Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 22

extrajudicial killings
Oh ffs, first NY Post is not a reliable source. Second, the OHCR report says ''" While those who committed the killings remain unknown, OHCHR has concerns that some of these killings may have been perpetrated by agents of the Government of Ukraine or with their acquiescence"

This is about as weak sauce as you can get. We're not including this without a preponderance of secondary reliable sources.  Volunteer Marek  16:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ooh la la, a preponderance of secondary reliable sources! Right, maybe the OHCHR got it wrong, they're so sloppy aren't they? But if you don't trust them, I suggest you open a thread at RSN on "bothsidesism" at the United Nations, and in the meanwhile we can surely report that According to OHCHR, these killings may have been committed by government agents or with their acquiescence, and may amount to extrajudicial executions and war crimes because, as your quotation shows clearly, that's exactly what they said. With regard to NY Post, we can get rid of it: we have plenty of sources (Ukrainian press) and there's no reason to discard them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * First we've already discussed this. Crimes committed against domestic citizens during war crimes aren't necessarily war crimes. They're just regular crimes. That's why we need secondary sources.
 * As to this issue, look how much of "may amount to" and "may have been" and "may be" are in there. Again, that's why we need multiple secondary sources here.
 * Instead of trying to repeatedly edit war this "may have been" stuff into the article to bothsides it, how about focusing on actual war crimes that have been committed?  Volunteer Marek   17:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So let's see if there's a consensus for including the following text that VM doesn't want me to publish. The title of the new subsection is
 * and it's placed in the section on "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians".
 * The info on Struk has been covered also by NY Post, here, which VM finds questionable (consensus is that "New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The info on Struk has been covered also by NY Post, here, which VM finds questionable (consensus is that "New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The info on Struk has been covered also by NY Post, here, which VM finds questionable (consensus is that "New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The info on Struk has been covered also by NY Post, here, which VM finds questionable (consensus is that "New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding Struk, show me a source which says it was a war crime.  Volunteer Marek   17:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the criteria we've always followed, we don't need a source saying that it was a war crime. We very rarely have sources of that kind. Most of our sources either say that something might be a war crime, or they report that someone (Ukrainian or Russian authorities, foreign ambassadors, foreign leaders, etc.) claims that something is a war crime. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, this isn’t even close (or if it is there’s no source that says so).  Volunteer Marek   17:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the killing of Struk is not even close to a war crime? Well, at the time the representatives of the Luhansk People's Republic called it a war crime, and also the OHCHR today says that the killing of people regarded as traitors may amount to extrajudicial executions and war crimes. Let's wait for other editors' views. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * LPR and TASS? Really? Yes and Russians call Ukraine just defending itself "a war crime". What's your point?  Volunteer Marek   18:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You need sources to refer to the killing of Struk itself as a war crime (or something close), otherwise that kind of reasoning is WP:SYNTH. LPR and TASS are obviously not good enough for justifying inclusion in this article Tristario (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems clear to me that present sourcing is nowhere near enough for this one. TASS is red at WP:RSP. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * TASS is not quoted in the proposed text but could be quoted because TASS "is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politician". So we can rely on TASS when it reports that Miroshnik (a representative of the Luhansk People's Republic) wrote on his Telegram channel This is a demonstrative hostage-taking and his extrajudicial execution by the Nazis with the connivance and support of law enforcement agencies. This is a war crime! On many occasions the editors working on this article have accepted that allegations of war crimes by Ukrainian authorities and other political agencies (e.g., US ambassador) are a sufficient ground for inclusion. Here, apart from the allegation, we also have multiple Ukrainian sources providing an undisputed account of the event, and an international agency expressing concern about extrajudicial killings of pro-Russian supporters. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But the opinion of a pro-Kremlin politician that it is a war crime doesn't mean much for our purposes. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do any of these “multiple Ukrainian sources” refer to it as a war crime?  Volunteer Marek   22:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they just describe the facts - same as we do in the proposed text. The text doesn't say "it's a war crime". If we want, we could say that according to the pro-Russian authorities in Luhansk it's a war crime, or we could omit that information - it really doesn't matter. What is important is that we have a verifiable account of the incident and we have the OHCHR saying (in the context of a report on HR in Ukraine) that killing officials of the local authorities because you believe they are collaborators may amount to a war crime. That's all. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So… not a war crime? And as others have said, calling this a war crime is original research.  Volunteer Marek   23:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to have a WP:GREL source that covers this in order to include it. If it is notable enough for this article, there should be a WP:GREL source that covers this. TASS is also not good enough for justifying inclusion, this article is about war crimes, not whatever statements are made by Russian officials, which have no reliability whatsoever, and are regarded by reliable sources has having very little to no reliability.
 * My understanding based on precedents is that sources don't need to explicitly refer to it as a war crime, but we do need something that comes close to that, and as far as I can see something like that hasn't been provided for Struk Tristario (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you are referring to the first paragraph of the proposed section, the one about Struk, and not to the second paragraph, which is entirely based on the recent report by OHCHR - correct? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about both, sorry for the confusion. Is what I'm saying clear? Tristario (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The report by OHCHR is a WP:GREL. By the way, I'm now also adding this source . Meduza is reliable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OHCHR isn't listed as a WP:GREL source and I believe is appropriate to regard as a primary source Tristario (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That still does not appear to be good enough, because there isn't any kind of implication in that article that it's a war crime, or something close. And it isn't referring to the OHCHR report Tristario (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So if the problem is with sources, perhaps we could replace the first paragraph (about the killing of Struck) with something as follows?
 * The second paragraph is indispensable because it says that some of these action may amount to war crimes. The OHCHR is reliable, and it's actually the best source available on the subject of war crimes in Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this source say these were war crimes?  Volunteer Marek   23:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If those sources don't say those are war crimes or similar (and they don't seem to), that's WP:SYNTH. Including all of that is also arguably WP:UNDUE too, if they aren't being called war crimes. And UN and government reports are usually primary sources. Typically we need secondary sources for establishing notability and interpretation Tristario (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tristario, it is not SYNTH. SYNTH is when two or more sources are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. This isn't the case. The OHCHR is referring precisely to the incidents reported by the RSs in the first paragraph, that is, the targeted killing (extrajudicial execution) of civilians. OHCHR is claiming that that military strategy may amount to a war crime. Please have a look at WP:SYNTH and also at the essay What SYNTH is not, esp. "SYNTH is not explanation".
 * With regard to primary/secondary sources, note that the report by OHCHR is not a primary source - a primary source here would be a video on youtube showing a killing, a post on Facebook, etc.. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved while a secondary source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (WP:SECONDARY). We rely massively on reports by OHCHR, which editors rightly see as particularly reliable and useful for establishing due weight and notability. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is SYNTH, because the OHCHR does not explicitly say those particular occurences mentioned in the first paragraph are or may be war crimes, nor do the other sources, so you are combining sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. (The OHCHR also doesn't say all killings of collaborators may be war crimes, which would be an extremely broad statement, it talks about six specific instances that may be war crimes) Where does it say in the OHCHR report that it's referring to those particular instances in the first paragraph?
 * And whether something is a primary source or secondary source, and whether that matters depends on the context. It could be regarded as a secondary source. Note in the link you just gave it gives "investigative reports" as an example of a primary source, and it also lists Duke University as listing "reports of government commissions" as primary sources. In this case since there's so much uncertainty in that particular paragraph I would prefer to rely on a WP:GREL secondary source to establish notability and to a lesser extent interpretation. If it is notable enough there should be a WP:GREL source that covers it Tristario (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OHCHR explicitly says that killings committed by government agents or with their acquiescence may amount to war crimes when their victims are civilians. In the first paragraph we explain to which killings of people perceived as so-called 'traitors' the OHCHR refers to. Both Ukrainian and international press reported a dozen or so killings of officials and collaborators in Russian occupied territories; the OHCHR documented six killings of civilians regarded as traitors: are you suggesting that these are two mutually exclusive sets of individuals? In the first paragraph we also provide the reader with RSs (esp. Meduza) for finding out who these people were and how they were targeted. I'd welcome more contributions to this discussion, and to that end in the next few days I intend to notify it at WP:NPOVN, or maybe I will open a new thread there. However, both WP:OR and WP:RS, and the corresponding noticeboards, are not relevant here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you know they refer to the same set of individuals? How do you know those individuals were civilians? How do you know there wasn't another legitimate reason for the killings, such as self defense or legitimate military reasons? There is a lot of WP:OR going on here. And the OHCHR makes no general statement like that, it specifically refers to "these killings", ie. the six killings it is discussing Tristario (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you know they refer to the same set of individuals? How do you know those individuals were civilians? How do you know there wasn't another legitimate reason for the killings, such as self defense or legitimate military reasons? There is a lot of WP:OR going on here. And the OHCHR makes no general statement like that, it specifically refers to "these killings", ie. the six killings it is discussing Tristario (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is valid content for including somewhere, but not on this page because this is not a war crime. As a historical example, killing of Nazi collaborators by anti-fascist fighters during WWII is not regarded as a war crime. Rather, it is regarded as a justice, at least in sources I read. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think analogies are helpful in this case. The OHCHR report says
 * While those who committed the killings remain unknown, OHCHR has concerns that some of these killings may have been perpetrated by agents of the Government of Ukraine or with their acquiescence ... As these victims were civilians, they cannot be considered legitimate military targets. As such, these killings may amount to extrajudicial executions and war crimes, and should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly."
 * They use the same measured language when they discuss other likely war crimes, for example when discussing disappearances and murders of civilians in the territories occupied by Russia (section 42) "OHCHR notes that the detention of civilians for the purposes of carrying out an exchange may amount to hostage-taking, which would be considered a war crime in this context." Alaexis¿question? 11:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, analogies with resistance killing nazi collaborators are very helpful here.  Volunteer Marek   19:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The case of the killing of Nazi collaborators during WWII is essentially different because Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (1949) and the Additional Protocols of 1977 (Protocol I and II) did not exist at that time. If one wants to find an analogy with comparable cases, one has to look at the execution by Hamas of Palestinians in Gaza accused of collaborating with Israel, which the ICC Prosecutor (Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016, at para. 125) and the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry (A/HRC/29/CRP.4, at para. 502) identified as a war crime. If you are interested in the legal subtleties of international humanitarian law, you can read this essay, accessible through the Wikipedia library.
 * A quotation:
 * Anyway, it is not necessary to engage in extensive research, because in this case it is sufficient to read the RSs. Of course, they are a far cry from assertively saying "this is a war crime by Ukrainian forces", as MVBW would like them to do, because this never happens: the best sources always use a cautious, hypothetical terminology - "alleged", "maybe", "might". There can never be anything certain before the trial: maybe the targets were killed by mistake, maybe they were actively participating in hostilities, maybe they were subjected to an informal but relatively fair trial and the execution was not "extrajudicial", etc. We should also use the same terminology, as I've argued elsewhere (Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_13). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing with me that sources do not call these specific cases war crimes by Ukrainian forces. As about analogies and historical examples, yes, I partly agree that one must be specific, i.e. the sources must be about this war and such and such specific incidents. At the same time, I think that the example with Nazi and their collaborators being killed by resistance is relevant. This is very much the same. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight Gitz6666. According to you, the killing of Nazi collaborators by resistance was in fact a war crime, it's just that the relevant legal status hadn't yet been created. WTF?  Volunteer Marek   19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight Gitz6666. According to you, the killing of Nazi collaborators by resistance was in fact a war crime, it's just that the relevant legal status hadn't yet been created. WTF?  Volunteer Marek   19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Towards an RfC
Given the lack of consensus, I think that opening an RfC is the best way of moving forward. Here you'll find the question I intend to submit in the next few days:. Helpful comments and suggestions are welcome.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * by the way, The Washington Post also mentions war crimes:
 * If this could save the community of editors from the waste of time of another RfC, that would be much appreciated. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post is indeed a WP:GREL source so I'm fine with including a brief paragraph (like the one I reverted) based only on that and the OHCHR source. I don't support including content from sources besides those two though, and I don't support a paragraph as long as the proposed text. We have have now two relatively brief mentions of this topic (extrajudicial killings as possible war crimes) in two good sources, so I support inclusion, but based on the brevity I don't think it should be given much weight. Tristario (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still opposed. WaPo is very speculative and says "potential".  Volunteer Marek   02:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I support including the wording that Gitz has proposed. The Washington post is an excellent source and the only reason they are saying "potential" is that the war crime has not been confirmed by international courts, which is the same as all the war crimes in this article. The OHCHR report is also clear in their statement of Extrajudicial killings and war crimes. We are talking about "Ukrainian hit squads and saboteurs gunned down, blown up, hanged and poisoned almost 20 people..." who are not soldiers. Clear case that should be detailed in this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have modified the text to include again the killing of Volodymyr Struk. I think it is relevant not only because he was an elected mayor and because of the statements of the Interior Ministry advisor, but also because of a new source I found: the OSCE's report on violations of international humanitarian law (here at p. 56).
 * I agree with Ilenart: most war crimes are "potential" until the perpetrators are proven guilty in court. For example, it could be that all these people were secretly in charge of military operations, and thus were a legitimate military target. But this is no reason not to publish: every video showing torture could be a fake, every indiscriminate attack could be due to weapons failure, and so on. We have good sources here (WaPo, OHCHR, OSCE).
 * Finally, I don't get Tristario's objection based on the brevity I don't think it should be given much weight. Please compare with the section on Looting, which is much longer than the proposed text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * According to WaPo article, this raises legal and ethical questions about extrajudicial killings and potential war crimes. Yes, sure, this "raises legal and ethical questions", but it is far cry from assertively saying "this is a war crime by Ukrainian forces". None of the cited sources say that. I think this is because war crimes can only be committed by combatants or authorities. Killings by individual civilians would be classified as an ordinary crime. The OSCE source (mentioned above, page 56) also does not call the case of Struk a war crime by Ukrainian forces, although it does describe the case as an extrajudicial killing by unknown people (hence it deserved to be noted in the OSCE report as a human rights violation). My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is because war crimes can only be committed by combatants or authorities. Killings by individual civilians would be classified as an ordinary crime. This is demonstrably wrong. Could you please tell us, @My very best wishes, if this is the reason why you are removing the subsection ? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I already explained above, this is simply because cited sources do not assert such cases were war crimes by Ukrainian forces. Why they do not assert it is another question, and it is not very much relevant. Based on discussions above, this is not only me who thinks this does not belong to the page. This is new material, hence it can be included to the page only based on WP:CONSENSUS. There is no consensus for inclusion. Please stop edit war to include new material without consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666, I thought you understand that consensus for inclusion is required here because it was you who started this section about RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My Very Best Wishes, the Washington Post article has multiple sections linking the extrajudical killings to Ukraine, for example:
 * ”They have been gunned down, blown up, hanged and poisoned — an array of methods that reflects the determination of the Ukrainian hit squads and saboteurs often operating deep inside enemy-controlled territory.”
 * ” A Ukrainian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, said one of Ukraine’s special services was involved in the attempt on Bardin’s life, though he couldn’t specify which agency.“In my understanding, everything that is done to destroy the leaders of the invaders and traitors is done by our special services,” the official said. “You can say that three organizations are involved in this kind of business: special operations forces, the main intelligence department [of the military] and a special unit of the SBU,” Ukraine’s main internal security service.”

And you are also wrong when you say “ I think this is because war crimes can only be committed by combatants or authorities. Killings by individual civilians would be classified as an ordinary crime.” Refer to the article When Death Becomes Murder: A Primer on Extrajudicial Killing on p 135-136 which details the United Nations “Minnesota Protocol” on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Deaths which states:
 * “This includes, for example, all deaths possibly caused by law enforcement personnel or other agents of the state; deaths caused by paramilitary groups, militias or "death squads" suspected of acting under the direction or with the permission or acquiescence of the State; and deaths caused by private military or security forces exercising State functions.”

In addition to the above, both the Washington Post and OHCHR report describes these killings as war crimes. Ilenart626 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * both the Washington Post and OHCHR report describes these killings as war crimes This is patently FALSE. Please don't attempt to misrepresent sources.  Volunteer Marek   19:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were multiple cases of probable extrajudicial killings, although the assailants were never found. No one disputes that. However, none of the sources (including WaPo and OSCE) say that "it was a war crime by Ukrainian government". Wording like "OHCHR has concerns..." or this "raises legal and ethical questions..." (as cited above) are not an assertions that a war crime was committed by the Ukrainian government. The OHCRHR and author of the article in WaPo do not know that. These are complex questions. These cases do need to be investigated with regard who committed these killings and why, and the results should be reliably published and be generally described in RS as war crimes. Not every extrajudicial killing is a war crime. Consider Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko by Russian government agents. That was NOT generally described in RS as a war crime. Same as here. A lot of crime is not war crime. Moreover, unlike in the case of Litvinenko, we do not know who killed these people and how. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gitz6666 - Why is that material being reinstated without an agreement (RFC consensus) to do so? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was ready to open an RfC a couple of days ago. Shall we do it? Let's do it. But since it will occupy the time of many editors, I would like to better understand the reason for this choice. If the reason is war crimes can only be committed by combatants or authorities, as MVBW just said, then maybe we could avoid it, with a bit of goodwill on everybody's side. In fact, this is just a mistake, as I can easily show (later I will share some sources on this). If, on the other hand, the reason for not publishing the section on collaborators is the usual "due weight" rationale - i.e., that reporting on war crimes allegedly committed by the Ukrainian party is inherently undue, as nationalist editing and POV pushing prevent us from doing so, then let's say it openly - e.g. "this is not important enough! It's just scum, just traitors, we have more important things to do here" - and we can all enjoy a nice RfC. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if you want this content be included, then you need an RfC. "war crimes can only be committed..." - my point was that not any crime is a war crime, and these specific cases were not clearly and generally claimed in sources to be war crimes. Instead, they have been described as probable extrajudicial killings and human rights violations that need to be investigated. Hence they simply do not belong to this page. Yes, there is also another issue: what is "due" on this very long page? And yes, I would say that a lot of currently included relatively insignificant and poorly documented cases (which are based on a single YouTube record, etc.) are undue on this page, along with cases that are hardly war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not any crime is a war crime, right: there must be a link between the crime and the armed conflict. But this is the only requirement, and the perpetrators of war crimes are not necessarily combatants or authorities. Note that every alleged war crime needs to be investigated, and in this respect the attacks against collaborators are no different from the other war crimes reported in this article, some of which are highly speculative if not entirely bogus (e.g., genocide). If we were to apply the inclusion criterion "only ascertained war crimes", the article would be empty. I honestly don't understand your reference to "a single YouTube record": what are you talking about? In any case, let's have an RfC. Here are some sources on the point you raised (and then immediately abandoned) about the impossibility of civilians being the perpetrators of war crimes.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Special attention should be paid to crimes committed by civilians against other civilians. They may constitute war crimes, provided there is a link or connection between the offence and the armed conflict."
 * "Anyone can be a perpetrator of a war crime, not only soldiers and other persons in official duties, but also civilians. This already follows from the wording of the Common Articles 49/50/129/146 GC I-IV, according to which the member states are obliged to impose penal sanction upon ‘persons’ who commit grave breaches"
 * "Not all crimes committed during an armed conflict constitute war crimes. It is widely held in the case law and legal literature, that in order to qualify as a war crime, the criminal conduct must be closely related to the hostilities, ie it must have a ‘nexus’ with the armed conflict. The nexus between the criminal conduct and the armed conflict is also demanded by the Elements of Crimes of the ICC, for each war crime listed in Article 8 of the Rome Statute. The requirement of such a nexus clearly serves to distinguish between war crimes and ‘ordinary’ criminal conduct that falls under the law applicable in the relevant territory. It applies in particular to offences committed by civilians against other civilians or against combatants"
 * "Moreover, the restriction of war crimes to the particular status of individuals seems to be inconsistent with the wordings of the common Arts 49/50/129/146 of the four Geneva Conventions (1949) requiring the Member States to prosecute and punish all ‘persons’ who commit grave breaches (Ambos [2014] 146). Accordingly, the Elements of Crimes of the ICC Statute do not provide an explicit note for the category of perpetrators as there was no dissent during the negotiations at the Rome Conference that war crimes can be committed by both members of armed forces and civilians"
 * Well, as explained in a long NYT article about Ukrainian partisans, "The partisans say they are civilians and the legal basis for their activity is therefore regulated under the Ukrainian law, not the laws of war that prohibit, for example, a soldier from targeting a civilian official. But under international law civilians become combatants when they start taking part in hostilities. The partisans work for the government, even the military, and whether the murky area they inhabit does in fact fall under international law — and whether their activities violate those rules — is a matter for debate." OK. But again, this NYT article does NOT claim they are committing war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if the laws of war that prohibit, for example, a soldier from targeting a civilian official are by any chance the same laws that prohibit the wilful killing of civilians (a war crime). I also would like to know what was the question that provoked the answer "we apply Ukrainian law, we are not bound by international law" (maybe "aren't you worried about war crimes charges?"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason is same as with the other nonsense you've tried to cram into this article to falsely "both sides it" - reliable sources are not calling these "war crimes". ONE source says it may, potentially, kind of, possibly be a "war crime". Once again, you're trying to stretch what reliable sources say to use as an excuse to introduce POV and false balance into the article.  Volunteer Marek   19:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Missing items (list)
I know it's difficult to keep this article updated, and even writing up the info can make one physically sick. But there's a ton of things that this article is currently missing. Here are just some of it, from the last few weeks:
 * 1) Mass graves in Kupyansk
 * 2) Mass graves in Lyman
 * 3) Terror bombing in Zaporozhia between October 6 and October 10
 * 4) Terror bombing civilian infrastructures, including children's playgrounds, parks and university in Kyiv and other places across Ukraine on October 10
 * 5) Wholesale purposeful destruction of Ukrainian culture
 * 6) More reports of rape being used as a weapon of war and torture

Etc.

How about we focus on trying to update the article properly with real stuff rather than trying to invent supposed Ukrainian war crimes out of thin air?  Volunteer Marek  16:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. and 2. are OK, but we shouldn't report them as "mass graves", which obviously is not a war crime in itself. We should report the info on torture and deliberate killings provided that we have RS on that: e.g., "After the discovery of mass graves in XY, it was reported that the Russian forces had done this and that".
 * 3. and 4. belong to Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (which is still waiting for a proper lead section by the way).
 * 5. and 6. can update the relevant sections on this article, but "rape being used as a weapon of war" needs strong sources, which AFIK we're lacking (at the end of September OHCHR said they "cannot yet draw conclusions regarding the scale of CRSV perpetrated since February" and documented 9 cases of rape plus more cases of sexual violence both from Ukr and Russian forces). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 and 4 were already added into the attacks on civilians article.
 * about the mass graves in kupiansk and lyman (1 and 2), i havent heard about it, if someone can research it up and find any RS reporting on it, we could add it here.
 * about 5 and 6, while i do agree with gitz above, someone should surely update the sections on sexual violence, torture, etc. 2804:14D:4482:46D:F1BE:2484:A2FC:7B4 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that 1 and 2 are unquestionably war crimes. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with every point above, and especially with including "real stuff rather than trying to invent supposed Ukrainian war crimes out of thin air". My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Updating
I have a feeling this article is about to get much larger and we should think about how to properly organize it.  Volunteer Marek  19:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. I suggest we resist the temptation to fill the article with every unverified account of massacres, rapes, etc., as we've done in the past, and we wait for independent secondary sources, so as to abide by WP:NPOV (as per WP:RECENT) and WP:RS (as per WP:RSBREAKING). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * We should trim down sections where we can provide links to other wikipedia articles that have more detail on that specific incident. Stick to a basic summary of the incidents and let the dedicated article handle the detail, reactions, etc. --Shadybabs (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * i think we should make a separate article on looting (for more detail), we could also move the main stuff about indiscriminate attacks (including the cluster bombs and attacks on cultural property/hospitals and medical care facilities subsections) to the Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, although we could summarize the contents here. another thing would be making a separate article for the use of cluster bombs during the conflict (theres way too many cases of these even for the attacks on civilians article, but, as always, we could leave a summary there and link to the new article), thoughts? 2804:14D:4482:46D:F1BE:2484:A2FC:7B4 (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Newly included text for placement of military objectives near civilian objects

 * I agree with the comments above. We need to trim it down, rather than include more disputable materials, and use other sub-pages. For example, this content belongs to sub-page Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, even if included, it must be much shorter and follow WP:GEVAL. In present form, I removed it per WP:BRD. The recently inserted version violates WP:GEVAL by placing equal responsibility on Russian and Ukrainian sides ("Both the Russian and the Ukrainian army have been accused of violating..."). Therefore, this newly included text is actually much worse in terms of WP:NPOV than the text previously suggested and rejected at the RfC on this page . Please get consensus for including such text anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to AGF and address the issue you raised in your edit summary and here ("Both the Russian and the Ukrainian army have been accused of violating..." had not been discussed in the RfC), so I changed the text in this way: . But you reverted again and claim that because (1) this whole text is written as accusations of war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces, whereas the civilians were in fact killed by Russian forces, and (2) this belongs to another page (see talk), (3) mentioning human shields belongs to another. I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. We had a huge RfC on this page and the closure says that there is a consensus that the article should deal with placement of military objectives near civilian objects - so I don't want to start discussing again whether this is a war crime or not. Nor I will discuss whether this belongs to this page or to another one: he civilians were in fact killed by Russian forces is irrelevant here - we're dealing with the subsection on placement of military objects in heavy populated areas, which is incompatible with international humanitarian law precisely because it endangers the civilians, who might get killed by the enemy. And we mention human shields and distinguish from human shields because doing that was required by the closer and is supported by sources. I'm afraid this will go directly to WP:AE if you continue to block. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So I moved it to page Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, welcome to correct if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. The closure says Q: Should the article deal with placement of military objectives near civilian objects? A: Yes, there is consensus that the article should cover this (emphasis mine), which is reasonable because placement of military objectives near civilian objects is not an "Attack on civilians"! It is a violation of IHL similar to "ill-treatment of civilian" and to "use of human shields", which therefore belongs to this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I agree this can be included somewhere, but disagree with your wording constructed to accuse exclusively the Ukrainian side, while the actual killings were accomplished by Russian forces. Your previous wording has been rejected on the RfC, and now you made it even worse.
 * Secondly, according to RfC closing:
 * Q: Should we cover these topics in this article, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or in the newly-formed Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?
 * A: No consensus.
 * I believe it better be placed to Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is not against RfC closing. But again, if properly phrased, this might be included even to this page, I do not really mind. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re disagree with your wording constructed to accuse exclusively the Ukrainian side. The wording closely reflects the sources. Besides, you reverted a text starting with ""Both the Russian and the Ukrainian army have been accused...":.
 * Placing the section on military objectives near civilians in the article Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn't make sense: that article deals with shelling, bombings, etc., and placing military objectives near civilians is closer to ill-treatment of civilians and to use of human shields, which are covered in this article, than it is to bombing civilians. Besides, if we were to place that section in the article on Attacks on civilians, it would be as if we were justifying Russian indiscriminate attacks by maintaining that the attacks were provoked by the Ukrainian tactics of placing military objectives near civilians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about including this text to page "Attacks on civilians", but I disagree with your wording. Let's see what other contributors think. If they agree with your version, then perhaps I am wrong here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, just for the sake of clarity, there was no consensus or decision at the RfC to include the text you are trying to include right now. In fact, at least main part of this text has been criticized by many on this talk page (see the discussion in this link, for example, but there were also other threads). My very best wishes (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe Gitz's reduced wording here is fine and I would include "Both the Russian and the Ukrainian army have been accused of violating international humanitarian law by locating military objectives within densely populated areas without removing civilians to safer areas. " As per the second reference below, the actual wording from the HRW report states "Russian and Ukrainian forces have put civilians in Ukraine at unnecessary risk by basing their forces in populated areas without removing residents to safer areas, Human Rights Watch said today", no reason to exclude. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just for starters, this new text includes content about human shields (which is another section!): The human rights agency had also received reports of the use of human shields. [176] OHCHR documented the consequences of these fighting tactics in the case of a care house in Stara Krasnianka where the Ukrainian army had set up a firing position without first evacuating the residents, and in the case of a school in Yahidne, where 360 residents including 74 children were held captive by Russian forces for almost a month.[176]. Indeed, I understand that the incident in Yahidne (but not in Stara Krasnianka) was described as the use of human shields. So this should be moved to another section. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are other issues. The report by Amnesty was criticized so widely it should not be included on this page, but rather belongs to "Criticism of Amnesty" page (where it is already included). We do not need every mentioning of the issue in sources, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because the report from Amnesity was criticised is not justification for it removal.  The section already covers the criticism, plus the report is the crux of the “Placement of military objectives near civilian objects” section, removing it makes no sense. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Kupiansk convoy shooting
Can someone move the content from this section in the attacks on civilians article (Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) to the "Shooting at passing civilian vehicles" section here? i think that part fits better here. 2804:14D:4482:46D:F1BE:2484:A2FC:7B4 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

more work needed on the indiscriminate attacks section
we should provide a summary on investigations and stuff on that section, but leave info on individual attacks to the Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, although id suggest adding more information to that section, as it became a bit too small after i removed info on individual attacks.. SnoopyBird (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Both Russia and Ukraine tortured prisoners of war, UN says
The U.N. human rights office (OHCHR) said on Tuesday that both Russia and Ukraine have tortured prisoners of war during the nearly nine-month conflict, citing examples including the use of electric shocks and forced nudity... Asked to compare the scale of the abuses by both sides, Bogner said the mistreatment of Ukrainian prisoners by Russians was "fairly systematic" whereas she said it was "not systematic" for Ukraine to mistreat Russian soldiers. Endwise (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reuters article
 * UN (OHCHR) report

Need input at Torture in Ukraine.
The linked page desperately needs more eyes. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

split the article?
the article seems to be getting too big (i mean, if we are going to include all cases of war crimes here, the article will be enormous), id say we split it into other articles and leave only summaries here (as well as links to these articles).

examples: "Use of human shields in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" "Looting in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (or something similar) "Treatment of prisioners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (we could also fit in general mistreatment and exposure of POWs in that article) "Deportation of Ukrainian civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (maybe merge with the abductions of children and filtration camps article to make a single, bigger one) "Torture and murder of civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (or something similar) SnoopyBird (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reasonable suggestion. Except that I would remove "2022". Just "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is pretty much a "common name" by now, and it will obviously continue in 2023 and possibly beyond. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea, makes sense considering that we are already in november, and the war may just continue into next year. SnoopyBird (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The pundits seem to agree that winter weather will severely impede if not stop any major initiative Elinruby (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhhhhh.... what? how does this have to do with anything here?SnoopyBird (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2022
Per suggestion of Random Fan Camping in User talk:Random Fan Camping. Please add that russian soldiers hanged hamsters on trees for fun in Kherson. Sources: Thanks in advance, - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 14:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1592151435726454785
 * 2) https://ecopolitic.com.ua/en/news/na-hersonshhini-rosijski-vijskovi-zhorstoko-vbili-hom-yakiv-2/
 * 3) https://www.newsweek.com/russian-soldiers-execute-animals-ukraine-says-1759461
 * 4) https://fakty.com.ua/en/ukraine/20221114-povisyly-na-gilkah-okupanty-znushhalysya-z-chervonoknyzhnyh-homyakiv-na-hersonshhyni/
 * 5) https://www.ibtimes.com/russian-soldiers-torture-animals-theyre-executed-hanging-ukraine-photo-3635856
 * As horrible and perhaps illustrative as this is, it's not a war crime. I don't know, maybe we need an article on Animal abuse by Russian forces during 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There's so much stuff like this.  Volunteer Marek   00:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User was apparently blocked, so i dont know about this, also, newsweek, twitter and ibtimes are not very reliable, only one that is reliable as i see is fakty (Fakty i Kommentarii) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnoopyBird (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: lacks consensus for inclusion. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Can someone add, maybe a side framed box...
"No matter what motivated the criminals, there can be no justification for crimes against civilians, particularly against women and children," Putin 31 Dec 2013 2404:4408:638C:5E00:3DE6:B2A4:FA9D:DD74 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence
I asked this before without an adequate response. Why is the first sentence of the article talking exclusively about "Russian war crimes" when the actual article acknowledges in multiple instances that war crimes were committed by both sides? That seems like a clearcut violation of NPOV and an incorrect summary of the article by the first sentence. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:4C40:BDA7:1D18:62A (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. The drafting of the lead has been the subject of harsh and repeated controversy among the editors. Any reference to Ukrainian war crimes has been labelled as WP:UNDUE and removed from the lead, disregarding the fact that Ukrainian war crimes are extensively covered in the article. Several editors argued that UNDUE requires balance between different viewpoints, assigning a weight proportional to their importance in reliable sources, rather than the suppression of a significant viewpoint that has been published in reliable sources, that is silencing. The lead needs to be modified because as it is now it doesn't comply with either WP:NPOV or MOS:LEAD. It doesn't reflect the content of the article and is also too long. I take the liberty of pinging @K.e.coffman, asking them to please help the discussion by proposing a draft, or at least to help us involve the editors who have not yet sunk deep into Eastern European disputes. I have already had my fair share here and would be happy to step back from this discussion if other regulars would follow my example and let fresh forces have their say.
 * P.S.
 * A separate but related issue is the long-postponed writing of the lead to Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. That lead should supplement the section Indiscriminate attacks, attacks against civilian targets of this article, which is currently very outdated and incomplete. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose because Russia invaded, incontrovertible proof exist, civilian were tortured, shot, tied up and shot imprisoned, raped etc etc, it probably needs a very small note, near the bottom of the lead, "Russia has accused Ukrainian forces of xxx", however, I would think it is a political ploy 90% of the time and 10% revenge from Ukr forces, not an excuse. As an example today report of possible peace talks, rebuffed by Putin, as "France cannot admit the 2014-22 repression of DPR", ignoring Russia direct involvement, proven in Mar 2014 security forces transferred from Crimea, proven in 2015 artillery strike, plus money, advice arms etc etc. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:3DE6:B2A4:FA9D:DD74 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mention of Ukrainian war crimes is given DUE and proportionate weight in the third paragraph of the lead. That being said, the lead does probably need some updates to more accurately represent the current state of the conflict.   Shadybabs (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)