war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide)
 * universal jurisdiction;
 * then there is the ICJ whose authority is often more moral than practical (the US refused to cooperate with the ICJ in the 1980s);
 * there could hypothetically be created a court for the crime of aggression for cases excluded from the ICC, or even for the Russian invasion alone, but then that would like highly un-neutral (why exclude US crimes of aggression during the XXIst century?)
 * investigations/enquiries by well-respected bodies that cannot conduct prosecutions
 * UNHRC International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine
 * HRMMU
 * OSCE ODIHR report
 * I think that the current structure makes sense. In abstract terms (but I don't know if it would be an improvement) one could re-arrange the existing sections in the following way:
 * 1. National proceedings
 * 1.1. Ukraine + subsections on international support
 * 1.2. Russia (so far we have no contents)
 * 1.3. Other countries (universal jurisdiction)
 * 2. International proceedings
 * 2.1. Judicial bodies.
 * 2.1.1. ICC
 * 2.1.2. ICJ
 * 2.2. Monitoring bodies
 * 2.2.1 OHCHR
 * 2.2.2 Int. com. of enquiry
 * 2.2.3. OCSE
 * 3. Political reactions (to be updated: see e.g. the Joint statement at the G7) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable to me and better than what I put, with the understanding that 2.1 and 2.2 would start with a brief sentence such as Judicial bodies that have started investigations include ..., i.e. "Judicial bodies" means "(investigations/prosections by) judicial bodies". Boud (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but we cannot say that the ICJ started an "investigation" because the Court has no investigative power, no prosecutor's office, and adjudicates on disputes submitted to it by states, and yet it's a judicial body because it is an independent court that settles disputes by applying legal standards. So maybe something like "International courts that have jurisdiction on cases originating from the Russian invasion of Ukraine include the ICC and the ICJ" would be more accurate - avoiding any reference to investigations and prosecutions that don't apply to the ICJ.
 * By the way, it would be very interesting to have some contents on the legal proceedings in Russia and more generally on the war crimes discourse going on there, "the other side". One could easily dismiss it as "propaganda" but even if it were propaganda and nothing but propaganda, still it would be interesting to know what people there are told about war crimes in Ukraine. I think it would fit the scope of this article, and maybe it would also be one of those cases in which the use of deprecated sources is acceptable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Which 'war', you would be imprisoned. This is a special operation. Russian army liberates Russian people terrorized by Ukrainian Nazis. Russia constructs houses for local people. Which 'crimes', another reason to be imprisoned.
 * If you do not read Russian Julia Davis summarizes Russian tv poison in English.Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * we cannot say that the ICJ started an "investigation" because the Court has no investigative power - true. "International courts that have jurisdiction on cases originating from the Russian invasion of Ukraine include the ICC and the ICJ" - yes, that's more carefully worded.Legal proceedings in Russia and Russian-occupied territories - I partially agree: Russia is not Eritrea or North Korea. If cases claiming charges of war crimes are carried out, there'll quite likely be some reports in The Moscow Times or Meduza, and maybe in Kyiv Independent or western mainstream media, or analyses by legal experts. Someone would have to start an overview article on such trials (or article on individual trials) if they took place. However, I would see war crimes propaganda as a side topic to this article and best kept separate. Russia objectively still has a legal system, so trials for war crimes within that system, documented by WP:RS, could quite likely be on-topic here. Boud (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Highlighting some bombardments with separate articles makes an incorrect impression
Currently, section on Kharkiv oblast only describes some episodes of shelling of the city in March-April and general summaries from various human rights organisations. Also, for some reason three episodes of bombardments have their own pages: February 2022 Kharkiv cluster bombing, March 2022 Kharkiv cluster bombing, April 2022 Kharkiv cluster bombing. It makes an incorrect impression that there were no or not a lot of bombardments in the further periods, while in reality Kharkiv has been bombed almost every day since the beginning of March (it is reflected by an almost complete list of missile strikes on Kharkiv in the Ukrainian wikipedia, though even this list is not comprehensive). I would like to volunteer to add this information to the English version of the article, but I am not sure about the proper way to do it. The list is too long to keep it here, so I suggest to move it to a separate section in the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) page and reference it here. Cannibal Rat (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems a good idea, but if you want to discuss it the right place is the talk page of Battle of Kharkiv (2022). Another possibility is to create May 2022 Kharkiv cluster bombing (obviously only for cluster bombing). The two options are not alternative to each other. With regard to this article, the last update we made was about the 13 June Amnesty International report, which mentions the relentless campaign of indiscriminate bombardments against Kharkiv. However, if there are reliable sources on attacks against civilians objects, indiscriminate attacks or other war crimes in Kharkiv, they should be publish also here. For publishing them here usually it is necessary that a reliable sources states that the attack was a war crime, or might have been a war crime according to someone (e.g. Ukrainian officials), or describes the attack in a way that doesn't leave any doubt about it being a war crime (to that end, evidence of civilian casualties is not enough). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have two questions regarding the topic. Firstly, if some event is both a bombardment in the scope of a battle of Kharkiv and a war crime, should it be duplicated in both articles? Secondly, is the fact of indiscriminate shelling of a residential area enough to add it to this page or should it be directly and literally called a "war crime" by a reliable source? Because the problem is that missile strikes on Kharkiv are so regular now, that sometimes only local media actually write about them in detail. P.S. Regarding your proposition about a separate article on May cluster bombings: recently most of the strikes were done using HE warheads or undisclosed types of warheads, so I don't think that it would be appropriate. --Cannibal Rat (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First question: if some event is both a bombardment in the scope of a battle of Kharkiv and a war crime, then it should be duplicated in both articles, yes, but the description in this article should perhaps be briefer - we would anyway have hatnotes and wikilinks pointing to the article where the event is described in greater detail. To the second question there's not a right or wrong answer, but I think that if you don't have a source stating that the event is a war crime, then any editor could question the opportunity of including information about it. My personal view is that it would be entirely within the scope of the article if one were to expand the paragraph on Amnesty international June report by adding information on at least the main "28 indiscriminate strikes in populated areas" documented by Amnesty. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * local news sources are fine if they have a reputation as reliable. If you are unsure whether this is the case, a lot of them have been discussed at WP:RSN. Each individual source does not have to individually call each bombing a war crime — indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is a war crime and anybody paying attention at all should know this — but in the name of caution, if there are multiple sources, you should prioritize those that do or specify that there were no military targets in the area. The most important. Is to use reliable sources however Elinruby (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * PS -Gitz is correct. Detail in the bombing article, summary in war crimes article, since there are so many Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Request at AE
Editors working on this article may be interested in, and should be aware of, this request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gitz6666. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

All sources here need to be cross-checked for facts
News reporters are not always experts in international law. Very often they have grave misconceptions. I just did what I often do when I browse WP: I went to a random place in an article and clicked on a random source to check if it was used correctly. It actually was for the most part (which is unfortunately not that common), but it was citing an unattributed assertion by the journalist, which took me all of two seconds to prove wrong. Citation 147 in the article: Which cites The Guardian, where the supporting quote for "may qualify as the war crime" is This was attributed to no expert, no-one, and the first search result on the topic is the Red Cross in 2022: (The Guardian's fact checkers are typically pretty good btw, so this should not have been missed, and while you can weasel a justification for the wording, that's not how fact-checking in a newspaper works.) This WP article is full of what are seem like guesses at what international and domestic law seems like it could/might/ought to be. Journalists are not RS on subjects for which they have no expertise: if it is not readily apparent from the article that they had someone who knows international law as a source, or perhaps if they are experienced in covering war on both a policy and ground level, then they cannot be an RS for what can be judged to be "potential war crimes". Now obviously nobody will ever go before the ICC for any of this, but I'm saying even to talk about crimes in theory you need someone who knows something about the laws. Again, there are a lot of misconceptions. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. "... their use in residential areas may qualify as the war crime of indiscriminate attack" seems fully supported by the very sources you're quoting. The "violation of humanitarian law" the Guardian is referring to is clearly the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks, which may be committed by using weapons and tactics that are inherently indiscriminate, such as landmines and cluster munitions. Using these weapons is not in itself prohibited but the attacker needs to take special care so as to avoid excessive civilian casualties, which maybe in Bucha didn't happened. If you're looking for not sufficiently verifiable contents in the article I suggest you carefully read the section on sexual violence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a subtler reading than my frustration may warrant perhaps, but subtlety is often what's important in controversial and technical matters. The WP article's wording is not as bad as The Guardian's. Look at the first sentence of ICRC, who generally have a pretty good understanding of international law in their reports, and compare to The Guardian's wording in their second sentence. They would have been on steadier ground with a simple transposition: "The imprecise use of lethal weapons in densely populated civilian areas ...". As far as the WP article, it's better in being a conditional and classifying as a crime of indiscriminate attack, but the clear implication in the structure of the sentence is that the use of high explosives in residential areas is itself indiscriminate, which is not the case. At the core of my frustration is when this happens with a current, important article in which misinformation is detrimental to public discourse, and there's a misrepresentation on the very first random citation I check. Obviously this is not the first time.
 * I did a second random check and landed in the nuclear power section. Since most of it was direct quotes or noncontroversial supporting facts, there wasn't much that could be wrong, and what I did check was supported by citations, which is great. I'll say for the sake of article length and style there seems to be a lot of weight thrown around to accusations by relative nobodies, or as part of a global PR campaign, which is of course followed by weight given to official replies, all of which is wasted space to say absolutely nothing. Propaganda has been part of war since its inception, and WP:NOTNEWS is in part a guideline to not report anytime someone cries wolf. There's the facts of an attack, and experts opine on whether or not it's legal -- that's all that's necessary IMO. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, "imprecise use of lethal weapons" means bad soldiering skills, but doesn't amount to the crime of indiscriminate attack, which requires an element of intent: basically, that you don't give a f* about whether you're going to hit military objectives or civilians, which arguably is the case when you're using indiscriminate weapons in heavy populated areas. With regard to nuclear plants, we've had lots of discussions on this talk page. The last one was this, and we came to the somewhat paradoxical but honest conclusion that the reason we're having it here on this article is... that we just want to have it. The best sources say that the attack was contrary to IHL, but doesn't qualify as a war crime. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, what is your source regarding military technology and skills of the Russian army? As far as I know it is a political decision to use obsolete and unprecise arms. And a political decision to use untrained cannon fodder kidnapped in Donbas.
 * BTW, will you in the future accept my "Imprecise use of English language"? My skills are equally bad like Russian soldiering skills. I may attack you indiscriminately rationalizing my words with your rationalization/whatewashing of Russian crimes. If you accept mass crimes, would you demand banning me on the basis of my language problems?Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Words don't kill, at least not here on Wikipedia. Yet I'm afraid you're misunderstanding what I said: I said that in Bucha the Russians (according to reliable sources) DID NOT make an "imprecise use of weapons" (which wouldn't amount to a war crime), but rather used inherently imprecise, indiscriminate weapons in a populated area, which (according to reliable sources) may well qualify as a war crime. Plus there are all the other horrible things they did there (deliberate killing of civilians, sexual violence and possible torture, summary execution of POWs). So you see, what I said cannot be interpreted as "accepting mass crimes". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording in this article violates synthesis. SYN provides examples where two statements, both reliably sourced, are conjoined in order to imply a conclusion not in the original source(s). When someone threw a shoe a George W. Bush, it would have been odd to write, "While being in possession of shoes is not prohibited in Egyptian law, throwing them at people may qualify as a crime." TFD (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you better express what the RS says (the use of imprecise lethal weapons in densely populated civilian areas is a violation of humanitarian law)? Although I'm pretty sure the violation of IHL the source is referring to is the prohibition on indiscriminate attack, you're both right that the formulation we use (their use in residential areas may qualify as the war crime of indiscriminate attack) adds something to what the source says. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is not a RS for how law works (and that sentence is downright wrong per before). WP:RSLAW applies to international law too. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Guardian is indeed a RS, and I will trust it over the opinion of random Wikipedia editor. If you really believe The Guardian is not an RS take it to WP:RSN (good luck with that).  Volunteer Marek   00:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Arguing over whether reliable sources are experts in international law or whether some event fits somebody’s definition is completely irrelevant. If reliable sources call it a war crime so do we.  Volunteer Marek  02:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - adding sources (e.g. ISW) which say that the destruction of Mariupol was a war crime is great. But as far as the relevance to the subject of the page has been established, providing more details on the destruction of Mariupol using other sources is fine. One does not need every source to say "that was a war crime". That would be ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So international law is relative now? Sounds like an outlook for a life completely grounded in reality. Yes, sources such as the BBC do need to say something is or may be a war crime, and that statement has to come from someone who knows what a war crime actually is.
 * And for those who have not gotten it through their heads yet, let's do a quick primer: there is no threshold for how many civilians get killed in how brutal a manner for something to become a war crime, nor for how many houses or how much infrastructure gets destroyed. If someone dies, that's awful, but death does not in itself imply the crime of murder occurred. Take that analogy, and make it 100 times more cynical, and you'll approach international law. Or you can read about your legal protections for yourself. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Are Booby-Traps against civilians legal?

 * https://lieber.westpoint.edu/booby-traps-ukraine-conflict/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/russia-ukraine-war-invasion-retreat-zelenskiy-kyiv-us-biden-uk-evacuees-escape-mariupol
 * https://indianexpress.com/article/world/russians-planted-thousands-of-land-mines-and-booby-traps-ukrainians-say-7868817/ Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. In the cited sources (esp. #1) this is described as a war crime. My very best wishes (talk)


 * Lieber's blog requires inline attribution because he seriously is shockingly bordering on fringe in that post with a number of blatantly inaccurate statements in the intro. The other two are not RS on law. And "of course not" is not an accurate characterization of how law applies, especially in war. If a soldier sets a trap in an urban area and a noncombatant trips it and is killed, is that on its face a crime? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no requirements for sources to be about law. They just need be RS, and the article in Th Guardian certainly qualify as such. So, yes, that should be included. There are many more sources, such as ,,, and so on. Scatterable land mines is an especially terrible weapon . My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-personnel mines are awful and they should be banned. You wanna guess who didn't ban them? How about cluster munitions? And just in case you thought international law cared about your feelings on how terrible a weapon is, consider the amount of loopholes in the Chemical Weapons Convention. If you don't think use of RS on international law should be guided by RSLAW, we can go to WP:RSN if you like. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

And here we have another instance where SamuelRiv is attempting to replace reliable sources with their own “expert” opinion. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn’t work like that.  Volunteer Marek  00:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

human rights office’s concerns over the potential use of “human shields” to prevent military operations in certain areas.
Lots of sources detailing a UN Report about Ukraine forces positioning military personnel in a Nursing Home. Would suggest the “Human shields” section needs updating, sources below. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-says-ukraine-stationed-troops-in-nursing-home-bears-some-blame-for-march-attack/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-10/un-report-finds-ukraine-russia-responsible-for-attack/101224672

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/un-says-ukraine-bears-share-of-blame-for-nursing-home-attack/2022/07/09/ea608b44-ff3d-11ec-b39d-71309168014b_story.html


 * I had already added a line on the incident in the human shields section a few days ago. Based on the new sources we can now add more contents. The following source also looks reliable and informative: . We should probably move the subsection on the care home in Kremmina from "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" to "Human shields". On the balance of sources it appear that the attack was directed against a military objective as the Ukrainian forces had set up a machine gun nest and an anti-tank firing position in the care home.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The source literally says "The report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime.". In that light, putting this into this article is clearly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.  Volunteer Marek  17:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The OHCR report does not refer to this incident as a war crime. It says it’s “concerned” about these types of incidents. Further, we have another source, Times of Israel, which explicitly states that the OHCR did not label this a war crime.

Please stop edit warring to get this in. Start an RfC if you insist on including this piece of WP:SYNTH.  Volunteer Marek  00:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop misrepresenting the misrepresentation that is that Times of Israel quote. "Does not conclude" would be accurate for anything one does not inquire about in the first place. I linked to the press release below, and ok, I suppose human shields are a "concern" (keep in mind in all my deletions I was willing to keep in anything that is self-evidently a war crime -- human shields yes, dead civilians no), so then I figured I would be nice and do even more homework for you people and get the June report itself (even though that was also linked in my comment below on the main UNHR Ukraine portal). III-B-34: "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, ... The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I." Now can we start to come to some sort of understanding for the good of common sense? A reporter from the Times is not an RS about international law, but the UN OHCHR (among others, like the NGOs that work with them -- I have hardly been unreasonable) is. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no any misrepresentation whatsoever. "the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude...". Yes, that is what this source and others (PBS, VOA, Euronews) ,, ) say on this matter. Yes, this is possibly an interpretation of comments by UN office, the report itself would be a primary document. That's why we are using secondary RS. Remember that authors of secondary RS may use not only the primary documents they comment about, but also a lot of other information. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguing based on your own analysis of the primary source in such case is a WP:OR. Sorry for possibly incorrect edit summary ("UN explicitly said"); this needs to be referenced to multiple news reports (strong secondary RS). My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice dude, three sources with the exact same wording, all three citing partial credit to AP, and the Times gives AP the dateline credit. So it's just one source: AP, who says they are getting it from the report. You can see the conclusions section of the report for yourself, and indeed, they don't accuse either side directly of committing specific war crimes. However they do say in incidents 46, 80, 88, 105 (not limited to those) that they were tantamount to war crimes or if confirmed would be war crimes or may be war crimes. Not that that means anything compared to the rigorous standard of proof that this article requires. And your interpretation of both primary sources and WP:OR is completely wrong. The UN report itself is either primary or secondary depending on what you get from it (raw data, interview quotes, etc. in a report are primary, while something like an estimate or tentative assessment is secondary, unless it's in an article about that UN org), and of course the UN had a summary statement on the report linked previously if that makes you more comfortable. WP:OR is entirely for article content, not whatever magic you're saying is improper about me explaining the basics of what's in an article you apparently refuse to read. If you really want a "secondary" source on the UN (as in a third party writing about the report) that covers this event, there is one, but I still have enough respect for the intelligence of the editors here not to link it. Now the next time you want to link a stupid news report to me, make sure it's not the exact same AP article. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where these conclusions/claims by multiple news report sources came from, but that is what they say. They are saying it specifically about this incident, not about all incidents mentioned in the UN report. I agree that UN report itself is a great source for this page, and it does not seem to explicitly contradict to these news reports - according to your comment above. This is all I can say. Sorry, but I am not an expert and have limited time to look at these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)