Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 8

Human shields
As discussed above in "Article cleanup" I have drafted a proposed new section for "Human shields". I would suggest this section replaces the current "Use of children as human shields" subsection in the "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" section. Instead I would recommend it have its own section, probably below "Deportations", similar to "Chemical weapons" or "Looting". Note that most of the details below I have copied from the existing Human shields section. Would also suggest that some information currently in "Use of children as human shields" subsection be transferred to the HS#UR War. Plus it could be expanded by some of the issues in the Washington Post and AP article, though I now realise that some of these issues are already included in the Human shields and Human shields (law) articles.


 * Human shields
 * Since the onset of Ukrainian-Russian war (2014–present), both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of using Human shields.
 * In March 2022, about 120 stranded Bangladeshi civilians alleged Ukrainian forces of keeping them as hostages and using them as human shields in Zhuravychi, Ukraine. In April 2022, Russian forces leaving the area near Kyiv allegedly placed coaches of Ukrainian children in front of their tanks to protect themselves. According to the Ukrainian human rights ombudsman, cases of Russian soldiers using Ukrainian children as human shields have been recorded in Sumy, Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.
 * Using non-combatants to serve as human shields is prohibited  by Humanitarian Law, as detailed in the  1998 ICC Statute, "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations constitutes a war crime".
 * Since the onset of Ukrainian-Russian war (2014–present), both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of using Human shields.
 * In March 2022, about 120 stranded Bangladeshi civilians alleged Ukrainian forces of keeping them as hostages and using them as human shields in Zhuravychi, Ukraine. In April 2022, Russian forces leaving the area near Kyiv allegedly placed coaches of Ukrainian children in front of their tanks to protect themselves. According to the Ukrainian human rights ombudsman, cases of Russian soldiers using Ukrainian children as human shields have been recorded in Sumy, Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.
 * Using non-combatants to serve as human shields is prohibited  by Humanitarian Law, as detailed in the  1998 ICC Statute, "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations constitutes a war crime".
 * Using non-combatants to serve as human shields is prohibited  by Humanitarian Law, as detailed in the  1998 ICC Statute, "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations constitutes a war crime".
 * Using non-combatants to serve as human shields is prohibited  by Humanitarian Law, as detailed in the  1998 ICC Statute, "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations constitutes a war crime".

Other Editors, particularly and  let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That looks very good to me, thanks for the ping. Just a few suggestions:
 * 1. I would place the section on human shields after "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" because it's basically a case of ill-treatment of civilians, which, like "sexual violence", has its own peculiarities. I think the section would fit well between "Ill-treatment etc." and "Sexual violence".
 * 2. I wouldn't shorten the text on "Use of children as human shields". Basically your proposal cuts out the sentence "In other areas of Ukraine, there were claims that Russian forces took local children hostage and threatened their parents in case they gave away the troops' coordinates", which is supported by the RS. I would leave the text on children as human shields exactly as it is now, as a self-standing paragraph, so that also the sentence on the Bangladeshi civilians would be a self-standing paragraph within the section. Chronological ordering comes naturally and is good.
 * 3. The use of human shield is prohibited also by customary HIL, which is more relevant here, as Russia is not a party of the ICC Statute. Perhaps we could quote Rule 97 of the authoritative IHL database of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), here, and/or the most important treaty-based source, which is Protocol I of the Geneva Convention. Here a scholarly article on the point of sources. However, I suggest we leave all the legal staff out of the section and simply take it for granted that using human shields is a war crime: maybe there's no need for explaining and specifying the point. In that case the final paragraph of your proposal could be omitted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gitz have taken on board all your suggestions.  I still believe it is worthwhile to include a legal section, however I have shortened and used your Protocol I reference.  Will include the updated wording in the article for your review, plus any other Editors who wants to contribute. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No, again, this is another attempt at "bothsideism". You're replacing reliably sourced content on the use of children as human shields by Russian forces with "both sides have been accused of using human shields". The sources which support Russian use of it are very reliable. The sources which support Ukrainian use of it are not. Neither Business Insider nor Daily Star are high quality sources.  Volunteer Marek  15:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

And I'm sorry but this here illustrates that the purpose of these edits appears to be to push POV. If you search for "Ukraine human shields" you find dozens of sources on Russian use of civilians as human shields but you have to click through to like page 25 to get to (unreliable) sources that claim that Ukraine is doing it too. This means you have to work really hard to construct this "bothsidesdoit" narrative, by dredging the internet for something you could potentially use. Please stop trying to add WP:FALSEBALANCE to everything in this article.  Volunteer Marek  15:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I note that you originally reverted my edit of “… by forcing them to sit on top of their tanks as they withdrew.” about a week ago and said to seek consensus on the Talk page.  I have done this above and two other editors besides myself have noted that this is misleading as the reference does not state this.  Yet again you have reverted back to the misleading statement.  So your statement that I am “pushing POV” is laughable, this example is a clear case that you are pushing your view, irrespective of what the reference states and that three other editors disagree with you.
 * In addition, please provide evidence that either Business Insider nor Daily Star cannot be used as a reference.  “Not high quality” is obviously your opinion.
 * I’ll leave it up to other Editors to comment.  Ilenart626 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You and Gitz agreeing on something is not consensus. Business Insider is clearly a marginal source and so is Daily Star. How many pages of google search results did you have to scroll through before you found these two mentions? This is simply a textbook example of POV via FALSE balance.  Volunteer Marek   20:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had to search one page to find these references, both were already included in the Human shields article. As I have stated above, most of the new section was copied from this article Ilenart626 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that Volunteer Marek has now added a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" template to the Human Shields section. I believe the only Editor who is disputing this is Volunteer Marek, however I am happy to have the neutrality reviewed by other Editors. Please read the above, plus the "Article cleanup" section above to see how the current "Human Shields" section was developed. You may also want to review the existing Human shields section. Ilenart626 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an immediately obvious issue there. Whoever added the sentence about Bangladeshis was either POV pushing or lacking in English language skills. Lets look at it: "In March 2022, about 120 stranded Bangladeshi civilians alleged Ukrainian forces of keeping them as hostages and using them as human shields in Zhuravychi, Ukraine." Now lets check the source: Here is what an accurate sentence actually reflecting the source would be: "In March 2022, a Bangladeshi man held in migrant detention camp in Zhuravychi, alleged that Ukrainian forces were keeping 120 civilians there as hostages." Clear case of WP:UNDUE.--Staberinde (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording was copied from the Human shields article, which I see you have now deleted. Also I am unsure how you get your “accurate sentence” from the source, which is entitled “Kept as ‘human shields’ in Ukraine camps, say stranded Bangladeshis”, WP:UNDUE would appear to apply to your statement. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Staberinde, to ensure we have a clear unbiased discussion, I have reverted your edits on the Human shields article and placed a comment on the Human shields talk page.  Ilenart626 (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording was added to the Human Shields article by an SPA IP editor. That makes it even more dubious.
 * In regard to this piece, if you type "Ukraine Russia human shields" into google (or "Russia Ukraine human shields" if you like) there are literally several dozen reliable sources which discuss Russian use of human shields. You have to go to like page 20 of search results to get to this "Bangladesh students" story. This clearly indicates that someone went and specifically looked for something which would allow them to try and spin a "both sides do it" narrative. That's a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. And that's IN ADDITION to the problems of misrepresentation of the source.  Volunteer Marek   03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ilenart626, have you actually read the Daily Star article? And I mean the actual article text, not the headline, news headlines are not reliable sources as explained in WP:HEADLINES. Whole claim of human shields comes from one guy named Malik, who makes also some other interesting claims about torture happening EU operated detention facility, and "The whole of Kyiv and Kharkiv have been burnt to ashes." So yes, it is blatantly undue.--Staberinde (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "torture happening in EU operated detention facility" has been also reported by The Guardian. Topic here is the account by the Bangladeshi civilian and it should be included. Note that The Daily Star is a WP:RS. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Volenteer Marek I have used your example of a Google search of "Russia Ukraine human shields" and I note that the first two pages includes seven references that all discuss Russia's claims that Ukraine is using its civilians as human shields, including 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Therefore deleting all details of Russia's claims is WP:UNDUE, Russia's claims need to be included in the article to provide WP:NPOV. I also note that some of these sources discuss the claims of Indian nationals being used as Human shields by Ukraine forces, in addition to Bangledesh students, as noted by Georgethedragonslayer below. Plus your claims of "misrepresentative of the source", are laughable, have you even read your edits based on this article? Where does it say that the children were sitting on top of tanks? Two other Editors have already highlighted this issue in the "Use of children as human shields - Sitting on top of tanks", yet you persist in misrepresenting the source in your edits over the past week. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the first sentence "both sides accuse other" is of little substance and pointless.--Staberinde (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's part of the general attempt at POVing the article.  Volunteer Marek   03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is called WP:NPOV; there is no need to ignore Russian claims but reflect only Ukrainian claims.
 * See:
 * Russia, Ukraine accuse each other of using civilians as human shields, JPost.
 * Desperate dash for safety as SA students flee Ukraine war zone, by TimesLIVE which says: "Moodley said she witnessed first-hand Ukrainian soldiers and police using black and Indian people as human shields while they were under attack by Russians, shouting that their lives meant nothing. “They were using black people as human shields,” she said.
 * Now if the account of Ukrainian eye-witnesses can be noted on the article, then why South African and Bangladeshi eye-witnesses cannot be noted? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now if the account of Ukrainian eye-witnesses can be noted on the article, then why South African and Bangladeshi eye-witnesses cannot be noted? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I note the changes you have made of the Human shields section and I believe we are working towards a consensus, thankyou for your edits. I still believe we need to include information and references regarding foreign nationals, plus the issues raised in these two articles 1 2 need to be included, so will carry out some edits to your modified wording.Ilenart626 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that the info regarding foreign nationals should be given, but not in the human shield section. On this I've found this authoritative source (HRW) and this one (Infomigrants). They make clear that this is not a case of using human shields (probably the Russians don't even know about the migrants, or don't care) but rather ill-treatment of civilians in the context of war, and that's the section where the info could fit as a self-standing subsection concerning the treatment of irregular migrants in detention camps ("Whatever the original basis for their detention, their continued detention at the center is arbitrary and places them at risk of harm from the hostilities, Human Rights Watch said"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty obvious that both reports are referring to the same Refugee Detention centre that this article is refering to, which adds weight to the claims made in the Daily Star. I also note that even though neither articles refer to "Human shields", the HRW report does states that "A video, verified and analyzed by Human Rights Watch, shows scores of Ukrainian soldiers standing in the courtyard of the Zhuravychi MAC, corroborating the accounts that the Ukrainian military is actively using the site." Ilenart626 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is the alleged 'Main article' discussed here? This discussion is about this page. There was no information about this discussion there and my edits have been removed, especially this reference https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61020565, which I refuse to accept. The general page is Russo-Ukrainian War. Please explain your rename to 'Ukrainian-Russian War'. The name may suggests that you mean an another war.Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * refer Talk:Human shield have added back Xx236 edits. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

'Zhuravychi' is situated in Western Ukraine, probably far from the front line. Ukrainian authorities were accused to help evacuate mothers with children eg. by Indian students, but such preferences looked rational to me. In Europe generally babies deserve more care than young men. This case seems to be similar. As far as I know there were no Russian tanks in Zhuravychi, certainly not before March 5. Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We have made some progress, however I note that my recent edits have been reverted. Assume current wording is agreed (I hope!). Note that I reverted "Scholars Michael N. Schmitt, Neve Gordon, and Nicola Perugini have rejected these claims as attempts to shift blame for civilian deaths to Ukraine." as Volenteer Marek deletion here now means this statement does not make sense for two reasons: Note that I also tried to bring in William Schabas's views on this issue (who's Wikipedia article describes him as "the world expert on the law of genocide and international law") with the statement below to provide some balance. However I note that it has been deleted by Volunteer Maresk";
 * It now follows on from "On the 4 March Russia accused Ukraine of using foreign nationals as human shields", which does not make any sense; and
 * both supporting sources here and here do not support the statement. Instead both sources are arguing that the current interpretation of Article 51(8) of Additional Protocol I is resulting in additional casualties by relaxing the proportionality assessment (arts. 51(5) & 57(2)) in relation to personnel being used as human shields.  Yes this is Russia's arguement, however it is also the same arguement that the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel, Sri Lanka, and India have all used in previous conflicts.  Note that their is not agreement with scholars on this issue, Schmitt and Gordon are pushing one view, other scholars have other opinions on how to resolve the issue, ie Ammon Rubinstein and Yaniv Roznai place more emphasis on the defender, see their discussion in Human shields (law).  Frankly the Scmitt and Gordon sources would be better utilised in the Human Shields (Law) article.
 * "However Washington Post reporters noted that Ukraine forces were militizing virtually every neighborhood in most cities and William Schabas, an international law professor noted that "to the extent that Ukraine brings the battlefield to the civilian neighborhoods, it increases the danger to civilians". "

So, not sure where we go to from here. I acknowledge the above is complicated. Was thinking one approach maybe to explain the legal issue that the scholars are arguing about in a small summary in the Legal section at the bottom of the article, with a direct link to Human Shields (law), which could be expanded to cover the issue and how it effects the Russian / Ukraine conflict (as well as all the other conflicts where it is an issue, particularly Israel / Palestine). That way the Human Shields section in this article could be simplified with a "see below" link to the Legal section. Or we could keep on trying to thrash out a compromise wording with everything contained in the Human shields section. Thoughts? Ilenart626 (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ilenart626, your quotation from the Washington Post is... let's call it "misleading", because you are omitting/clipping the quotations from Schabas, who also said: "“I am very reluctant to suggest that Ukraine is responsible for civilian casualties, because Ukraine is fighting to defend its country from an aggressor”" and ''"Schabas, adding that he was not suggesting this is what is happening (using civilians as human shields - VM)". So you are actually trying to use a source and an expert who is saying that Ukraine is NOT using civilians as human shields to source a claim that that Ukraine is using civilians as human shields. ... ... ... Care to explain how this is suppose to work?  Volunteer Marek   05:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is already pretty long, so probably best to go with more minimalist approach with specific notable instances, leaving out various more vague claims from government officials and whatnot.--Staberinde (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the content I had proposed above. The section now looks succinct enough. Remember that WP:YESPOV which say Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them' applies here and accusations should be clearly called out as accusations and attributed properly. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interested parties are welcome to discuss at WP:NPOVN where I have raised this disputed. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion on human shields seems to have finished without a clear consensus, but I think that something is pretty obvious and everybody would agree on this: we do need a section on human shields in this article. The current situation – few sketchy lines and the template:POV section – cannot last forever. So I've taken the liberty of drafting a section which hopefully takes into consideration everybody's views on the subject. My criterion has been the most inclusionist one, both for reasons related to the need for consensus (nothing is more irritating than being silenced) and because I believe that no notable and verifiable allegation of war crimes should be left out of this article. I've also done my best for sticking to the sources as closely as possible. The "Washington Post" article is relevant and should definitely be mentioned, but it's not an allegation of use of human shields and cannot be construed as such. Russian allegations of Ukraine using its citizens as human shields may be ludicrous, but they are notable enough for the purposes of inclusion; they've also drafted a resolution at the UN Security Council on this, which failed, but China voted "yes", so let's report this. With regard to the Bangladeshi people, I feel that that is not a case of human shields and that we should have a section on "ill-treatment of irregular migrants in detention camp", which I'll be happy to write down myself in the next few days. Please, let me know: apart from the Bangladeshi citizens, have I forgotten anything? In that case, let's add it to the section, but please don't remove anything for the time being, let's keep the new "inclusionist" text as a base for further discussions towards consensus. And please, check and improve my defective English – it's not my mother tongue. By the way, a lot of stuff is still missing about the Borodianka massacre (here subsection "Killings and torture in Borodianka") and I think that we should also work on that rather than keep on bickering about the human shield section. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (I came here from NPOVN). I don't see a reason why this article in The Jerusalem Post: "Russia, Ukraine accuse each other of using civilians as human shields" cannot be used to source Russia's accusations against Ukraine regarding human shields; seems a rather obvious inclusion to me. Pinging who removed it (with no edit summary?). Endwise (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is including it without all the counterclaims and evidence that Russian claims are basically bogus. Because there are no well sourced third party reports which allege Ukrainian use of human shields, it should not be included in the article.  However, it would also be fair to keep out claims made by Ukrainians that lack any sort of evidence or third party verification.  Shadybabs (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Washington Post source? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean the source in which an expert explicitly says that Ukrainians are NOT using civilians as human shields but that for some reason you and another editors want to use to pretend-source the claim that they are using civilians as human shields? That Washington Post source? Yes I read. Which is why I'm wondering why are you trying to do that.  Volunteer Marek   05:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I discovered the source only when it was provided above. It is explicit about "Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". I am not saying that this report should be included but it at least verifies claims from Russia that Ukraine is using civilian areas and putting their life in danger. This is why I see no sense in fully rejecting Russian claims just because they happen to be from Russia. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The source explicitly says that Ukrainians are NOT using civilians as human shields. You are trying to misrepresent the source.  Volunteer Marek   17:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said that. Read my above message again. I only said that Washington Post verifies some claims by Russia thus we should not reject Russian claims outright. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, one minor fix. Excellent summary, thanks Gitz for the effort. Considering these issues will take years until they are determined and resolved via the Legal process, I believe leaving all the detals in the text is preferred. Very interesting that no one at the Security Council voted against the Russian resolution. Ilenart626 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. I reworded Yahidne part, vague "accused" doesn't really work there, as we have two reliable sources clearly backing the claim. While I don't think it even needs to be attributed with two sources, I currently did so as a compromise solution. 2. Removed UN draft. There is no mention of it even blaming Ukraine, it was literally just "lets no commit war crimes" nothingburger. Completely undue. 3. Washington Post article is clearly far more relevant to general "indiscriminate attacks" topic, so moved it to an appropriate section.--Staberinde (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

'Detention camps' or 'Filtration camps'?
The subsection uses name 'filtration', not 'detention'. Are there non-filtration camps either? Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

2014 'parade'
Were the organizers punished? If not, it was 'de facto' legalization of such actions. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-pow-march-war-crime/26548667.html#:~:text=Ukrainian%20prisoners%20are%20paraded%20by%20pro-Russian%20separatists%20on,cursed%2C%20and%20hurled%20refuse%20at%20the%20haggard%20prisoners Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yahad-In Unum collects accounts
https://svidky.org/ Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

failed UN resolution tabled by Russia
And finally, why shouldn't we have the following contents about the failed UN resolution tabled by Russia? They'd been removed by Volunteer Marek and Shadybabs (in the section here above the diffs) but no reason has yet been given. On 23 March, Russia tabled a draft resolution at the UN Security Council demanding from all parties "to refrain from deliberately placing military objects and equipment in the vicinity of such [civilian] objects or in the midst of densely populated areas, as well as not to use civilian objects for military purposes"; the draft was defeated by a vote of 2 in favour (China, Russian Federation) to none against, with 13 abstentions. It seems to me that these contents belong naturally to the section on "Human shields", where I had placed it. However, as the controversial article of the Washington Post, which has been moved to "Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets", also these contents could be placed there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should we include it? It would just be playing into Russian propaganda and there's been no lasting coverage of this cynical ploy.  Volunteer Marek   02:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be interested in propaganda and in counter-propaganda: too complicated. The focus should rather be: is this notable? Is it related to the subject of this article? Is it covered by sources (verifiable)? Relatively easy questions that we call (first and second) pillars. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It got scant coverage (below you got two primary sources). The one non primary source is about how Russia tried to pass off this cynical piece of garbage while simultaneously bombing children. This is yet another case where something UNDUE is cherry picked on the basis of sparse sources and then twisted around.  Volunteer Marek   08:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess Russian and Chinese media have probably given full coverage to the failed UN resolution. E.g. TASS  , South China Morning Post here. In the English speaking world the news has been published by PBS here, Associated Press, here, ABC News, here (it's exactly the same article), and Reuters, here (this is different). I read the Italian press and I can point at the Italian news agency Adnkronos here, Tgcom24 here, RAI here. In my opinion a failed UN resolution on war crimes in Ukraine voted by Russia and China is per se notable and relevant in this article. Obviously it doesn't justify anything, but it shows that war crimes discourse doesn't belong to anyone and can be used instrumentally. I had added the info in the "Human shields" section to support the statement (verifiable and notable) that "Since the beginning of the invasion, Russia has repeatedly accused Ukraine of using human shields"; quotations follow and among them there was this info on the failed resolution. To me it is a matter of course that the failed UN resolution on humanitarian aid in Ukraine belongs to this article and the only problem for us editors should be - where do we want to put this information? The "Human shields" section, or rather the section on "Indiscriminate attacks"? Also the "International reactions" section could be an appropriate site. This is defintely not a game changer event, but still the info might be of interest for the readers of this article. Excluding it for political reasons is incompatible with NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, this can be sourced, but the proposal of the resolution was a propaganda stunt by Russia. Hence, no, this is undue on this page (it might be included to other pages). We have a lot of materials about real war crimes for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Consistent source misrepresentation, fake captioning and removal of sourced content
, is currently heavily vandalising the article by removing any info sourced to reliable sources that doesn't fit his view, adding false info to the article (for example here a photo that the Ukrainian government says it's taken in Mariupol is presented instead as taken in Bucha, moreover with fake sourcing to reliable Western media), constantly and blatantly misrepresenting sources. This should stop now and such vandals should not be allowed to game the system.Anonimu (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NORESVAND and stop referring to my edits as "vandalism". I already warned you once. If you persist I will have no choice but to report you.
 * You're right about the fact that the second photo is from Mariupol, not Bucha (I corrected it). You could have just pointed that out or changed the caption appropriately without removing the fact that these were victims of Russia.  Volunteer Marek   21:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:DUCKTEST.Anonimu (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You've been warned. Twice. How you proceed from here on is up to you.  Volunteer Marek   21:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary". And the evidence is obvious indeed.Anonimu (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to assume good faith (I don't care if you do or don't). I asked you not to refer to my edits as "vandalism", which is a personal attack and violates WP:NORESVAND.  Volunteer Marek   21:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who has no stake in this, I see no obvious evidence that Volunteer Marek is not operating in good faith. If you have an issue with edits being made, you can bring it up without personally attacking the editor. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone with no main space edits, you may not be aware that WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:MEATPUPPETRY are blockable offenses.Anonimu (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

''Collapsed bickering over user behavior, which has no place on an article Talk page. Please confine discussions here to how to improve this article. User behavioral issues may be addressed at user talk pages. Trimmed section title per WP:TALKHEADPOV. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)''


 * Hi @Anonimu and @Volunteer Marek, I edited it to add back the info in a way I hope you two are happy(er). Wording can probably be improved, so feel free to do so.
 * I removed some info that was repeated, made it more concise, and added back the Russian statement, but also added how it was refuted by images of Russian military.
 * Also removed Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba's statement, because I doubt he is omniscient and can know what the Russians know, and with the ambiguous translation it was borderline WP:SYNTH, giving the impression it was a planned attack on children by Russians.
 * Also might be reasonable to include the statement about how "extremely inaccurate" that kind of missile is. AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the input, your edits were a minor improvement, but did not fix the issues, as it attempted to find a middle ground between a grossly misrepresented version and one which basically paraphrased the sources. The photos in the article are published and captioned by the Ukrainian government, publishing them without attribution is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Moreover, adding refs to a caption of a photo which is not published or commented on by those source is fake sourcing and fits our definition of WP: VANDALISM. Also do note that CNN says "Ukrainian forces have the Soviet-designed Tochka missile in their inventory but it has also been used by Russian and separatist forces in the past.", while BBC attributes the claim to a Twitter account. Thus, the current text is misrepresenting the sources, which unfortunately is the tenth time Volunteer Marek is doing this.Anonimu (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who published the photos. What matters is what reliable sources say they are. And that's the part you keep trying to remove. This is neither "fake sourcing" nor "vandalism". Once again, I'm asking you to stop making personal attacks.  Volunteer Marek   16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (Likewise it doesn't matter WHY a reliable source, like BBC, says something, what matters is that they say it).  Volunteer Marek   16:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop vandalising the article by adding fake captions, fake sources and misrepresenting reliable sources. PLEASE.Anonimu (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done no such thing and you need to stop making personal attacks.  Volunteer Marek   18:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have un-collapsed the original message so that participants in the discussion can see diffs regarding your vandalism.Anonimu (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you both have problems with neutral points of views, but neither of you are vandals. Marek does get very heated up on discussions and his attitude doesn't help a lot. It is true that BBC's twitter source doesn't seem the most credible one, but indicate it instead of just removing it from the article. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I decided to closely report exactly what each source is saying. I hope this will end this part of the dispute.Anonimu (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Volunteer Marek is continuing to vandalise the article, no matter any discussion on talk page.Anonimu (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been more than patient with you throughout this. One more time. Stop referring to my edits as "vandalism".  Volunteer Marek   18:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this conversation is now moot. A couple of housekeeping notes:
 * in this edit of 18:08, 11 April 2022, Anonimu removed the collapse header above. I've restored the header, but left it expanded by default, in order not to be warring; but if another editor wants to set yes in the header, be my guest.
 * Please do not address any more comments to Anonimu at this page; they have been TBANned from EE (here), so cannot respond here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Boud (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey guys and gals '''these sorts of things (that Anonimu has been doing) have 'been happening on other Wikipedia articles mentioning war crimes in Ukraine too.
 * Constant vigilance is the solution.
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Image of civilians killed in Bucha
The caption of is now "Civilians in Bucha, massacred by Russian soldiers, April 2022". Sources follow, although it's not evident why they are there and what they'd support: the caption of one of them, "Radio free Europe", is "The bodies of two people in civilian clothes lie on a street in Bucha on April 3. They were shot by Russian soldiers, according to local residents. The hands of one of the bodies are tied behind its back". This is a good example of what a serious reliable source might say about a picture as this: it says what we know ("people in civilian clothes", "shot by Russian soldiers, according to local residents") and not what we think we know ("civilians killed by Russians"). We shouldn't be less serious and less reliable than our sources - or should we? And why should we be so hasty, what good would come from our sloppiness? So now I am changing (again) the caption of the image. If some editors don't like the one on Wikicommons ("Video published by the National News Agency of Ukraine reportedly showing Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers"), I agree with them - it's a bit bureaucratic. So they might perhaps prefer the following: "Bodies in civilian clothes, reportedly shot by Russian soldiers, lie on a street in Bucha. The hands of one of them are tied behind its back. 3 April 2022". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Plus, I've moved the image to the appropriate section, Bucha (surely we don't want it before the Infobox!) and I've removed the sources "Radio Free Europe" and "Der Spiegel", as they are not the sources of the image and they belong to the text, not to the caption (no other image has footnotes here). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove this image from the lead. It is there to represent the topic and illustrate it. And Bucha is now one of the symbols of war crimes in Ukraine.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep the image in the lede / infobox area. It is highly representative of the article, with the bound hands and bodies-- it clearly demonstrates that executions have been done. Highly germaine to the article topic.
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Detention camps a war crime?
In the last few days a sub-section on Detention camps has been added to the Deportions section. Reading through the details added to me it does not appear to be a war crime. Also the single reference does not mention war crimes. Delete? Ilenart626 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, at first I had thought the same and was about to delete it, but then I realised that it could be read as providing information on the living conditions of those who (allegedly) have been victim of the crime of deportation. So the war crime would not be the relatively poor living conditions in the detention camps, but rather deportation as such, and the subsection would specify how the victims of this crime are actually treated. But to be honest, I'm not at all sure about this, so let's wait for other editors' point of views. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. It's actually quite flimsy, because the source says "they had permission to leave", and they actually left, so it's debatable whether this qualifies as "forced deportation of civilians" (the source doesn't claim that).
 * I would not include *any* individual accounts in this section. We already have a HRW report and they have at least spoken to dozens of refugees who managed to get out of Mariupol. They do not say that war crimes have been committed in the course of these transfers. Alaexis¿question? 16:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, if unopposed I intend to remove the subsection: it's 2.5 editors against 0.5 editors on this, and I'm the split editor. If in the future RS will cover more extensively the issue of the living conditions in Russian detention camps, we will recover the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Would of done it myself but I have been a little busy discussing Human shields! Ilenart626 (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Forced detention and forced relocation of civilians are violations of international law.
 * Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Torture of Russian POWs
Re. I'm sorry but the source does NOT say that Russian POWs have been tortured. What it says it that torture of POWs is against the Geneva Convention. Including this in the lede appears to be a pretty flagrant misrepresentation of sources.  Volunteer Marek  16:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see any misrepresentation of sources, let alone a flagrant one. Shooting someone in the legs amounts to torture - deliberate infliction of severe pain - and this is so obvious that frankly I don't see the point of discussing this: consulting the dictionary should be enough. And if HRW comments the episode by stating "No torture or other form of coercion may be inflicted on POWs" and "Ukraine is also bound by the absolute prohibition on torture and other degrading or inhuman treatment", that sounds quite indicative to me. But let's wait for other editors' comments on the point, and on that basis decide if we want to remove the tag "failed verification" in the lead, or rather we want to replace "torture" with "shot in the legs", restoring the text as it was until this edit. But dropping the reference entirely and framing this episode just as a case of "abuse" is out of the question IMO. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It should indeed be "shoot in the leg" per source, but that would also highlight that we're putting what looks like an isolated incident into the lede and displaying it on par with mass murder, mass rapes, torture chambers, mutilation of children that the other side committed. Basically, we're pretending that there's equal guilt on both sides when there clearly isn't and that is a violation of NPOV.
 * Seriously, this whole article has this problem throughout where on one side there's a ton of well sourced crimes so somebody went and dug through the internet to find that one instance of the other side doing something bad so they can engage in this kind of false equivocation.  Volunteer Marek   17:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The aim here should not be establishing who is guilty, who is not guilty, who is not so much guilty, who is more guilty than others. That's the aim of the prosecutor, the judge, the opinion maker and the politician. We are just editors of Wikipedia and we are here to assemble reliable information making it easily accessible to the public: that's the only goal we should have. If you're interested in war crimes in Ukraine, you might be interested in knowing about the Russian POWs; what then you will do with that information, it's a matter for your brain and conscience and it's hard to tell. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "The aim here should not be establishing who is guilty, who is not guilty, who is not so much guilty, who is more guilty than others" - The aim here should be to reflect what the reliable sources say on the topic and in what proportion. If reliable sources say that Russia is more guilty than others then that is EXACTLY what we say. What you and Illenart are trying to do here is present to the reader a very skewed portrayal as to what reliable source say, and falsely convince them that reliable sources portray Ukrainian war crimes as on par with Russian ones, despite the fact that we're talking isolated incidents vs mass murder and rape here. And that's a, you know, a "matter for your brain and conscience", but also for Wikipedia neutrality and policies.  Volunteer Marek   20:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Gitz I agree with your analysis. Overall I believe the article was balanced before Volunteer Marek’s numorous changes, with most of the article focusing on Russia’s war crimes.  However NPOV means we include war crimes from both sides, which are supported by RS, something that Volunteer Marek seems to have trouble understanding or accepting.  On the issue of “torture of Russian prisoners”;I would agree that shooting someone in the leg can obviously be described as torture.  Ilenart626 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I disagree. The article was balanced before YOU made numerous changes, the gist of which was to try and "blame both sides equally". And no, NPOV does not say we "must include both sides" - it means we include both sides in proportion to how it's reported in reliable sources . Since Russian forces are responsible for the overwhelming number of these war crimes, it means that's how we present it. Otherwise these are just attempts to whitewash by diluting guilt.  Volunteer Marek   19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And one more time - it's simple really - if you think that there is "torture" of Russian POWs then you should have absolutely no problem providing a source which actually says so. Not "I think this looks like maybe it kind of says that it was alleged and then denied" but actually says it.  Volunteer Marek   20:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and here I stop. Next time may I suggest you use "Google" instead of Wikipedia talk pages for enquiries like this? Now I disengage and won't reply again to other provocative and pointless requests. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was easy, as you requested.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/28/ukraine-government-investigates-video-alleged-torture-russian-prisoners-of-war
 * Ilenart626 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then use the sources that actually say it - and say that Ukraine is investigating it (is Russia investigating it’s soldiers that murdered and raped in Bucha? Oh that’s right, they’re promoting them and giving them medals). Not the sources which DONT say it.  Volunteer Marek   23:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And this is still wrong because the current text says that HRW “expressed concern about (…) torture of (…) POWs”. But there’s no such thing in the actual source.  Volunteer Marek   23:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record: with no clear consensus, the text now on is The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine. Dozen of news outlets, human rights organisations and government agencies (including the Ukrainian authorities) have expressed concern for well-documented episodes of torture and wilful killing of Russian POW (at least two confirmed episodes); plus, at the beginning of March they had expressed concern for systematic abuse and public humiliation of Russian POW, which at the time was likely to be official state policy (government Telegram channels and social networks, press conferences with POWs and Ukr authorities). Moreover, the following text has been added to the lead: Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution. Citation overkill follows (5 footnotes) but the sources provided fail to support the text: we have an allegation by an US official that they have undisclosed evidence of summary executions (which clearly doesn't belong the the lead for the time being), and all the remaining references are to the case of the British POW and to other cases of abuse and exposure to public curiosity, where torture was not alleged nor documented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAIK there is one incident (the shooting of a POW in knees). But even with two, that pales in comparison to the multiple dozens of instances of Russian war crimes. Hence it’s UNDUE to write the sentence as if the abuses on the Ukrainian side have been numerous. That’s also POV.  Volunteer Marek   16:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Shooting Russian soldiers in the knees is absolutely torture and any allegations of sufficient weight should be included in the article.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)