Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 6

Claims of intent > Genocidal intent
The section "Claims of intent" and the subsection "Genocidal intent" do not belong to this article. Some of its contents could be added to What Russia should do with Ukraine and perhaps also to Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, but the section has nothing to do with war crimes. It deals with "hate crimes" and to "disinformation", not with war crimes/crimes against humanity. The notion that the genocidal intent of the Russian authorities and troops could be legally proved (in a future trial for a crime that has not yet been committed) pointing at the essay by a very minor Russian racist, Timofey Sergeytsev, is entirely speculative and at odds with WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:UNDUE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are sources which link these "claims of intent" to the behavior of Russian troops, particularly the war crimes committed, then that part would belong here. If it just discusses these "genocidal intent" without mentioning the war crimes, then you're right, it doesn't.  Volunteer Marek   23:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it mentions war crimes (Bucha), but just because Timothy D. Snyder finds it appalling that the "handbook" was published "two days after the first revelation that Russian servicemen in Ukraine had murdered hundreds of people in Bucha" - so it's particularly bad taste on the part of author; but if you're a racist or a fanatical nationalist, you are what you are before and after Bucha, I guess, and I don't see how this is relevant for us. Plus the author claims "From a legal perspective, the existence of such a text ... makes the charge of genocide far easier to make", but Snyder is not a lawyer, he's a historian, and if we were to report his point of view that would be WP:UNDUE and frankly digressive. If and when Russia will be charged with genocide and the Prosecutor will use this heinous pamphlet as evidence of something, then we will mention the fact; in the meantime, it's just talk, people exchanging views, and WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:UNDUE suggest we leave this aside. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Claims of genocide has been made several times, enough to meet WP:DUE and be included in the article. However, we should mention that the claims are disputed: https://www.justsecurity.org/80998/is-genocide-occurring-in-ukraine-an-expert-explainer-on-indicators-and-assessments/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/15/genocide-ukraine-russia-zelensky/ .Sjö (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RIA Novosti is a Russian state-owned domestic news agency. The government controls the agency and defines what is published. The text is not a 'heinous pamphlet' published by an emotuional journalist, but some political statement. Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Eugene Finkel https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61017352
 * https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/09/russia-putin-propaganda-ukraine-war-crimes-atrocities/ Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC says: "Has Russia committed genocide in Ukraine? There is no consensus on this ... Eugene Finkel, an associate professor of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University, believes genocide is underway", and point to the article by Sergeytsev to argue that "rhetoric coming from Moscow that tips over into genocidal intent". Foreing Policy reports that the article was removed from the webstite of RIA Novosti after a few hours, which suggests it's not official state policy, and claims that "Kremlin’s propaganda [has gone] into full genocidal mode". Based on these sources, I keep on thinking that there's nothing here of interest for the article on "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". All this pertains to public opinion formation, war propaganda and, at the most, hate crimes. Publishing (for a few hours) an op-ed doesn't amount to committing genocide. It's purely speculative that the article might have legal value as evidence of "intent" on the part of the Russian authorites of committing a crime they have not yet committed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that the “Clains of intent” section should be removed from this article. When does publishing an article for a few hours on a website anount to a War crime?  This article should be focused on the real war crimes (ie attacks on hospitals, etc), rather than talking about some essay that has already been removed. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Foreign Policy didn't say that the article was removed from the [website] of RIA Novosti after a few hours. The Sergetseyev article has been archived since 3 April about 221 times, including on 12 April 2022, and at least this particular 12 April version appears similar to the original. What Foreign Policy said is that the "Mission Over" article (The coming of Russia and of the New World) was published on 26 Feb and then withdrawn within a few hours (after being archived). The text we have is about Snyder's opinion of the Sergetseyev article, not about the 26 Feb few-hours-only-mission-over article. Boud (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. A claim of genocidal intent is not a claim that a war crime will be committed. However, it is a necessary element for a major event to be classified by courts or historians as genocide (rather than a crime against humanity, or "just" a war crime). In other words, it's part of genocide, but it's not genocide on its own; and mass killing is (usually) part of genocide, but it's not genocide on its own. Several leaders (such as Zelenskyy) have said that genocide is being committed, apparently without giving the detailed reasoning behind it except for "these are morally appalling events", which is not historians' or courts' definition of genocide. We have "genocide" mentioned several times in the article, but without genocidal intent, there's no genocide.Here we have a Wikipedia-notable historian, Timothy D. Snyder, who considers the Sergeytsev statement to be significant, and asserts genocidal intent. We do not know if any courts will consider that particular statement, or other statements (such as those by Putin), to be evidence of genocidal intent by people high up in the command chain of the mass killings. But genocidal intent is a highly significant part of genocide. Genocide is not just mass killing. If there is no genocidal intent, then it's not genocide, not matter how horrible it is. (It's also not genocide if there's only intent, and no killing or systematic deportation or other actions satisfying the legal definitions.) Readers interested in war crimes (in the general sense including, at least, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, leaving aside the crime of aggression) will want to know what is known (stated by notable people) about why these might be classified in one category or another.I'll once again ping, whose Wikipedia editing shows extensive knowledge of this general topic, for comments. Boud (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Eugene Finkel appears to be a Holocaust scholar (stated by multiple mainstream media), which would clearly qualify him as a reliable source on this topic: The Independent; Washington Post. From the Wash Post: As a scholar of the Holocaust and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I am well aware of the need for caution, and in the past have criticized the governments of many post-Soviet states — including Ukraine, where I was born — for misusing the term. Not now. ... perpetrating genocide does not require large numbers of victims. The intent and logic of targeting are the key. ... Yet massacres alone are insufficient to meet the genocide criteria; an intent to destroy a protected group is required. ... Russian thinking shifted from colonial to genocidal. ... evidence of this shift is abundant, ... The combination of official statements denying Ukraine and Ukrainians the right to exist, and mounting evidence of deliberate, large-scale targeting of Ukrainian civilians, leaves little room for doubt. The threshold from war crimes to genocide has been crossed. This is more than just Sergeytsev's article, although Finkel mentions that article. Boud (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. The intent is important and belongs to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All this is entirely speculative and we are magnifying the views of a couple of academics in order to build up the following paralogism: "X says that Ukraine is not and cannot be a nation state, therefore X is justifying genocide; X published on a state-owned outlet, therefore the Russian state intends to commit a genocide; readers interested in war crimes want to know why these might be classified in one category or another, therefore we must tell them that certain war crimes might be classified as genocide because X published, on a state-owned outlet, an essay claiming that Ukraine cannot be a nation state". Once we open the article to a section "Claims of intent" so broadly construed, anything could fit in, and one could publish a subsection on the owner of a war zone mobile hospital who said on TV that he wanted to castrate the Russian POWs because that would show that the Ukrainian state intended to commit torture on the POW. We have a reliable source, we also have the Russian Investigative Committee opening a criminal case into his comments. But we are not writing an "amicus" brief for the Prosecutor in a future trial for genocide (or on POW torture) and we should leave all this nonsensical war talk out of the article, as it belongs to propaganda, disinformation and the like. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Genocidal intent is a component of a type of war crime called genocide. This article is about war crimes, including possible genocide. So we should cover things that are components of war crimes, including genocidal intent that is a component of the war crime called genocide.Killings of civilians, rapes and deportations are also parts of war crimes, so we also cover killings of civilians, rapes and deportations, when sources say that they are parts of war crimes.In both cases, we are supposed to use WP:RS to make the judgment. In the case of genocidal intent, Eugene Finkel is a recognised Holocaust scholar according to SIAS of Harvard University, where he is a faculty member. He says that this part of a war crime (genocidal intent) has happened.Separate issue: Newsweek says that the Investigative Committee of Russia (SKR) has opened a criminal case, not a war crimes case, based on a verbal, not written, statement encouraging war crimes to be carried out, by the owner of a war zone mobile hospital; and the person apologised and withdrew the statement afterwards; Newsweek doesn't mention genocidal intent in the SKR case. Russia does have a legal system, including the Criminal Code of Russia. Wikipedia currently, in these two articles, has no information suggesting that the Russian legal system and/or SKR are unreliable, or intervened in by the Russian political hierarchy (even though common sense says so), so if you have some reliable sources saying so, or saying the opposite, then please add them in those articles. Information about how independent a legal system of a country is from political intervention during a given epoch is notable information. Does the Russian legal system include war crimes legislation? That would help understand how relevant this separate issue is for this article. Boud (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Snyder part of the section could be condensed a bit, but other than that I don't see any glaring issues.Staberinde (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But why on earth do we have a section on "genocidal intent", mens rea, if we don't have a section on "genocidal conduct", actus reus? Shouldn't the whole section be moved to that new article Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Having it here is a shining example of WP:UNDUE: we are giving undue weight to the views of a non-encyclopedic Russian journalist called Timofey Sergeytsev (red wikilink: had you ever heard of this name before?) just because an op-ed of his has been criticised by others as implying or justifying genocide. This is an important and highly visible article, "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and we should keep it strictly focused on its subject, which is serious enough, instead of losing the thread in a bunch of war propaganda chitter chatter. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But why on earth do we have a section on "genocidal intent", mens rea, if we don't have a section on "genocidal conduct", actus reus? Shouldn't the whole section be moved to that new article Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Having it here is a shining example of WP:UNDUE: we are giving undue weight to the views of a non-encyclopedic Russian journalist called Timofey Sergeytsev (red wikilink: had you ever heard of this name before?) just because an op-ed of his has been criticised by others as implying or justifying genocide. This is an important and highly visible article, "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", and we should keep it strictly focused on its subject, which is serious enough, instead of losing the thread in a bunch of war propaganda chitter chatter. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

First, "allegations of intent" require a higher burden of proof. "Claims of intent" do not, but should only be represented as "claims".

Second, putting "Intent" in a subtitle doesn't work, unless the subtitle also reads "Claims of genocidal intent".

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian civilians and soldiers take shelter under a bridge in Kyiv.jpg


 * It's gone. It was an AP News photo so it was copyrighted and ineligible for Wikipedia use.
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Article cleanup
Started going through this article and cleaning up sections, particularly where there is already a Lead article on a particular topic ie International reaction - Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, International Criminal Court - Main article: International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine where I have deleted minor sections and / or tranferred details and left a summary in this article, particularly where they refer to War crimes. Believe this article is already too long and does not need to include details better suited in particular topic articles. Plan to go through the rest of this article, other Editors let me know if you have any comments. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say but your edits are problematic. Here. You are removing sources like the Guardian or ABCnews and pretending that this is because "it's sourced to twitter". It's not. These are reliable secondary sources.
 * You are also including info from opinion pieces about supposed used of human shields by Ukraine. The title of the source is Why we need to challenge Russia’s human shields narrative. I.e. it's basically saying this claim is bullshit. The whole point of the source is actually that Russia is making these bogus claim as a justification for murdering civilians. That part is somehow nowhere in the text your added. This is a straight forward, clear cut case of WP:CHERRYPICKING and manipulating sources.  Volunteer Marek   19:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, no more of this "article cleanup", you need to open a discussion here instead.
 * Create a discussion section (on this Talk Page) put down your concerns and everyone will discuss it / vote.
 * In the West we are free to discuss and vote so thats what we need to do here.
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This article really needs a cleanup. Not everything needs to be discussed, quite the opposite, be WP:BOLD. If @Ilenart626 makes any changes you find problematic, you can revert them and raise the problem here on the talk page and it can then be discussed. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @AdrianHObradors In principle you are right, but in practice the editor you are supporting has been putting Russian propaganda into the article. Please read this discussion ^^^^ more carefully. Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chesapeake77 I disagree and object to your statement that I have been "putting Russian propaganda in this article". Of the 25 edits I have carried out on this article since the 16 April, I note only two which have remained reverted after discussions. On the issue of "propaganda", which I assume relates to Russia's claims of Ukraine using civilians as human shields, there are plenty of sources that raise this issue. For example the Washington Post article here documents the issue clearly and highlights that many of the war crimes listed in this article may not be war crimes at all, due to Ukraine's actions.  Other references on this issue are here and here and here and for a general analysis of the issue not relating to Ukraine, see this article here. Yes Russia is pushing this issue, however to dismiss the issue as "Russian propaganda" and excluding from this article, means an important topic that could impact on many of the War crimes in this article is not even mentioned.  How is that maintaining a WP:NPOV?  I also note that the Human Shields article highlights both Russia and Ukraine's claims. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ilenart626 wrote: "and highlights that many of the war crimes listed in this article may not be war crimes at all"
 * Ok, then start a new section and call for a discussion on this issue.
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what "Russian propaganda" are you talking about? I've quickly reviewed Ilenart626's edits from 25 to 26 April and I might have missed something but they all look perfectly fine to me (some of them aggravate the charges against Russia, e.g. ), so if you could be more specific and point out the edits that need to be discussed, that would be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what "Russian propaganda" are you talking about? I've quickly reviewed Ilenart626's edits from 25 to 26 April and I might have missed something but they all look perfectly fine to me (some of them aggravate the charges against Russia, e.g. ), so if you could be more specific and point out the edits that need to be discussed, that would be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

See the second post in this section (that we are writing in now), be sure to read the whole post, carefully.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I had read it and I think that the point is relevant and should belong to this article: "Russia has also accused Ukraine forces of using human shields, by deliberately using civilians as a screen to defend legitimate military targets". Indeed a Russian spokesman said, according to a reliable source, that "the Kyiv regime uses the residents of the city as a ‘human shield’ for the nationalists who have deployed artillery units and military equipment in residential areas of the capital". I don't see why we shouldn't publish that claim attributing it to the Russian authorities. We have already published loads of analogous claims by Ukrainian authorities. Why should the intentions of the author of the article, "challeng[ing] Russia’s human shields narrative", be of any relevance to us? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK lets look at the Siege of Mariupol as an example. 95% of structures there in that city have been widely reported as significantly damaged by Russian shelling, also confirmed by military-intelligence satellite photos. Keep in mind Mariupol was a city of nearly half a million people.
 * Now, were there "military targets" in all of Mariupol's apartment buildings? No way, not even close.
 * Yet 95% of apartments in the entire city were significantly damaged and 40% were totally destroyed.
 * Why? To terrorize the residents and force them to submit, that's why.
 * To psychologically crush and subjugate people.
 * That was massive targeting of Ukrainian civilians, not the Ukrainian military
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that: we have a subsection on "Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol", which is entirely appropriate for this article. We are not in disagreement. The points I was trying to make are the following two:
 * 1. As far as I can see, Ilenart626 edits were good and useful, as they usually are. We should either thank Ilenart or simply let them work. Obviously if something is wrong or not covered by consensus, the edit should be reverted and a discussion might start. In that case, I suggest we focus the discussion on the point at issue. We have already lost an editor, which is always a pity.
 * 2. Using human shield is a war crime, and accusations of this kind can be reported on this article. Note that there are two ways of using human shield in a war: placing the civilians close to military objectives (which I very much doubt the Ukrainian army would do with their own civilians) and placing military objectives close to civilians - and I'm afraid that this could happen in a war as this one. E.g., instead of leaving your trucks, weapons and equipments in the military barracks where they might get bombed, you move them to an empty mall, an underground garage, or even to an hospital. So claiming that Russia’s human shields "narrative" is simply "bullshit" might be too hasty: we don't know, we are just humble Wikipedians, and if there are RS saying "the Russian spokesman said this and that" IMHO we shouldn't enquire too deeply. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that I have already received thanks from a couple of Editors for my recent work on this article. No need to say anything more.
 * @Chesapeake77 I agree with you that their are some terrible atrocities taking place in Ukraine that are obviously War crimes, the Bucha massacre being one. I note that the United Nations Human Rights Commission has just released another update on Ukraine, which will be grim reading. However there does appear to be incidents where Ukraine actions are resulting in civilian casualties.  You have raised Mariupol above as an example, note that the Washington Post article I quoted above has stated "Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses".  Like @Gitz6666 has mentioned above, its not our job to decided what is and is not a War crime.  If their are RS then we should report.
 * I have some spare time this afternoon, so I am going to start a new section called "Human shields" in this Talk page and draft a proposed section discussing the above. Then we can reach consensus on what should be stated in this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK I'm glad you are taking your draft through a discussion process here on this Talk Page. I also see that you do acknowledge that there are obvious war crimes in the current invasion of Ukraine.
 * Regarding the Washington Post article about militarization of civilians-- first, that is a "blanket observation" (synthesis) with no specific proof. Second, in each case of apartments being bombed or shelled, specific proof should be provided that that each specific apartment was occupied by armed people or soldiers or outfitted with missiles etc...
 * In Mariupol, almost all buildings were seriously damaged or destroyed at a great distance. No follow-on attempt was made to then occupy these specific buildings for any military purpose. Terrorism is a way of attempting to control people by instilling traumatic terror. I would say such mass-shelling is terrorism, not "military". See state sponsored terrorism.
 * There are different definitions of war crimes out there. Wikipedia is under no obligation 'to use one particular definition of "war crime" over another''.

'''


 * For example, someone might reason that destroying an entire city with a population of 400,000+ people is a war crime, period, even if it was a military objective as well. Who is to say such a definition is less legitimate than the one that suggests-- "do anything you want to civilians as long as there is a military target nearby".
 * Perhaps we need to get sources into the article that state that the "anything goes" definition is deeply flawed... I'll bet such sources are available.
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

new article on Genocide question?
With Ukraine's parliament adopting a resolution recognizing the genocide, and other countries indicating they will follow suit, should the genocide question be split into a separate article? The resolution alone warrants its own article IMO. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Votes by parliaments on the title "genocide" can be seen as political statements rather than statements of knowledge by academics (genocide scholars) or legal decisions by law courts. If the votes specifically claim genocidal intent (see the above discussion section), then they could be included in the #Genocidal intent subsection. If they only claim "genocide" without genocidal intent, then they would only qualify for the "Reactions" article (as political statements).If the claims of genocidal intent are sufficiently notable, then more or less the whole of the current war crimes article is about the genocide. If the claims of genocidal intent are not sufficiently notable for an article move (title change), then I don't see what the topic of the new article would be.For hints on likely outcomes of a proposal to rename the whole article to "genocide ..." rather than "war crimes ...", check out similar discussions:
 * Talk:Uyghur genocide (highly controversial) – see the box This page has previously been nominated to be moved that lists the 6 discussions: 3 successful, ending in Uyghur genocide, 3 unsuccessful afterwards;
 * Talk:2017–present Rohingya genocide – apparently uncontroversial, with a that was unopposed after no opposition on the talk page;
 * Talk:War crimes in the Tigray War – almost certainly crimes against humanity, and very likely ongoing genocide-by-deliberate-famine (following genocide by massacring male adults and teenagers and systematically raping women), but not seen as a priority page move by Wikipedians (given the sources, level of editor activity and page maintainability).
 * For a new article, what would the article title and scope be? (The resolution on its own may be notable; many notable laws have individual Wikipedia articles, e.g. Russian foreign agent law, Law of 4 February 1794, though a parliamentary resolution is not a law.) Boud (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Genocide" is not even a section, much less "a big enough section yet". If the section comes into being and then also gets a lot larger then it would be warranted to move to a new article, but that is not the case at this point. Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedian put a lot of effort in creating Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Discussion of possible name changes, or an AfD if people think that it could obtain consensus, should take place at Talk:Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Boud (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the controversial section "Claims of intent > Genocidal intent" be moved to that new article on genocide? Why do we have a section on "genocidal intent", mens rea, if we don't have a section on "genocidal conduct", actus reus? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks didnt see that article, it should be linked in this one, somewhere, because I didnt even see it previously. Seems sufficient, came here to edit because I saw Latvia and Estonia's parliament made an official recognition on the matter. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment there is too much overlap between the alleged crimes in this article and genocide in another article. Keep them in the same article. Re-merge if neccessary. Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should have a section on "Genocide" in this article. No need of adding "Claims of" in the title but in the text we should make clear that we are reporting claims of genocide made by a, b, c politicians/parliaments/organisations etc. The text could basically be a summary of Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and obviously we would have the "Main article" tag on top of the section. The new section on genocide should be merged with the current section "Claims of intent > Genocidal intent", that also needs to be shorten and summarised a lot. It may make sense that the integral text of that section on intent were moved to the main article, "Claims of genocide". I ping as interested editors @ArsenalGhanaPartey (main editor of "Claims of genocide") and @Boud (author of the section on intent). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was only created on 18 April, after the discussion here started. Now it seems like it's unlikely to be deleted, especially with the increasing number of sources. Actus reus is probably most of the sections of this article, the War crimes article (the killings, sexual violence and deportations that happened), but that depends on which scholar or parliament or other notable person/organisation makes a claim of genocide and what she/he/it says in a RS. I agree that the existence of the Claims of genocide article now requires a rethink of the section here and the Claims of genocide article. Shifting the current #Claims of intent section over to the Claims of genocide article; and then bringing a summary of Claims of genocide back to this article makes sense. I think the section title here should still be open to debate, but I think we could start with Genocide, with a clear statement of attribution, as suggested. There is very little overlap between the content of the two articles, and the scopes are complementary. There might in the future be a time when scholars agree that most of the war crimes together consitute a single overall genocide, in which case a merger might make sense. But that would also mess up the distinction between the horrible things that have happened (and are happening), versus the legal/political interpretation of what happened. Boud (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've been bold and reorganised the Claims of genocide article, and brought the updated summary back here. I think there's still quite a bit of improvement to be done to Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I think that after updating the summary over there, there should be more or less matching updates done here in the #Genocide section of this article. I've started a list of suggested work needing to be done at Talk:Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I suggest that the main discussion on genocide take place at Talk:Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or by directly editing that article. Boud (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Boud. I'm pinging @ArsenalGhanaPartey because for some reason which I don't understand my previous ping didn't work. I've just read the new section in this article and it looks perfect to me, thanks. However, I'm having second thoughts about the title of the section, "Genocide", which I myself had suggested. "Claims of genocide" wouldn't work because everything in this article is "claim". However, there might be a difference between the claims of genocide and the claims of other war crimes: the latter are claims that certain crimes have already been committed - indiscriminate attacks, torture, wilful killing of civilians, etc. On the other hand, nobody claims that a genocide has already been committed, if I'm not wrong - they claim that a genocide is under way. So maybe we should highlight the difference in some way. What about then having "Planned genocide" as a title? Or can you come up with something better? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I interpret the "yes genocide" claims as stating that genocide has already been committed, as well as being ongoing. Genocide includes destroying a group in part, not necessarily as a whole. Some parts of the group "Ukrainians" have already been destroyed. (Aside: I'm just wondering if there's a risk of readers misinterpreting "genocidal intent" to mean a description about "intent 'now' to commit a future crime", while the intended meaning is "an intent at a time A in the past that links to genocidal acts at time B in the past, where B happened after A". We might want to think of places where clarifications should be added.)I think that Claims of genocide would be OK as a section title here, without "forcing" this article to be renamed as Claims of war crimes. The difference is that some of the genocidal claims are more likely to be challenged than war crimes claims, since genocidal intent requires more interpretation, together with the link between intent and act needing interpretation in terms of political and command responsibility/hierarchy. Another possible section name could be Genocide analysis (although the parliaments' and leaders' statements are presented more as statements than analyses). Or maybe Genocide claims and analysis? Boud (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If "Planned genocide", "Potential genocide" or even "Unfolding genocide" do not match the sources, then of the three titles you propose my favourite one is "Claims of genocide", for the sake of clarity and simplicity, and because it succeeds in signalling that the claim of genocide is somewhat different from the other war crimes/crimes against humanity that are the subject of the article. If there's consensus, we could go for that. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

New addition to article: Russian missile attack on school number 21 in Chernihiv
[The BBC News article about this is here-- https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-61176372 ]

Chesapeake77 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit 2 of Sexual violence section
Yesterday I made | this edit which Volunteer Marek has reverted and requested consensus on the Talk page. The reason for the edit was described in the notes to the edit deleted Ukrainian MP statement, already covered by statements from the Ukrainian foreign minister, Prosecuter General & Ombudsman. In other words, there are already three other statements from Ukraine governemt officals in this section, plus a general statement from "Ukrainian authorities", as well as statements from UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and Human Rights Watch. With all these statements already included I believe MP Lesia Vasylenko's statement is not required in this War crimes article. Note that her statement may be better suited in the Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, as this is a broader article and Ukrainian MPs Lesia Vasylenko has already been quoted in this article.

I assume Volunteer Marek will provide his reasoning, can other Editors provide their opinions either for or against this edit, so we can reach consensus. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This is more subjective than the editing dispute in the section immediately above (on this discussion page). The specific topic is big enough for Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a separate article, even though that article also includes sexual violence that is unlikely to count as war crimes (such as the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces beating semi- or fully naked victims - welcome back to the 1500s?). However, currently, most of the content is rape-as-a-likely-war-crime, so I think that this article (as well as Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) should mostly have summaries of that article, though with slightly different focuses (in one case, only war crimes, excluding human rights violations that are not war crimes; in the second only women, excluding sexual violence against men).So for this specific edit dispute, I would tend to support removal of the sentence here at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.A "radical" editing option, which would help reduce the length of this article, would be to use essentially that part of the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that concerns likely war crimes. It seems to me that that would mean using what are of the lead there, after checking that content here is fully integrated into that article. Summaries and leads should be short, and should, by definition, summarise. Boud (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that rapes by Russian soldiers are most likely under reported is significant and AFAICT is not anywhere else in the article.  Volunteer Marek   19:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the claim about rapes being unreported could stay as it is sufficiently different from other statements by Ukrainian authorities, but I agree with Boud's "radical" option: we'd better use the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as the section now is too detailed and runs the risk of duplicating that article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the claim about rapes being unreported could stay as it is sufficiently different from other statements by Ukrainian authorities, but I agree with Boud's "radical" option: we'd better use the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as the section now is too detailed and runs the risk of duplicating that article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on the feedback from the above, I have reviewed and edited @Boud‘s radical approach, as detailed below. I have checked the references and they all support the corrosponding statements. Just to be clear, I understand that the proposal is to replace the whole “Sexual Violence” section in this article with the wording below, with the details being transferred to either Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and / or  Women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.


 * "Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is mostly attributed to the Russian Armed Forces, with 25 rapes recorded in Bucha following its liberation,   and suggestions by Lyudmyla Denisova, Ombudsman in Ukraine and The Guardian that sexual violence as a weapon of war was being committed by Russian forces. Underreporting was seen as a serious problem in assessing the amount of sexual violence.  ”

In fact this atrocious sentence: "Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is mostly attributed to the Russian Armed Forces is a perfect example of how sources are being misrepresented to push a particular POV. Where the hell does the "mostly" come from? It's ALL Russian Armed Forces. But someone sure tried to weasel even that. Look at the first source: Every single incident described is rape by Russian soldiers. There's no "mostly" there. Look at the second source: . Nope. No "mostly" there either (putting aside the source is very outdated". Stop trying to falsely insinuate that both sides have done it. Seriously, this kind of crap needs to end. It's a gross violation of Wikipedia policy and just basic decency.   Volunteer Marek   20:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

add new content to the page
1- add in the Bombing of Borodianka to the Kyiv Oblast section, and a new section to the "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" section called "Murder and Torture in Borodianka"

2- add more information about the 2022 bombing of Odessa

changes:

Bombing of Odessa section:

At around 12:00 local time on 2 March, Russian forces shelled the village of Dachne to the north-west of Odessa, setting fire to nine houses and a garage. This was followed on 3 March by the shelling of the nearby villages of Zatoka and Bilenke, killing at least one civilian in the latter village. Russian warships also shelled the Ukrainian civilian vessel Helt in the port of Odessa, causing it to sink. On 23 April, a Russian missile strike hit two residential buildings, killing eight civilians and wounding 18 or 20, according to Ukraine. One missile that struck a residential building killed a three-month old baby, the mother, and the baby's maternal grandmother.

Bombing of Borodianka section (Kyiv Oblast section):

As Russian forces fought in and near Kyiv, Borodianka, which is on a strategically important road, was targeted by numerous Russian airstrikes. Most of the buildings in the town were destroyed, including almost all of its main street. Russian bombs struck the centers of buildings and caused them to collapse while the frames remained standing. Oleksiy Reznikov, minister of defense, said many residents were buried alive by airstrikes and lay dying for up to a week. He further said that those who had gone to help them were shot at by Russian soldiers.

Some residents hid in caves for 38 days. On 26 March 2022, Russia, repelled from Kyiv, progressively withdrew from the region to concentrate on Donbas. Borodianka's mayor said that as the Russian convoy had moved through the town, Russian soldiers had fired through every open window. He estimated at least 200 dead. , Only a few hundred residents remained in Borodianka by the time the Russians withdrew, with roughly 90% of residents having fled, and an unknown number dead in the rubble. The retreating Russian troops placed mines throughout the town.

Murder and Torture in Borodianka section (Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians section):

Russian soldiers were accused by Iryna Venediktova, prosecutor general of Ukraine of "murders, tortures, and beatings" of civilians in Borodianka.

187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

✅ --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources. Need for a review of the article
There are now available a few independent secondary sources, in particular this one and also this shorter statement by the OHCHR. I think we should read them carefully and use them to review the article. In particular, I have the impression that the sections on "Thermobaric weapons" and "Targeting of humanitarian corridors" may not be verifiable and supported by the most reliable sources. Note the following: 1) With regard to thermobaric weapons, the allegations of war crimes seem very week. Basically there's no allegation at all: our RS don't claim that this kind of weapons has ever been used on protected objects. And with regard to weapons in general OHCHR very much insists on cluster munitions. There's the following list: "a) munitions with a large blast radius, such as large bombs or missiles; b) weapons that tend to have a less accurate delivery system, such as unguided indirect fire weapons, including artillery and heavy mortars; and c) weapons designed to deliver munitions over a wide area, such as multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and cluster munitions." No mention of thermobaric weapons. They are especially concerned with shelling and airstrikes with unguided munitions on urban areas. 2) If I'm not wrong, there's no mention of attacks to humanitarian corridors. The RS we quote were very quick on blaming the Russians, but the only independent reliable source I've found, this, is more cautious (mentioning the "absence of a detailed and functioning agreement between the parties"). I'm quite worried that in case of future evacuations people in Ukraine could read our article and rely on our rendering of primary sources' accounts, which might not be correct, and be scared and refuse to evacuate. So before reporting that the Russians are used to bomb humanitarian corridors, I'd like to have more RS. The OHCHR's silence on the issue of humanitarian corridors suggests extra care. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no, there are many secondary sources about it, basically by every major news outlet. Something like HRW is not better than NYT per WP:RS. It is another matter that most of these sources are making an attribution, for example, "according to statement by...". We should do the same. If we are making such attribution, this is fine per policy. When we do that, then yes, it does appear that Russian forces intentionally block the evacuations, intercept and impound buses, transport Ukrainian citizens to Russia, while confiscating their documents (that is what human traffickers usually do), but that is simply what the sources say. Now, speaking about thermobaric weapons, it appears that Russian military has officially confirmed using such weapons in Ukraine . My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with thermobaric weapons is that RS say that they are not forbidden. Their use against civilians (or in the nearing of populated areas) would be unlawful, but otherwise they are legitimate. So now we have Ukraine's ambassador to US accusing Moscow of using vacuum bombs against a military base, Moscow admitting of using vacuum bombs (according to the UK Foreign Minister) and legal experts saying that they are allowed to do so, provided that they target military objects, which they did. USA and UK also use thermobaric weapons I don't see the point of the whole section, honestly, it looks completely irrelevant. But the real problem here is the humanitarian corridor section. OHCHR doesn't mention the deliberate shilling of humanitarian corridors. RS say that in Mariupol it took them 2 days to set up the evacuation route, there were misunderstandings, "The failed attempts in recent days underscore the absence of a detailed and functioning agreement between the parties to the conflict." (ICRC) "Russia and the Ukraine National Guard have accused each other of preventing a humanitarian corridor from being opened up in Mariupol." (El Pais). There are reports by RS (which now I cannot find) claiming that the Ukrainians were shooting at the Russians in the area. Nothing in the RS suggests that the Russians have deliberately targeted the civilians. What reason might they have had for targeting the corridors they had voluntarily created? Claiming that they target the corridors, if it’s false, is  dangerous, because people could decide not to trust the Russians and remain in the cities. So we should be very careful here and very responsible about what we publish. Therefore, I want to delate the section on humanitarian corridors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would agree that the Thermobaric comments / section be removed, particularly as the section states that it was used on a military target, which is not restricted, and the US and UK have also used on military targets Ilenart626 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would also agree that we use the UN report to review the whole article in general and the Targeting of humanitarian corridors section in particular. There are limited independent RS so this report should have precedence to both Russian and Ukraine statements. Glitz, two examples of the RS you could not locate that report Ukraine forces shooting at Russian forces near the Evacuation corridors are here and here.  Were Russian forces shelling the civilians or firing back at Ukraine mortars?  I suspect the later is far more likely, therfore describing these actions as war crimes would be problematic. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I remove the "Thermobaric weapons" section, because there's basically no allegation of war crime ("had they been used against civilian" is not enough; the Russians might perhaps have confirmed using these weapons precisely because they are not forbidden under IHL). I understand the humanitarian corridor case is more complex from an editorial point of view, as noted by MVBW, so I leave it online for the time being and very much welcome further discussion among the editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source for the first reference in this discussion section now has an article: UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine or HRMMU. Talking vaguely about "the UN" is popular in "reliable" mainstream media, but leads to all sorts of confusion: UNSC (Security Council) != UNGA (General Assembly) != HRMMU (monitoring mission in Ukraine). Boud (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We have no RS claiming that the Russian army targeted the humanitarian corridors. I've read carefully the section again, checking the sources, I've checked the sources that Ilenart626 has shared (the incident is accounted for in the section "Irpin shelling" and there were no humanitarian corridors there), and I've also read the account and the sources in Siege of Mariupol. Russia and Ukraine blamed each other for the delay in providing safe passage to civilians fleeing Mariupol and there's no specific reference to war crimes whatsoever; the only indirect reference is here,, "Ukraine accused Russia of attacking an evacuation corridor". I don't think it's enough and if unopposed I intend to remove the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have to agree, I also reviewed the articles and cannot see any mention of Russian forces deliberately targeting Humanitarian corridors.  The main supporting article has a link to Russian “shelling” which takes you to an article detailing the Irpin refugee column shelling, where their was no Humanitarian corridor established Ilenart626 (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? Every single source in that section addresses the topic and all of them are RS.  Volunteer Marek   17:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go digging looking for stuff. Could you please, if you find something, point the specific source and quote the relevant part? Thanks AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Volunteer Marek, could you please point me to RS holding that the Russian army have targeted humanitarian corridors in Ukraine? I've spent quite a bit of time looking into this and haven't yet found any. During the Siege of Mariupol, 5-7 March they couldn't agree with the Ukrainians on the route of the corridors and on the timing of the ceasefire, so the Russian army continued to shell the city, but they didn't target the civilians directly, as far as I read. So please a RS is needed otherwise I don't see how we could keep the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the reliable sources ALREADY in the article (CNBC, Red Cross, BBC, DW etc.) all of which discuss Russian shelling of the corridors we also have Amnesty International, NPR , NY Times , CNN , WaPo and many more.
 * This seems to be a really disingenuous denial here.  Volunteer Marek   22:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) AI doesn't say that the Russian forces have tagetted HC, it says that HC must be established, the agreements of 3 March must implemented + refers to the attacks in Irpin (where no HC had been agrred upon); 2) NPR says that Ukraine will not open any humanitarian corridors as Russia continues to shell and bomb cities; it doesn't say that Russia is targetting the HC they had agreed upon; it also mentions that "Russian troops have previously fired on agreed-upon humanitarian corridors" but it doesn't specificy when and where, so there's no way of verifying the allegation; 3) NY Times doesn't even mention HC and deals exclusively with the attacks in Irpin. I've worked a lot on Irpin refugee column shelling with other editors; please have a look - no HR there. 4) Same as before: Irpin. Note that Irpin is already covered also in this article (indeed it was a heinous war crime, but not "targetting HC"); 5) again, Irpin. We need to remove the section until someone provides a RS on "targetting HC". We mustn't leave unsupported or false allegations on a matter as this one. Please mind what I'm writing: we are not helping the Ukrainian people telling them that the Russians are bombing the HC if that's not the case, we are putting them in danger. Please find a RS otherwise the section must be dropped. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, have completed a review of the whole article and made a few minor changes. Overall it looks pretty good (ie horrible stories, but I guess that's the subject). Few issues for consideration: Have also checked the above two incidents to this report and none of them are mentioned. Overall there are plenty of sections which are obvious war crimes and probably will be expanded ie Hospitals and medical centres, Mass killings of civilians in Bucha, etc. Suggest we concentrate on those ones and remove and / 04 shorten the above. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bombing of Kyiv - shopping centre bombing - evidence it was used for a Ukrainian missile system, including The day after the strike, Ukrainian authorities detained a man who they said shared footage showing Ukrainian military vehicles parked near the shopping centre on TikTok in late February, None of the references mention a war crime therefore suggest we remove.
 * Zhytomyr International Airport no claims that it was a war crime so again suggest we remove.
 * Legal proceeding
 * International Criminal Court - should some of this information be cut and pasted to the International Criminal Court article ie list of List of countries that referred the situation in Ukraine to the ICC?
 * Other legal aspects - should some of this information be summarised ie statements by the US and UK? (Not sure what legal basis / effect these statements have?).


 * Thank you, this is excellent work. You raised 4 points and I'm now giving my views on each one.
 * 1) Shopping centre bombing. I agree RS don't mention a war crime, so we should remove. Actually, the episode might constitute a war crime on the part of the Ukrainian forces under art. 53 Protocol I (here): "avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas". No RS, however, has raised the issue, so I agree we should drop the section.
 * 2) Zhytomyr International Airport. I agree, and if I'm not wrong I had already raised the issue somewhere. Airports probably qualify as military objects under IHL because they may contribute to the military effort and their destruction may offer some military advantage. Anyway RS don't claim it was a war crime, so I'd drop any reference.
 * 3) I agree. Let's move the "List of countries that referred the situation in Ukraine to the ICC" to the appropriate article.
 * 4) I don't see why we should summarise their statements, but in any case I would do that in the appropriate article, non in this one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, have removed the Shopping centre bombing, the Zhytomyr International Airport & the British & US statements. Looks like someone else has already transferred the List of countries to the International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine article Ilenart626 (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On thermobaric bombs, I think there is only one confirmed use in this war and that was on a Ukrainian military base. Horrible, but not illegal under international law.
 * I urge people to keep an eye on the issue, however, because if Putin keeps losing, he might get desperate and start using them on civilian centers.
 * That would be a war crime (vaporizing hundreds or thousands of civilians).
 * Keep in mind, recently Putin and his henchmen have been making threats of using (tactical)-- (small) nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
 * I read somewhere that the Russians like thermobaric weapons becase they can vaporize bodies. Very convenient since bodies can be evidence, unless they are vaporized.
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)