Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 24

Unjustified removal of an Amnesty International statement on human shields.
Part removed:

Amnesty International condemned the Ukrainian army's combat tactics that endanger civilians. Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, stated that "We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas [...] Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law".

Two users are removing this part giving vague reasons:
 * "I believe we already covered this, if not here then on related articles" - User:Volunteer Marek
 * "not related to human shields" - User:Shadybabs

Please could you explain why Amensty International's statement should be removed, while statements like "Russia has repeatedly accused Ukraine of using human shields, a claim which has been rejected by scholars Michael N. Schmitt, Neve Gordon, and Nicola Perugini as an attempt to shift blame for civilian deaths to Ukraine." are left alone in the "Ukrainian forces" section? Per WP:Balance we must report the two arguments. Mhorg (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Scholars of international and military law went on social media to reject the human shield claim. They said the report contained poor phrasing that muddied legal distinctions and ignored the combat conditions in Ukraine."
 * "United Nations war crimes investigator Marc Garlasco, tweeting in a personal capacity Friday, accused Amnesty International of “getting the law wrong” and said Ukraine was taking steps to protect civilians, such as helping them relocate."
 * "Ukrainian authorities at the national and regional levels have repeatedly urged residents of frontline areas to evacuate, although tens of thousands of people who left their homes since Russia’s invasion have returned after running out of support or feeling unwelcome."
 * https://www.timesofisrael.com/amnestys-ukraine-chief-quits-over-report-accusing-country-of-using-human-shields/
 * This is a classic example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance. Shadybabs (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So at first it was "not related to human shields", now we have moved on to the "False Balance"? Important statements like those of Amensty International cannot be removed with these arguments. Nothing like this has ever happened. Mhorg (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Amnesty's report makes no mention of "human shields" so its inclusion is questionable at best. Additionally, the report received significant criticism, so if it were added, when criticism it received would also need to be included, which would require us to dedicate significant attention to something that's inclusion is dubious at best to start with.--Staberinde (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition of a human shield is just that, and indeed you can see what is stated in the 'Human Shields' section: "According to Human Rights Watch, both Russian and Ukrainian armies have based their forces in populated areas without first evacuating the residents, thus exposing them to unnecessary risks".
 * If the report has been criticised, I have nothing against reporting the criticism. But to delete an Amnesty International report with the reasons above, I see it as potentially sanctionable behaviour. That is my opinion. Mhorg (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this should be included. There is no policy that says that criticised content should not be included. Alaexis¿question? 20:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would also agree that these details should be included. The details could also be included in the the Human shield article as this only includes Russia's use of Human shields. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how it plays out, but WP:PARITY is relevant here. I don't think this one is a slam dunk. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

When one starts talking about "definition", it would be nice to have actually familiarized oneself with the actual definition. The definition of human shields is deliberately using civilians to shield your military against enemy attack, or as it is written in Geneva Convention: Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population 7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. Jailing civilians at a military object matches pretty well. On other hand, defending army using protective urban terrain that hasn't been properly evacuated during an all-out surprise invasion? Not so obvious at all. To illustrate how difference exists and matters, from Amnesty 2009 report about Operation Cast Lead: Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups also violated international humanitarian law in their conduct within Gaza. They launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. They also used empty homes and properties as combat positions during armed confrontations with Israeli forces, exposing the inhabitants of nearby houses to the danger of attacks or of being caught in the crossfire. However, contrary to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of “human shields”, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. It found no evidence that Hamas or other armed groups forced residents to stay in or around buildings used by fighters, nor that fighters prevented residents from leaving buildings or areas which had been commandeered by militants. (pages 3-4) I would also note that Amnesty did not hesitate to explicitly blame Israel for use of "human shields" in that same report (page 48), so the fact that it is not stated as such in Ukraine report is very much relevant. Trying to "balance" cases where multiple reliable sources have actually reported Russians using human shields, with a report which only blames Ukraine for endangering civilians but makes no clear claim about use of human shields would be quite clearly a false balance. We should stick here with sources which actually explicitly talk about military using civilians as shields, and not rely on curious alternative definitions wikipedians can come up.--Staberinde (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. "We should stick here with sources which actually explicitly talk about military using civilians as shields, and not rely on curious alternative definitions wikipedians can come up"
 * OK, in which case we have to rewrite this section of the article, since it does not contain any cases of human shields: "According to Human Rights Watch, both Russian and Ukrainian armies have based their forces in populated areas without first evacuating the residents, thus exposing them to unnecessary risks. On 29 June, also the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern about Russian armed forces and pro-Russian armed groups as well as Ukrainian forces taking up positions close to civilian objects without taking measures for protecting the civilians".
 * 2. I still don't see how one can seriously defend the removal of an Amnesty International report. If I am not mistaken, I understand that there is consensus for the report to be restored. Right?
 * 3. Report of OHCHR actually talks about Human Shields cases by Ukrainian Armed Forces. Therefore, it must be added in the article, together with Amnesty report:
 * Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields 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, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for the protection of civilians present, as required under IHL.16 OHCHR is further concerned by reports of the use of human shields, which involves seeking to use the presence or movement of the civilian population or individual civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I. 35. OHCHR does not have reliable numbers on these cases, but the case of a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) has been emblematic in this regard. At the beginning of March 2022, when active hostilities drew nearer to the care house, its management repeatedly requested local authorities to evacuate the residents. This was reportedly impossible as Ukrainian armed forces had allegedly mined the surrounding area and blocked roads. On 7 March, soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces entered the care house, where older persons and residents with disabilities and staff were located, as it had strategic value due to its proximity to an important road. On 9 March, soldiers from Russian affiliated armed groups, who were approaching from the opposite direction, engaged in an exchange of fire with soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces, although it remains unclear which side opened fire first. During this first exchange of fire, no staff or patients were injured. 36. On 11 March, 71 patients with disabilities and 15 staff, along with soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces, remained in the care house with no access to water or electricity. That morning, soldiers from Russian affiliated armed groups attacked the care house with heavy weapons, with patients and staff still inside. A fire started and spread across the care house while fighting was ongoing. Some staff and patients fled the care house and ran into the forest, until they were met five kilometers away by Russian affiliated armed groups, who provided them with assistance. According to various accounts, at least 22 patients survived the attack, but the exact number of persons killed remains unknown. Mhorg (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Indeed, the current state where HRW and OHCHR general statements about placing civilians in risk are listed under "Use of human shields" heading is clearly problematic. In case these statements are retained, there definitely should be some adjustments to sections/headings, to make sure that under title "human shields" we have only cases explicitly described as such.
 * 2. I don't see here any consensus about Amnesty report.
 * 3. As for OHCHR report, please read the report (page 13) carefully. First off, the heading is not solely about human shields but more general Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields. As it happens, while report does describe Ukrainians placing military objectives near civilian objects, it makes no claim of Stara Krasnianka case being an actual attempt to use civilians to shield oneself against enemy attacks. This clearly contrasts to the same section's description of Russian army behavior at Yahidne where the report explicitly states: The incident raises concerns that Russian armed forces used civilians to seek to render their base immune from military operations, .... We need to stick to information that is explicitly supported by the source.--Staberinde (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Pentagon blocking sharing of evidence with the ICC should be mentioned
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/us/politics/pentagon-war-crimes-hague.html Chin2021 (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, the affair is important. It must be added. Mhorg (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Amensty report highlighting war crimes committed by Ukriane.
As usual

@Volunteer Marek is removing Amnesty report on War crimes committed by Ukrianian forces, to give a santized version of how holy are Ukrianian forces.

They only job of this guy here for past 6 months is to remove this exact same Amnesty report each time Proud Indian Arnab (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If you have anything constructive to say besides whining, say it Gemar145 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Amnesty international report makes no mention of ukrainian war crimes. They accused Ukraine of endangering civilian lives by operating in the vincinity of civilian areas, which even if true do not constitute war crimes. You should have read the source. On top of the fact that these do not constitute war crimes, these allegations have not been supported by physical evidence or other sources on the ground, so they have no place in this article. Givibidou (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Pushing some of the more outlandish claims of Russian "War Crimes"?
Clearly, "War crimes in the invasion of Ukraine" is a loaded title.So, if this acticle is to be seen as fair and balanced - and not pushing some US Point Of View - might it not be called: 'War crimes in the Russian/Ukraine conflict'? While war crimes happen on both side, do not some of the more wild and outlandish claims of Russian human rights outrages from the Ukrainian Govt need to be full addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.107 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that a better NPOV name for the article could be "War crimes in Russo-Ukrainian war". Mhorg (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Any particular reason why Ukrainian war crimes are not highlighted?
Or are we to think the Ukrainian soldiers are angels and would never even think of it? This whole article loses credibility. The excuses used here as to the removal of the amnesty report is exactly the reason why more and more people are not supporting wikipedia. As much as you would love to censor subject matter that goes against your agenda or ideals you will never remove the doubt and lack of credibility for this article. Report both sides because everyone knows Ukraine is capable of war crimes as well otherwise your hypocrisy is showing. 2603:8001:600:A600:D7AC:CBC3:D156:14C9 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you propose adding something specific? Please make sure that it's supported by reliable sources. Alaexis¿question? 20:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We do highlight some Ukrainian crimes. Here is an excerpt from the article text: as prisoners of war held by both Ukrainian and Russian/separatist forces were repeatedly abused,[30] exposed to public curiosity,[31] and in some cases tortured[32][33] and/or killed. That said, a big part is WP:DUE. While there have been some Ukrainian times, the Russian ones have been more frequent, more extensive, and, critically for purposes of WP:DUE, much better covered. The article appropriately reflects that. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you may be concerned about the neutral point of view, and yes, Ukraine have committed some war crimes (according to FN 30 to 32), but as an independent, crowdsourced encyclopaedia, we are try to add information from both sides to ensure that Wikipedia is reliable. And there may be some people against Russia that may have tried to balance the article against Ukraine, but they should have been reverted by now, and that’s why it is extended protected.  Brachy 08  (Talk)  (Contribs)  01:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably because there arent any (or as many) due the fact they are in defence? LeeMarx (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Kinda.  Brachy 08  (Talk)  (Contribs)  04:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Subjects to add
The section on sexual violence might benefit from a mention of the infamous phone call where a Russian soldier asked his wife for permission to rape Ukrainian women during his service (https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-rape-russian-soldier-wife-bykovsky/31805486.html). The wife was placed on an international wanted list: https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/russian-wife-soldier-husband-rape-ukrainian-women-international-wanted-list/

The section on national legal proceedings should also probably mention the reports that a Ukrainian soldier was indicted in Russia on charges of murder and mistreatment of civilians (https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/17113235) and later pleaded "partly guilty" (https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/ukraine-soldier-pleads-partly-guilty-to-war-crime-c-10257505), and that Russian tank commander Mykhail Kulikov was convicted of violating the laws and customs of war by shelling a civilian target (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/1819). 213.31.56.201 (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023
On 13 June 2023, Russian troops murdered 6 civilians in Sumy Oblast near Seredyna-Buda, mutilated their bodies, and then mined the place to kill people who tried to retrieve their bodies. They also blocked retrieval of bodies for 2 more days. This case is currently being investigated by Ukrainian authorities.

Sources: 1) prosecutor's office of Ukraine 2) https://tsn.ua/exclusive/rosiyska-drg-rozstrilyala-6-lisivnikiv-na-sumschini-i-pivtori-dobi-znuschalas-z-drona-podrobici-tragediyi-2350810.html?fbclid=IwAR2I0i6Gsa8Y15oHbYa5K6y2XkXG62GvF63l4_qC4zVbKwomBp4O1Pi49Ls 3) https://suspilne.media/507121-vnaslidok-artobstrilu-u-sostkinskomu-rajoni-zaginulo-sestero-lisnikiv-u-prokuraturi-vidkrili-kriminalne-provadzenna/

(Sadly, this case didn't get any foreign coverage, but these victims were family friends and i don't want this evil Russian act to be forgotten...) 2A00:102A:5002:8750:7D56:5855:1812:BC07 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cherrell410 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction
Can someone change "an Ukrainian" to "a Ukrainian", please. Jenny Jankel (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Prolog (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC on killings of suspected collaborators
This RfC concerns whether and how the article should report about killings of suspected collaborators of the Russian occupiers.

Option 1 (status quo). The article should not include a section on killings of suspected collaborators of the Russian occupiers.

Option 2 (proposed text). The article should include a section as the one proposed here below.

Option 3 (different text). The article should include a section different from the one proposed (specify how).

Extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators
As of 30 August nearly a dozen people had been killed and others injured in assassination attempts on collaborationists and Russian-appointed officials in the occupied territories. Some of the attacks against high-ranking political collaborators were allegedly conducted by Ukrainian partisans led and trained by Ukrainian special forces.

On 2 March 2022 Volodymyr Struk, a pro-Russian mayor in the town of Kremnina, was abducted and shot dead by unknown gunmen. An advisor to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, Anton Herashchenko, reported that Struk had been “judged by the public tribunal and apparently shot by unknown patriots as a traitor".

On 8 September, the Washington Post reported a wave of assassinations and attempted killings against Russian-appointed officials and Ukrainian collaborators, as Ukrainian hit squads and saboteurs gunned down, blown up, hanged and poisoned almost 20 people considered to be collaborators of the puppet governments of Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics. The assassination campaign was described as raising questions "about extrajudicial killings and potential war crimes, particularly when the targets are political actors or civilians".

On 27 September, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights documented six killings of alleged "traitors" of Ukraine. The victims were local authority officials, policemen and civilians who were believed to have voluntarily cooperated with the enemy. According to OHCHR, these killings may have been committed by government agents or with their acquiescence and could constitute extrajudicial executions and war crimes.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option 1 for the following reasons.
 * 1) RS usually do not define such Ukrainian partisan activities during this war as war crimes, but rather as activities that are potentially illegal under international law and need to be investigated and qualified on a case by case basis. This is something debatable. For example, "the legality and whether the murky area they [Ukrainian partisans] inhabit does in fact fall under international law — and whether their activities violate those rules — is a matter for debate. . This is different from some other resistance movements or organizations, such as Hamas that indeed was accused of war crimes, as can be easily sourced. No, Washington Post and OHCHR sources do not assert that the killings of Russian collaborators during this war were a war crime by the Ukrainian side. At best, they say this is something debatable, hence the relevance to this page is doubtful. These and other sources say it is not even known who committed these killings and if all of the deaths were killings.
 * 2) Something like killing Nazi and their collaborators by resistance fighters is not considered a war crime, although it does qualify as extrajudicial killings. This is a very close example.
 * 3) I think this content belong to other pages, such as Partisan_(military). This page is already very big. I do not think that including more materials on questionable or poorly documented "war crimes" improves it. The actual war crimes on enormous scale are committed by Russian forces during this war. Why can't we focus on them on this page? WP:GEVAL please. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking about "Option 3", I think users who prefer such option should propose specific text to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is also an improperly framed RfC . It had to include only options "1" and "2", i.e. "I suggest such and such text, "yes" on "no", please". Period. Based on the previous similarly framed RfC on this page, in the case of closing as "option 3", Gitz6666 simply wants to include his version that he will call a compromise version, i.e. and demand that other users accept his version or "else" .  My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The framing of the RfC was the subject of this discussion between Adoring Nanny and me: . Note that Adoring Nanny !voted option 1, as you did. We did our best to propose a properly framed RfC, and I believe this one is. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am saying that option 3 ("The article should include a section different from the one proposed (specify how).") is not an appropriate option for any RfC. To be definitive, an RfC must include all alternative versions of the text from the beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2 for the following reasons..
 * 1) We have good sources (Washington Post and OHCHR) saying that the killing of collaborators and perceived traitors may be a war crime, and I see no valid reason not to include this section in the article. Until trials are held and final sentences are handed down, it will always be questionable whether a war crime took place, which is why most reliable sources use cautious, hypothetical language. We should do the same: we don’t know all the facts. But in this respect there is nothing different from the other war crimes reported in this article, which are often (according to the sources) "potential", "possible", "alleged", "reportedly", etc. – and yet we usually include them in this article, and rightly so.
 * 2) False analogies are misleading. The killing of Nazi Germany’s collaborators during WW2 took place before the adoption of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (1949) (Persons taking no active part in the hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely) and the 1977 Additional Protocols. (By the way, it should be noted that at the time the opposite case was much more frequent: during WW2 Germany executed thousands of civilian "spies", "traitors" and "saboteurs". It is estimated that they sentenced 30,000 people to death for treason or desertion, 20,000 of whom were executed. Yet the Nuremberg Tribunal did not condemn high treason cases as crimes against humanity precisely because at the time international law, and in particular the law of armed conflict, was different from today – so no meaningful comparisons can be made.) However, the case of the killing by Hamas of Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel is comparable, and it has been considered a war crime by the United Nations (for references, see my comment above).
 * 3) This is not about giving "equal validity" and creating a "false balance". Obviously most of the war crimes in Ukraine were committed by the Russian army, but I don't see how this is a reason not publish any possible war crimes committed by the Ukrainian army. Due to nationalist POV-pushing, reporting about possible Ukrainian war crimes has always required extensive discussions among editors, but NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, and the topic of this article is not "Russian war crimes in Ukraine", but "war crimes in Ukraine". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You say that the analogy with killing of Nazi Germany’s collaborators during WW2 was false. Why? Yes, it was during a different time, but other than that it is almost the same. An invading aggressor that commits a war of extermination, etc. Yes, the ideology to justify the aggression and genocide was a little different, but not that much different. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, the law has changed since then. Admittedly during WW2 partisans occasionally targeted Nazi Germany's collaborators who were seen as "traitors" (although not to the same extent as the Nazis did). When these collaborationists were civilians who had not taken part in hostilities, it can be difficult to retrospectively justify these actions, as in the 1960s was already clear to anyone who had seen the scenes of Hiroshima mon amour about les femmes tondues. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on your response, you agree that WW2 partisans targeting Nazi Germany's collaborators would be a similar case, but such targeting would be considered a war crime by today's standards. Yes, perhaps a few certain actions by some of such groups could be considered as war crimes today, but in general, no. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 3  The proposed text is a start, but can be improved (I posted a comment in the discussion below). It looks like the start of a list of all suspected partisan killings, implying that they all may be suspected war crimes, and encouraging the addition of every suspected partisan killing. I’m opposed to that. The focus should be on the 6 actually suspected war crimes according to the UN, giving necessary background from other journalistic sources, and link to appropriate articles on the separate subject like Ukrainian resistance during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 16:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this most recent UN report ? I do not see it mentioning the alleged killings of Russian collaborators anywhere, although it does mention a couple of other things by the Ukrainian side. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going strictly by the proposed text above, last paragraph. Did not check the sources, but the link is this one. —Michael Z. 18:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. This is an earlier report. It includes one short paragraph (whole report is 49 pages) which says "OHCHR documented six killings of civilians perceived as so-called ‘traitors’ against Ukraine for their alleged collaboration with the Russian Federation in territory occupied by it or controlled by Russian armed forces or affiliated armed groups since 24 February. 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 did not even say which 6 persons they mean. Three things. (1) It says "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 far cry from asserting that war crimes have been in fact committed (hence, this hardly belongs this page). (2) Given very small amount of space dedicated in this report to the subject under discussion, I do not think this is due on this page. (3) The report is not about war crimes, it is on the "human rights situation " which is a much wider subject. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 3, Oppose Option 2 It looks like the sourcing is good enough for at least inclusion of this topic on this page. However I believe that option 2 is giving too much weight and is not being careful enough in the way it frames things. Given the fairly brief and uncertain mentions of these killings or activities as war crimes in sources, and the fact that these are not universally regarded in sources as war crimes or something similar, I think care needs to be taken not to imply in any way that there is certainty these are war crimes. By listing the killings first, as well as titling it "Extrajudicial Executions of suspected collaborators" it is giving the implication that these killings have been carried out by the Ukrainian government in an organized manner, as well as the implication that there is some certainty that these are war crimes and belong on this page. If there is a title, it should be something more neutral, such as "Killings of collaborators and suspected collaborators", and the section should open with the question of whether these are war crimes and the question of who perpretrated them. It could then give some more detail, but it should only include detail from sources that include that these killings may have been war crimes, in order to avoid any possible WP:OR, and to comply with due weight.


 * I think overall this section should be brief, given the relatively brief treatment this topic (killings of collaborators as war crimes) has received in sources, and it should be mostly focused on the question of whether these are war crimes and who perpetrated them. Compared to the total number of war crimes committed by the Russian side and the sheer amount of coverage of those crimes in reliable sources, any more than a brief summary here is undue.--Tristario (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1 At this point there simply isn’t adequate sourcing to support such a section. There are one or maybe two sources which mention that the targeting of collaborators “maybe” or “potentially” is a war crime but that more investigation is needed. Likewise the status of such an activity is also unclear. And again, this is another attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE where some folks feel the need to invent Ukrainian war crimes to “balance” the much more numerous and much better documented and sourced Russian war crimes. Which violates NPOV.  Volunteer Marek   06:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2 without the second paragraph (about the killing of Struk) which has not been described as a war crime. OHCHR and other organisations usually use measured language and stop short of saying something was definitely a war crime (e.g. "OHCHR notes that forcing civilians to serve in Russian-affiliated armed groups may amount to compelling them to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power, which constitutes a war crime"). The article describes a lot of alleged war crimes and there is no reason not to mention these ones. Alaexis¿question? 07:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2, as per User:Gitz6666. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the fence between options 1 and 3, probably slightly favor 1, but it's close. Oppose option 2. If something about this is to be included, I would delete the paragraph about Struk, and the version would discuss "killings" and would not use the term "extrajudicial". I think the question of whether or not such an option 3 is WP:UNDUE is currently borderline. I slightly think that it is WP:UNDUE, but it's a close call that could reasonably go either way. That said, a new level of war crime, such as a nuclear explosion, major nuclear contamination, or large-scale flooding caused by a war crime, would push me into a clear belief that option 3 would be WP:UNDUE and support for option 1. Such a major war crime would push this into "you stole a pencil" territory by comparison.Adoring nanny (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 (invited by the bot) Include neutrally worded information about what has occurred in those areas. So, provide information, not characterization.   Wording like option #2 contains much "spinning up" and characterization. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 While it is what it is, the majority of RS has not called it such. Firestar464 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2, the proposed sources are important enough to create such a section.--Mhorg (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1, but I'm open to option 3 for a rewritten section. As it stands, the sources don't have any clear cases of the Ukrainian military or officials killing civilian administrators - thus far, the sources only have cases of Ukrainian officials targeting military collaborators (non-civilians).  Non government Ukrainian partisan groups killing collaborators would be an example of political terrorism, but not war crimes.  Notably, the Washington Post source says "raises the question about war crimes" while not actually attributing that label to any specific event.  None of the events in the current proposal have clear enough sourcing to be described directly as a war crime, but I would be okay with something more along the lines of "Russian officials have accused the Ukrainian government of war crimes through involvement in assassinations against civilian politicians.  Ukrainian officials deny involvement and claim these acts were done by insurgents."  And of course, in interests of NPOV, this section must also include details of the accusations against Russia for their own use of political assassinations.--Shadybabs (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Non government Ukrainian partisan groups killing collaborators would be an example of political terrorism, but not war crimes. Actually war crimes can be committed also by civilians, and the same action may qualify both as "terrorism" under national criminal law and as a "war crime" under IHL if there's a nexus with an armed conflict. The OHCHR report says (para. 40) "As such, these killings may amount to extrajudicial executions and war crimes, and should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly". The OHCHR is referring to six documented killings of civilians perceived as "traitors", which "may have been perpetrated by agents of the Government of Ukraine or with their acquiescence". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment Inclusion or not should be based on sourcing, WP:DUE, and WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources here are fine. WP:DUE requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by RSs. It doesn't justify silencing a viewpoint once it has been expressed in RSs. WP:DUE allows the most discredited viewpoints to be omitted altogether, but this is clearly not the case: we have no less than OHCHR, OSCE and WaPo, all raising concerns about the possibility of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ”possibility of serious violations of international humanitarian law” is a funny way of saying “none of these sources call this a war crime”. Indeed if I’m not mistaken OHCHR specifically says there were TWO (of course a lot more for Russia) incidents of Ukrainian war crimes and NEITHER of these was this stuff.  Volunteer Marek   13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The key phrase in WP:DUE, I think, is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So the fact that something has appeared in a WP:RS, is not in and of itself sufficient. It has to be proportionate. "Proportionate" may or may not be zero, and it may become a judgment call. The bit about Volodymyr Struk, for example, to me seemed disproportionate, even though it has appeared in WP:RS. I also agree that we should consider the level of certainty the source expresses that something was a war crime. Just today I came across this article on the proposed evacuation from Kherson, which has a more definitive statement: The transfer or deportation of civilians by an occupying power from occupied territory is considered a war crime. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek, re if I’m not mistaken, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I don't know where you got this "two war crimes" figure, but the OHCHR speaks explicitly of a possible war crime in the case of the extrajudicial killing of suspected traitors. I copy and paste the text of the source below, as it may be of interest to all (emphasis mine).
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The “two incidents” are in one of the OHCHR reports. Regardless, the point is that this a huge stretch since all that this report says is that these “MAY” be “war crimes” but that more investigation is needed. This has been repeated and pointed out to you several times now.  Volunteer Marek   06:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the evidence that these killings could be war crimes. BUT even if that's the case, I'm skeptical that the relatively small number of killings is WP:DUE, when contrasted with the mass graves that are routinely found in areas that have been retaken by Ukrainian forces. If the sourcing is at the same level, then OK, but I'm not currently seeing it. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but it is based on a wrong assessment of the space we assign to war crimes in relation to media coverage. For example, the "E40 highway shooting" section is based on a single BBC article; the section "Killings and torture in Trostianets" is based on one article from the Guardian, one from the Independent and one from the NYT. The (very large) section "Shooting at passing civilian vehicles" is entirely based on a Human Rights Watch report, supplemented with a few newspaper reports on individual incidents. The section "Overt command to kill civilians" is based on an unverified audio recording distributed by the German intelligence service, which received very little media coverage. Also the level of details of the proposed section doesn't compare with other sections, e.g. "Looting" (an image reportedly showing a damaged Russian military truck carrying three washing machines ... a call by a Russian soldier released by the Security Service of Ukraine included the soldier telling his girlfriend: "I stole some cosmetics for you") and "Sexual violence" (A 52 year old woman was taken by Russian soldiers in occupied Izyum and repeatedly raped while her husband was beaten. The Russians forcibly undressed her, groped her, and told her that they would send photos of the activity to her family members, and it goes on an on for 137 words based on only one source). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The number of sources about an event referenced in the article is not measure of its coverage in sources or notability. —Michael Z. 16:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, it's the amount of sourcing that exists about the topic, not the amount of sourcing the article refers to. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't affect my argument, does it? The amount of sources referring to the topic of "killings of collaborationists in Ukraine" is vast, and far greater than those referring to, say, "E40 highway shooting", "Overt command to kill civilians", or to single war crimes that we cover extensively. The notability of the topic is obvious, and indeed we already have articles on Ukrainian resistance during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (reporting the killing and wounding of various pro-Russian activists and Russian-appointed officials), Collaboration with Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Volodymyr Struk, which are based on dozens of sources. Now we have Washington Post and the OHCHR claiming that some of these actions may amount to war crimes (which, by the way, in some cases is pretty obvious: the killing of a pro-Russian blogger, the killing of a journalist and politician , the killing in a car bomb blast of the head of "families, youth, and sports" department in Kherson , the killing of an elected mayor , the non-fatal car bomb blast attack on the head of the education department in Melitopol - not to mention the killing of Daria Dugina ) and I don't see why we should suppress this information on the dedicated article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the amount of sources is so vast, then why did you link six wherein none mention war crimes and only one mentions the Ukrainian military at all (“‘successful work of partisans’ directed by Ukraine's armed forces”)? For all we know, five of these are infighting among corrupt Russian officials or killings by the locals, and nothing to do with war crimes. —Michael Z. 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is right, but I am not suggesting that these killings be reported in the article. My argument is that the topic "killings of collaborationists in Ukraine" is undoubtedly encyclopaedic and widely covered in the sources. The OHCHR's assertion that some of these killings might constitute a war crime cannot be considered a minority view or an extraordinary claim as it comes from the most authoritative independent RS available and is prima facie plausible. Taking into account the way we covered other subjects in the article (trivial subjects such as looting, contents supported by worse sources, contents presented in excessive detail) my impression is that UNDUE arguments should not prevent the inclusion of the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. But my position remains that OHCHR’s assessment should be mentioned, but a speculative (on our part) list of killings should not.
 * (Actual war crimes are not trivial.) —Michael Z. 23:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should prefer using the most recent report by UN, such as because their views/conclusions change after receiving new data. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should prefer using the most recent report by UN, such as because their views/conclusions change after receiving new data. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment  The proposed text begs some questions, especially about the context of the killings. The first paragraph I presume is setting the context of partisan killings, because neither reference mentions war crimes. Okay. A couple of the sources seem to break down the victims into two categories: 1) collaborators or alleged “traitors,” and 2) Russian-appointed officials. I presume “Russian-appointed officials” may include Russians from Russia working for the Russian “military–civil administrations” – are their killings considered among potential war crimes? So are all of the 18-odd attempts and killings mentioned potential war crimes? It looks like the UN OHCHR is only considering 6 of them. The proposed text also omits some important context from the sources, including that partisans target Russian military, and that “it is impossible to verify whether all the attacks have been the work of Ukrainian partisans, and not, for example, infighting among the Russian-installed authorities,” which has been going on since 2014. —Michael Z. 16:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

On having a different shared version of the text
I'd be happy if we could come out of this RfC with a shared text. Those who !voted for option 3, Michael and Tristario, gave some indications, and also Alaexis said that they would drop the information on Struk. On this also Adoring nanny agrees. I agree with My very best wishes that it would be desirable if users who prefer option 3 were to propose a specific text to be included: maybe those who favour option 1 and 2 could also agree on that text. So I created this page where editors could modify the proposed text so as to make it more acceptable for everybody: Draft on collaborators. I already dropped the contentious paragraph on Struk. This section of the talk can be used for discussions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes (as described here above) the Draft on collaborators. Please change it as you think it's best in order to achieve a consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure?
Apparently this RfC isn't getting much traction, but we may already have a rough consensus. Apart from two/three editors, everybody agrees that we should have a section on killing of collaborators and, apart from one/two editors, everybody agrees that the proposed text needs to be modified. Option 3 is the middle ground most of us agree on. I think the following result could be OK to many: Would this be acceptable? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's drop any reference to Struk.
 * The section should not become the start of a list of all suspected partisan killings, implying that they all may be suspected war crimes, and encouraging the addition of every suspected partisan killing (Michael's concern).
 * The section needs to be brief (Tristario's concern).
 * Replace "extrajudicial execution" with "(wilful) killing of collaborators" (as proposed by Tristario and Adoring nanny) in the title and elsewhere in the text, perhaps with the exception of the last paragraph, where it is the source itself (OHCHR) that uses the "extrajudicial execution" terminology.
 * Let Michael's and other editors have the changes they have proposed, i.e. provide necessary background from other journalistic sources, and link to appropriate articles on the separate subject like Ukrainian resistance and provide more information about the context of the killings, or modify the information already provided, if it's faulty or misleading.
 * Sounds good. Alaexis¿question? 13:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no. You and Gitz are doing "that thing" again. That thing where you declare you have consensus even though you very clearly don't. Gitz if I'm not mistaken has already been warned about this tendency of his.  Volunteer Marek   20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As with the word "extrajudicial", I would not use the word "wilful". The vast majority of the killings in this article are wilful. The people were killed. I think that is enough. Also, in the absence of any closure, we shouldn't say that assume that any particular version is supported by RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's drop the "wilful". It would me disappointing if an editor were to remove the section or modufy it significantly claiming that there's no consensus, so maybe we should also ask for a formal closure, which will be straightforward if there's a clear consensus on a middle ground solution. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As a general matter, a formal closure is probably a good idea. It may take longer than you want it to, but it does tend to happen. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Shall I ask for it already? And is it OK if I publish this draft as a middle ground/Option 3 solution? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's obviously no consensus for inclusion here.  Volunteer Marek   20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I requested a formal closure of this RfC . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey ? Remember how you were arguing so strongly that violence committed by one side against its own people was also a "war crime"? How come you're not rushing to include the brutal murder of a Russian mercenary with a blow of a sledgehammer to the head by the Wagner group  into this article?  Volunteer Marek  01:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You can believe me or not, but I ensure you that I've been looking for sources calling that killing a war crime almost every week since it happened, and also very recently - yesterday and the day before - without succeeding. I even made a search in Russian. I KNOW that it's a war crime but unfortunately so far I haven't been able to find anything. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Long Introduction Section
This article is good. Kudos to editors

The Introduction seems long and gets into both chronological and categorical types of war crimes.

If no objections I am going to try and tighten it up and reflect the text structure of the article overall. Jgmac1106 (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Is HRMMU United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine a primary source?
Many claims use United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports. Do people consider these primary sources that would violate independent research bias?

This would mean they should be replaced with secondary sources that cite the report.

Or do editors feel they are acceptable? Jgmac1106 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think they are mostly fine. They straddle the boundary between primary and secondary sources. To the extent that they are on the ground and report what they see, they can be considered a primary source. On the other hand, they also interview many other people, analyse and synthethise their accounts, making them a secondary source. Anyway, primary sources are not forbidden on Wikipedia (WP:PRIMARY). Do you have specific concerns about their reports? Alaexis¿question? 19:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but each article sometimes has it's own way to straddle depending on the context. Just wanted to make sure we had consensus as editors.
 * I kept all the information and sources. Just rearranged the text structure to organize it by specific War Crimes as the ICC would define by the Geneva Convention. Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can immediately say that the use of the materials of the speeches of the Ukrainian politician L.Denisova as a source casts strong doubt on the reliability of all the materials used. Denisova was accused of "of making insensitive and unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes and spending too much time in Western Europe during the invasion" . She was subsequently dismissed from the position of Ombudsman for Human Rights in Ukraine. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't even mention Denisova. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. As I understand it, the actual spelling of Denisov's name has been removed from the text. Only "ombudsman" is written. The spelling of the name using Cyrillic is also left. It is necessary to understand who rules the text, does not know the Cyrillic alphabet. But in Ukraine, it is the Cyrillic alphabet that is used. Therefore, the texts with the spelling "Денисова" remained. 95.25.21.222 (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Information added elsewhere
An IP editor has added some information about Russian war crimes - castrations - at the eponymous Castration article, in this edit:. I expect editors on this page are better able to evaluate that information than me. I'd be grateful if an editor here could glance over that edit to make sure it is in line with any discussions you have had here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

2 more sources to add to this article:
 * Breaches of the Genocide Convention in Ukraine and the Duty to Prevent // New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy; Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. — May 2022
 * The Russian Federation's Escalating Commission of Genocide in Ukraine: A Legal Analysis // New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy; Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. — July 2023 --Lanamy (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the article
Inaccuracy in the article: the article says "torture and mutilitation of Ukrainian prisoners of war" in the introduction, then lists the crimes of both sides in the next chapters. I propose to mention here also the Russians, after all, they were also tortured and murdered. 46.205.141.33 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)