Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 18

Targeting of nuclear power plants 2
We have already discussed about the section "Targeting of nuclear power plants" here:. The problem with that section is that RS tell us that it was not a war crime, and this is especially true if we adopt the stricto sensu notion of war crime as violation of IHL giving rise to individual responsibility. Here above @My very best wishes and @Volunteer Marek argue that that's the only plausible notion, and that in order to include contents in the article we need a RS unequivocally stating that something qualifies as a war crime. Based on this strict criteria for inclusion, the section needs to go. I'm quoting here below what the OSCE report of 13 April 2022 says about the incident:  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pending discussion, I added this to the section: . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gitz6666, I'm between two options. One is what MVBW and VM say, which is reasonable. But I also think that perhaps if something was denounced as a war crime or considered one at some point and then changed, perhaps it also has a place on this article. Explained, of course, how and why it isn't a war crime. But would be good to have it as many people might have heard of it being a war crime at some point and might want to read more about it, or didn't realize that it wasn't really one, so having it here, explained, seems to me that it would do the most overall good. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Obviously that line of reasoning should also apply to the case of the care house in Stara Krasnianka, although in that case it's quite difficult to explain how and why the death of 60 bedridden civilians ceased to be a war crime. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One. More. Time. There is NO source which says it was a war crime, however much original research you try to spin.  Volunteer Marek   23:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not "adopting" ANY notion of war crime, sensu stricto or sensu laxo or sensu ijustmadeitupso, except for Wikipedia policy, which is WP:RS. If sources call it a war crime, so do we, if not then we don't (in other words "Volunteer Marek" has made no such argument as Gitz6666 claims, and Gitz6666 is once again putting words in his mouth).  Volunteer Marek   23:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * are you arguing for the removal of the section on targeting nuclear plants? Re There is NO source which says it was a war crime if you're still talking about Stara Krasnianka, note that there are numerous sources describing it as a war crime: at the very least the Ukr prosecutor, the head of Luhansk Oblast, Denisova and the US Embassy in an assertive way, and also the OHCHR in a dubitative way (it might be a case of human shields). But all this belongs to the thread here above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You say I argued that in order to include such contents we need RS stating that something may reasonably qualify as a war crime. Yes, but we have multiple RS which claim just that. There were multiple claims that such attacks qualified as a war crime: ,,,,. Looking at more scholary and general sources like, "The intentional destruction of cultural property, like the bombing of hospitals and nuclear power installations, is a war crime and can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. We have clear video evidence of these atrocities, and as cultural leaders, we must be on the frontline of documenting these crimes.". Hence this could be included I think. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please read your sources before you post them? Independent: Senator nobody; Reuters EENews NewsWeek all about the US Embassy tweet, how it was immediately clamped down upon by the State Dept, how State seemed willing to say the reports of deliberate attacks on civilians were credible but was very much not suggesting any crimes around the nuclear plant when asked directly about it (read the EENews article and tell me if you honestly think State endorsed the embassy's tweet); FP's Argument by a water resources policy specialist -- it's working on the credentials of FP and UNESCO alone, but it's an opinion piece for FP and it's really looking like fringe. As for the "scholarly" source, it's labelled "editorial" (and also reaffirms that in-text, which you also clearly didn't read), and it's also a museum curators' journal, and the authors seem to be saying pretty fringe stuff about both law and history. I wasted 20 minutes on this post, whereas yours probably took no more than 5 -- now that's a crime. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All of them, except maybe one, qualify per WP:RS. High-rank officials and organizations making such claims (a Senator, State Department, or Embassy) only make them more notable. No, not all of them are about the statement by the Embassy. Several additional sources can be found on the current version of the page and in the section linked by Gitz6666 . My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As about "Senator nobody", no, this is Ed Markey, who is the chair of subcommittees on clean air, climate and nuclear safety. His word has a lot of weight. Yes, this is his own view, not a claim by Embassy. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently it all boils down to a tweet by the US Embassy and a statement by a US politician. I don't think it's enough for including the episode in this article. The other sources MVBW shared don't say that Russian forces intentionally targeted nuclear power plants. Indeed, we know that they didn't: the OCSE report says they took control over the installation but did not attack it. These sources are as assertive about the nuclear plants as the OHCHR is about the care house: "had they attacked the nuclear plant, this would qualify as a war crime" is identical to "we're concerned that this might be a case of human shields" (the only difference being that OHCHR is far more reliable and independent in its assessment). Finally, the source you quote extensively ("The Museum Journal") is not reliable in the area of IHL. The authors work in the field of museum studies and their views on war crimes are inconsequential to us; it's not even the subject of the article but a passing reference to something falling outside their area of expertise. On the other hand, we have reliable independent secondary sources dedicated to the subject which tell us that nuclear power plants were not targeted and war crimes were not committed (apart from OSCE, also this . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The deliberate shelling of buildings of the nuclear power plant and later using them as a "shield" are a matter of fact and have  received a very wide coverage. Things like that are generally regarded as a war crime (indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure), sources provided. This specific incident was described as a possible war crime in a large number of mainstream sources, but most of them refer to the statement by US Embassy; several others like the statements by Ed Markey claim it independently. So, I think that including such info to this page is fine. Some other info currently included to this page is poorly documented and received a lot less coverage in RS. One should start from excluding these other sections. My very best wishes (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And no, OCSE report says they did attack the power plant. It say that Russian forces "did not attack buildings that could have released dangerous forces, if damaged. They attacked and damaged, however, nearby buildings by attacks that could have affected those able to release radioactivity." In your edit you omitted 2nd phrase in this citation to prove your point above that "OCSE report says they took control over the installation but did not attack it". This is a misrepresentation of the source. My very best wishes (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You should refrain from making empty accusations of "misrepresentation". The text I left out - while signalling that with "(...)" - had obviously no bearing on our discussions given the conclusions of the report. In fact, the important point, which apparently you don't want to address, is the conclusion: "In conclusion, the Mission does not possess sufficient elements to consider that Russia has violated its specific obligations concerning nuclear power stations." The Russian forces took control of the power plants in a way that, as far as the OSCE Mission knows, did not constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, let alone a "war crime". On the balance of the best available sources, we should remove the whole section, unless we opt for a more broad criterion for inclusion than "RS stating that a war crime was committed". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The latter statement ("In conclusion, the Mission does not possess sufficient elements to consider that Russia has violated its specific obligations concerning nuclear power stations.") does not mean a conclusion that Russian forces did not violate international humanitarian law. You are making this up. Please also check a comment provided as an official response by Ukraine to this phrase (page 3) in the same pdf document: "The Russian federation has forcefully seized control of nuclear facilities where nuclear material is located and damaged buildings in nuclear sites in Ukraine, thereby undermining their safe and secure operation and significantly raising the risk of a nuclear accident or incident. The risks caused by the Russian invasion endanger the population of Ukraine, its neighboring countries and the international community." and so on.) That needs to be included or taken into account in any summary. But overall, that source does not say that Russian forces were not guilty. To the contrary, it say they were guilty of attacking the nuclear plant (see citation above).My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The source OSCE Mission says what it says. "We don't have sufficient elements to conclude that international law was violated", is the conclusion they reached after a 3 pages long analysis of the military operations conducted by Russia at Chenrobyl, Zaporozhskaya and elsewhere, and there's simply no reason for cutting it out the conclusion from the text, as you did repeatedly . The following text cannot be summarised, as you did in your edit summaries, as another way to say "we do not know": Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but your interpretation/summary of the OCSE report is incorrect. According to your interpretation of the single poorly constructed phrase (which "elements" do they mean?), Russian forces were not guilty of anything. That is not what the report says. It says: "Russian forces took control over the installation but did not attack buildings that could have released dangerous forces, if damaged. They attacked and damaged, however, nearby buildings by attacks that could have affected those able to release radioactivity. The HRMMU reports that some 50 units of Russian armed forces’ heavy machinery, around 400 personnel and “a lot” of explosives and ammunition are currently present at the facility. On 14 March 2022, Russian armed forces detonated weapons in the proximity of a nuclear reactor, allegedly to dispose of them. All this endangered the facility and its staff, but did not have any impact on the radiation levels." My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's an experiment: take every suspected empirical fact to be true at face value. Then is there likelihood of a war crime of IL violation? According the Lieber Institute 2022-05-13 article posted previously, and as the OSCE report says, if the command was confident that their behavior was not risky and their actions were not clearly reckless (and no, the facts as laid out in the OSCE do not speak to obvious recklessness), then it's probably legal.
 * On the other hand, the NYT 2022-08-01 article MVBW linked earlier, taking all facts as true means the Russians shooting from the reactor area would violate customary IHL (search anything in "use of a privileged building for improper purposes" -- they all say about the same thing). It didn't look like the NYT could independently verify that the launchers were "reportedly parked ... between the reactor buildings", but it wouldn't surprise me, just like it wouldn't surprise me if Ukrainians are using civilian assets improperly -- the only thing that's surprising is how apparently nobody's weaponized the hospitals yet. Still, the article is only one day old, and to post it here means making two SYNTH-type leaps not in the source: that the Russians are doing what they are alleged to be doing even though NYT hadn't verified it, and that it would be a violation of IL even though NYT didn't say it. The former at least should be fairly easy for OSINT researchers to verify soon, though I imagine the UN would report it sooner. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if the Russians had violated art. 56 Protocol I, that wouldn't amount to a "stricto sensu" war crime (giving rise to individual responsibility). We have to take an editorial decision about what counts as war crime for the purposes of this article. Some alleged violations of IHL that don't amount to a "stricto sensu" war crime, like this one, get to be included even if we have excellent sources (by legal experts) telling us "no, this is not a war crime"; other violations of IHL that don't amount to a "stricto sensu" war crime are excluded on that ground, even if we have excellent sources (by legal experts) telling us "this is a violation of IHL". This doesn't make any sense to me, and the only editorial justification for such an unreasonable situation is that in the former case we have a tweet from the US Embassy (or an analogously non-reliable source) claiming "this is a war crime!". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverted changes by Volunteer Marek
Hi Volunteer Marek, sorry, I've reverted some changes of yours: : Reverted with summary No consensus for this. I checked the text and it is well sourced and ties well with Amnesty International's report and text under it.  and : Reverted with summary undo IP edits. Those edits are from 187.39.133.201, who has made many constructive edits to Wikipedia, and their edit said change title to "sexual violence", remove "by russian forces" or "by russian authorities and forces" (its not needed to say by whom it was commited, we dont put "looting by 'russian forces', "genocide by 'russian authorities and forces', etc, the contents already say by whom it was commited., which makes sense. Up to discussion, but I agree with it. : This is a statement by an Ukranian official complaining about a report, which has no place on this article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To the first part, which is an edit by Mímameiðr, I agree it needs work, but the information is backed up. It should be edited, not removed. AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother reading the text you were restoring or did you just do a blind revert? "agree it needs work" is a disingenuous understatement. The stuff being removed by the IP is long standing. Perhaps you should ask yourself if reverting on behalf of one edit WP:SPA and IP editors is constructive editing.  Volunteer Marek   19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, the sources added by the WP:SPA (this account, single edit) were a "world socialist website" website (obviously not RS), a video that has been taken down, and some youtube trash. Restoring this kind of crap is WP:TENDENTIOUS to put it mildly.  Volunteer Marek   19:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, I don't think you can call an account with just one edit a "Single Purpose Account"... And that IP has around 500 edits, so is more experienced than many users. And even if it only had one, I still believe it is the content that should be judged, not the users. Anyway, I have left that first part out, because it is true that some (not all) of the sources weren't great. The YouTube video is the one that is referred by Der Spiegel (a good source). As you can see, here is the video by Reuters (another good source). The other source was this one, by AP news. All of this sources are very good ones, and support the written text. The text does need work, but it is supported and supports the rest of the section. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an account. Which made a single edit. That edit was highly POV and problematic. If you don't think that can be called "SPA", whatever. Call it something else. Point is, you're restoring disruptive edits by WP:NOTHERE accounts.
 * The youtube video is a highly edited and manipulated version of the original Der Spiegel video (which DS took down). They insert fake "subtitles" in between what she says and splice it and edit it to make it seem like she's saying something she isn't. It's *exactly* the kind of source that we never use. The other sources most certainly DON'T support the text ("neo Nazi Azov Azov Azov blah blah blah"). Don't even try to pretend they do.  Volunteer Marek   20:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, The youtube video is a highly edited and manipulated version of the original Der Spiegel video (which DS took down) DS took it down because We have removed a video from the site that was located here. It later turned out that statements made by a survivor from the steelworks in Mariupol were only partially reproduced. The Reuters news agency, which provided the video material, is accused of omitting the protagonist's critical comments about the Ukrainian armed forces. - DS. About it being highly edited and manipulated, I don't speak Russian so I can't confirm it, but automatic subtitles translated to English match the video's own subtitles. And of course the "neo Nazi Azov" isn't supported, that is why I haven't put back the text and said that it needs work, it fails NPOV. But the actual statements of the text are backed by the sources. Still, I have left the text out, but I believe that after modifying it a bit it would fit the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:AdrianHObradors - at this point it's impossible to reach a conclusion other than that you're trying to be provocative. You're restoring obviously flawed and non-policy complaint text to the article, which was added by a fly-by-night WP:SPA. There's absolutely no reason for you to do this unless you're purposefully TRYING to start an edit war. Please self-revert.  Volunteer Marek   20:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, I left out the text so we can discuss it. I did revert the other ones (point number 2 and point number 3) as you did not give any kind of explanation for that. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You also used an edit summary which said "see talk" but hadn't actually replied on talk.  Volunteer Marek   20:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, Sorry, my bad, I should have posted here before reverting. You were too fast for me! AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Gitz6666, I just saw that you included again my "point number 3" about Dmytro Kuleba's critic of the report. I believe we should limit the article to the war crimes, and leave opinions of Government officials out, but if you and Volunteer Marek want to keep it I won't oppose. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Dmytro Kuleba's reply, I think we should report replies to allegations of war crime. No matter if they are true or false, they are informative and may have both political and legal consequences. We are already reporting several replies, e.g. "On 10 March, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence claimed that bombing of the hospital was justified by the supposed presence of Ukrainian armed forces"; "the Russian Federation's Ministry of Defence accused the Ukraine-backed Azov Battalion of having purposefully destroyed the building", "The Russian Ministry of Defense denied the accusations", "The Russian Defense Ministry said that they destroyed a "temporary deployment point” of a Ukrainian territorial defence unit", and so on.
 * Re youtube video, I think we shouldn't use primary sources like that. I don't doubt that woman is sincere, but she's terrorised, she might have misunderstood something important about the situation she was in, and as you can see she was interviewed in a camp of the Donetsk people's republic (see the black/blue/red flag), so she might also have been forced, or she might have felt she was forced, to say what she said - it's not for us to say, that's the reason we need reliable secondary sources.
 * The report by Amnesty International is a reliable secondary source, and also the report by OHCHR is a reliable secondary source when it says that the incident at the care house in Stara Krasnianka is emblematic of its concerns over the use of human shields. I believe we should publish that subsection and I think that in the discussion here above, "Stara Krasnianka care house attack", we reached a consensus on a slightly modified version of that text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good morning Gitz6666; I just saw Imbirius changed the statement for Zelenskyy. I think that solves the issue, as of course Zelenksyy's comment is notable enough to keep. Still, I'm not sure about keeping vague things like "The Russian Ministry of Defense denied the accusations". Unless I'm mistaken, both Russia and Ukraine are denying all accusations of war crimes. If a statement provides more info, it should be kept, but if it is only a spokesperson saying "that's false!", I don't think it adds much. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>I agree the YouTube video is a primary source and by itself shouldn't be used. Although in that case it was accompanied by other secondary sources that mentioned it directly. But I won't argue for its inclusion, better sources should be found in any case, and perhaps is not even on the scope of this article. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>To the last part I'll go to the new section below to answer. Thanks for your work as always Gitz! <span id="AdrianHObradors:1659694995898:TalkFTTCLNWar_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine" class="FTTCmt">AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is controversial. But you decide 'reliable'. Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The red-linked account was obviously "NOT HERE" and was rightly indeffed. Moreover, the content it tried to include (civilians accused Ukrainian forces from the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion of deliberately shooting at fleeing cars and kidnapping residents and so on.) was an obvious Russian propaganda. I am surprised how anyone could see this another way. But I will say that the just included claims by the AI also do not belong to the page. Here is why. According to the article title and content, "Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians". Yes, this is probably true (and it is hard to imagine how it would be otherwise during urban warfare). However, nowhere the publication tells that the Ukrainian forces used people as "human shields"( which would be an obvious war crime) or calls this "war crime" by the Ukrainian side. Hence does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)