Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine: Difference between revisions

RfC on killings of suspected collaborators

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

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

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

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

Proposed text

Extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators As of 30 August nearly a dozen people had been killed and others injured in assassination attempts on collaborationists and Russian-appointed officials in the occupied territories. Some of the attacks against high-ranking political collaborators were allegedly conducted by Ukrainian partisans led and trained by Ukrainian special forces. On 2 March 2022 Volodymyr Struk, a pro-Russian mayor in the town of Kremnina, was abducted and shot dead by unknown gunmen. An advisor to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, Anton Herashchenko, reported that Struk had been “judged by the public tribunal and apparently shot by unknown patriots as a traitor". On 8 September, the Washington Post reported a wave of assassinations and attempted killings against Russian-appointed officials and Ukrainian collaborators, as Ukrainian hit squads and saboteurs gunned down, blown up, hanged and poisoned almost 20 people considered to be collaborators of the puppet governments of Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics. The assassination campaign was described as raising questions "about extrajudicial killings and potential war crimes, particularly when the targets are political actors or civilians". On 27 September, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights documented six killings of alleged "traitors" of Ukraine. The victims were local authority officials, policemen and civilians who were believed to have voluntarily cooperated with the enemy. According to OHCHR, these killings may have been committed by government agents or with their acquiescence and could constitute extrajudicial executions and war crimes. References

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

Survey

• Option 1 for the following reasons.

1. RS usually do not define such Ukrainian partisan activities during this war as war crimes, but rather as activities that are potentially illegal under international law and need to be investigated and qualified on a case by case basis. This is something debatable. For example, "the legality and whether the murky area they [Ukrainian partisans] inhabit does in fact fall under international law — and whether their activities violate those rules — is a matter for debate. [1]. This is different from some other resistance movements or organizations, such as Hamas that indeed was accused of war crimes, as can be easily sourced. No, Washington Post and OHCHR sources do not assert that the killings of Russian collaborators during this war were a war crime by the Ukrainian side. At best, they say this is something debatable, hence the relevance to this page is doubtful. These and other sources say it is not even known who committed these killings and if all of the deaths were killings.
2. Something like killing Nazi and their collaborators by resistance fighters is not considered a war crime, although it does qualify as extrajudicial killings. This is a very close example.
3. I think this content belong to other pages, such as Partisan_(military)#Ukrainian. This page is already very big. I do not think that including more materials on questionable or poorly documented "war crimes" improves it. The actual war crimes on enormous scale are committed by Russian forces during this war. Why can't we focus on them on this page? WP:GEVAL please. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking about "Option 3", I think users who prefer such option should propose specific text to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This is also an improperly framed RfC. It had to include only options "1" and "2", i.e. "I suggest such and such text, "yes" on "no", please". Period. Based on the previous similarly framed RfC on this page [2], in the case of closing as "option 3", Gitz6666 simply wants to include his version that he will call a compromise version, i.e. [3] and demand that other users accept his version or "else" [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The framing of the RfC was the subject of this discussion between Adoring Nanny and me: [5]. Note that Adoring Nanny !voted option 1, as you did. We did our best to propose a properly framed RfC, and I believe this one is. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 for the following reasons..

1. We have good sources (Washington Post and OHCHR) saying that the killing of collaborators and perceived traitors may be a war crime, and I see no valid reason not to include this section in the article. Until trials are held and final sentences are handed down, it will always be questionable whether a war crime took place, which is why most reliable sources use cautious, hypothetical language. We should do the same: we don’t know all the facts. But in this respect there is nothing different from the other war crimes reported in this article, which are often (according to the sources) "potential", "possible", "alleged", "reportedly", etc. – and yet we usually include them in this article, and rightly so.
2. False analogies are misleading. The killing of Nazi Germany’s collaborators during WW2 took place before the adoption of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (1949) (Persons taking no active part in the hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely) and the 1977 Additional Protocols. (By the way, it should be noted that at the time the opposite case was much more frequent: during WW2 Germany executed thousands of civilian "spies", "traitors" and "saboteurs". It is estimated that they sentenced 30,000 people to death for treason or desertion, 20,000 of whom were executed. Yet the Nuremberg Tribunal did not condemn high treason cases as crimes against humanity precisely because at the time international law, and in particular the law of armed conflict, was different from today – so no meaningful comparisons can be made.) However, the case of the killing by Hamas of Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel is comparable, and it has been considered a war crime by the United Nations (for references, see my comment above).
3. This is not about giving "equal validity" and creating a "false balance". Obviously most of the war crimes in Ukraine were committed by the Russian army, but I don't see how this is a reason not publish any possible war crimes committed by the Ukrainian army. Due to nationalist POV-pushing, reporting about possible Ukrainian war crimes has always required extensive discussions among editors, but NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, and the topic of this article is not "Russian war crimes in Ukraine", but "war crimes in Ukraine". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You say that the analogy with killing of Nazi Germany’s collaborators during WW2 was false. Why? Yes, it was during a different time, but other than that it is almost the same. An invading aggressor that commits a war of extermination, etc. Yes, the ideology to justify the aggression and genocide was a little different, but not that much different. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the law has changed since then. Admittedly during WW2 partisans occasionally targeted Nazi Germany's collaborators who were seen as "traitors" (although not to the same extent as the Nazis did). When these collaborationists were civilians who had not taken part in hostilities, it can be difficult to retrospectively justify these actions, as in the 1960s was already clear to anyone who had seen the scenes of Hiroshima mon amour about les femmes tondues. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on your response, you agree that WW2 partisans targeting Nazi Germany's collaborators would be a similar case, but such targeting would be considered a war crime by today's standards. Yes, perhaps a few certain actions by some of such groups could be considered as war crimes today, but in general, no. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3  The proposed text is a start, but can be improved (I posted a comment in the discussion below). It looks like the start of a list of all suspected partisan killings, implying that they all may be suspected war crimes, and encouraging the addition of every suspected partisan killing. I’m opposed to that. The focus should be on the 6 actually suspected war crimes according to the UN, giving necessary background from other journalistic sources, and link to appropriate articles on the separate subject like Ukrainian resistance during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 16:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about this most recent UN report [6]? I do not see it mentioning the alleged killings of Russian collaborators anywhere, although it does mention a couple of other things by the Ukrainian side. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I was going strictly by the proposed text above, last paragraph. Did not check the sources, but the link is this one.  —Michael Z. 18:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. This is an earlier report. It includes one short paragraph (whole report is 49 pages) which says "OHCHR documented six killings of civilians perceived as so-called ‘traitors’ against Ukraine for their alleged collaboration with the Russian Federation in territory occupied by it or controlled by Russian armed forces or affiliated armed groups since 24 February. While those who committed the killings remain unknown, OHCHR has concerns that some of these killings may have been perpetrated by agents of the Government of Ukraine or with their acquiescence... As these victims were civilians, they cannot be considered legitimate military targets. As such, these killings may amount to extrajudicial executions and war crimes, and should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly." They did not even say which 6 persons they mean. Three things. (1) It says "OHCHR has concerns that some of these killings may have been perpetrated by agents of the Government of Ukraine or with their acquiescence" This is far cry from asserting that war crimes have been in fact committed (hence, this hardly belongs this page). (2) Given very small amount of space dedicated in this report to the subject under discussion, I do not think this is due on this page. (3) The report is not about war crimes, it is on the "human rights situation " which is a much wider subject. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Option 2, as per User:Gitz6666. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• On the fence between options 1 and 3, probably slightly favor 1, but it's close. Oppose option 2. If something about this is to be included, I would delete the paragraph about Struk, and the version would discuss "killings" and would not use the term "extrajudicial". I think the question of whether or not such an option 3 is WP:UNDUE is currently borderline. I slightly think that it is WP:UNDUE, but it's a close call that could reasonably go either way. That said, a new level of war crime, such as a nuclear explosion, major nuclear contamination, or large-scale flooding caused by a war crime, would push me into a clear belief that option 3 would be WP:UNDUE and support for option 1. Such a major war crime would push this into "you stole a pencil" territory by comparison.Adoring nanny (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 (invited by the bot) Include neutrally worded information about what has occurred in those areas. So, provide information, not characterization. Wording like option #2 contains much "spinning up" and characterization. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Inclusion or not should be based on sourcing, WP:DUE, and WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  The sources here are fine. WP:DUE requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by RSs. It doesn't justify silencing a viewpoint once it has been expressed in RSs. WP:DUE allows the most discredited viewpoints to be omitted altogether, but this is clearly not the case: we have no less than OHCHR, OSCE and WaPo, all raising concerns about the possibility of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

”possibility of serious violations of international humanitarian law” is a funny way of saying “none of these sources call this a war crime”. Indeed if I’m not mistaken OHCHR specifically says there were TWO (of course a lot more for Russia) incidents of Ukrainian war crimes and NEITHER of these was this stuff. Volunteer Marek 13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The key phrase in WP:DUE, I think, is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So the fact that something has appeared in a WP:RS, is not in and of itself sufficient. It has to be proportionate. "Proportionate" may or may not be zero, and it may become a judgment call. The bit about Volodymyr Struk, for example, to me seemed disproportionate, even though it has appeared in WP:RS. I also agree that we should consider the level of certainty the source expresses that something was a war crime. Just today I came across this article[7] on the proposed evacuation from Kherson, which has a more definitive statement: The transfer or deportation of civilians by an occupying power from occupied territory is considered a war crime. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, re if I’m not mistaken, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I don't know where you got this "two war crimes" figure, but the OHCHR speaks explicitly of a possible war crime in the case of the extrajudicial killing of suspected traitors. I copy and paste the text of the source below, as it may be of interest to all (emphasis mine).

• Extrajudicial executions of people perceived as so-called ‘traitors’
• 40. OHCHR documented six killings of civilians perceived as so-called ‘traitors’ against Ukraine for their alleged collaboration with the Russian Federation in territory occupied by it or controlled by Russian armed forces or affiliated armed groups since 24 February. While those who committed the killings remain unknown, OHCHR has concerns that some of these killings may have been perpetrated by agents of the Government of Ukraine or with their acquiescence.23 Most of the victims were former or active officials of local authorities, officers of law enforcement bodies or civilians who were believed to have voluntarily cooperated and worked with the occupation authorities. As these victims were civilians, they cannot be considered legitimate military targets.24 As such, these killings may amount to extrajudicial executions and war crimes, and should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly.
• footnote 23 For example, on 19 April, an advisor to the Minister of Internal Affairs stated on a talk show that “there is [a service] established and working in occupied territories. When you hear that someone in occupied territories ‘suddenly died’ – this is the work of our services”.
• footnote 24 See Geneva Convention III, art. 4 (a); Additional Protocol I, arts. 43 and 50.
  — Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 1 February to 31 July 2022 (Report). OHCHR. 27 September 2022. para. 40. Retrieved 10 Oct 2022.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The “two incidents” are in one of the OHCHR reports. Regardless, the point is that this a huge stretch since all that this report says is that these “MAY” be “war crimes” but that more investigation is needed. This has been repeated and pointed out to you several times now. Volunteer Marek 06:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to the evidence that these killings could be war crimes. BUT even if that's the case, I'm skeptical that the relatively small number of killings is WP:DUE, when contrasted with the mass graves that are routinely found in areas that have been retaken by Ukrainian forces. If the sourcing is at the same level, then OK, but I'm not currently seeing it. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but it is based on a wrong assessment of the space we assign to war crimes in relation to media coverage. For example, the "E40 highway shooting" section is based on a single BBC article; the section "Killings and torture in Trostianets" is based on one article from the Guardian, one from the Independent and one from the NYT. The (very large) section "Shooting at passing civilian vehicles" is entirely based on a Human Rights Watch report, supplemented with a few newspaper reports on individual incidents. The section "Overt command to kill civilians" is based on an unverified audio recording distributed by the German intelligence service, which received very little media coverage. Also the level of details of the proposed section doesn't compare with other sections, e.g. "Looting" (an image reportedly showing a damaged Russian military truck carrying three washing machines ... a call by a Russian soldier released by the Security Service of Ukraine included the soldier telling his girlfriend: "I stole some cosmetics for you") and "Sexual violence" (A 52 year old woman was taken by Russian soldiers in occupied Izyum and repeatedly raped while her husband was beaten. The Russians forcibly undressed her, groped her, and told her that they would send photos of the activity to her family members, and it goes on an on for 137 words based on only one source). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The number of sources about an event referenced in the article is not measure of its coverage in sources or notability. —Michael Z. 16:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct, it's the amount of sourcing that exists about the topic, not the amount of sourcing the article refers to. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

But that doesn't affect my argument, does it? The amount of sources referring to the topic of "killings of collaborationists in Ukraine" is vast, and far greater than those referring to, say, "E40 highway shooting", "Overt command to kill civilians", or to single war crimes that we cover extensively. The notability of the topic is obvious, and indeed we already have articles on Ukrainian resistance during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (reporting the killing and wounding of various pro-Russian activists and Russian-appointed officials), Collaboration with Russia during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Volodymyr Struk, which are based on dozens of sources. Now we have Washington Post and the OHCHR claiming that some of these actions may amount to war crimes (which, by the way, in some cases is pretty obvious: the killing of a pro-Russian blogger [8], the killing of a journalist and politician [9], the killing in a car bomb blast of the head of "families, youth, and sports" department in Kherson [10], the killing of an elected mayor [11], the non-fatal car bomb blast attack on the head of the education department in Melitopol [12] - not to mention the killing of Daria Dugina [13]) and I don't see why we should suppress this information on the dedicated article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If the amount of sources is so vast, then why did you link six wherein none mention war crimes and only one mentions the Ukrainian military at all (“‘successful work of partisans’ directed by Ukraine's armed forces”)? For all we know, five of these are infighting among corrupt Russian officials or killings by the locals, and nothing to do with war crimes.  —Michael Z. 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This is right, but I am not suggesting that these killings be reported in the article. My argument is that the topic "killings of collaborationists in Ukraine" is undoubtedly encyclopaedic and widely covered in the sources. The OHCHR's assertion that some of these killings might constitute a war crime cannot be considered a minority view or an extraordinary claim as it comes from the most authoritative independent RS available and is prima facie plausible. Taking into account the way we covered other subjects in the article (trivial subjects such as looting, contents supported by worse sources, contents presented in excessive detail) my impression is that UNDUE arguments should not prevent the inclusion of the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But my position remains that OHCHR’s assessment should be mentioned, but a speculative (on our part) list of killings should not.

(Actual war crimes are not trivial.)  —Michael Z. 23:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think we should prefer using the most recent report by UN, such as [14] because their views/conclusions change after receiving new data. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

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

On having a different shared version of the text

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

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

Closure?

Apparently this RfC isn't getting much traction, but we may already have a rough consensus. Apart from two/three editors, everybody agrees that we should have a section on killing of collaborators and, apart from one/two editors, everybody agrees that the proposed text needs to be modified. Option 3 is the middle ground most of us agree on. I think the following result could be OK to many:

• Let's drop any reference to Struk.
• The section should not become the start of a list of all suspected partisan killings, implying that they all may be suspected war crimes, and encouraging the addition of every suspected partisan killing (Michael's concern).
• The section needs to be brief (Tristario's concern).
• Replace "extrajudicial execution" with "(wilful) killing of collaborators" (as proposed by Tristario and Adoring nanny) in the title and elsewhere in the text, perhaps with the exception of the last paragraph, where it is the source itself (OHCHR) that uses the "extrajudicial execution" terminology.
• Let Michael's and other editors have the changes they have proposed, i.e. provide necessary background from other journalistic sources, and link to appropriate articles on the separate subject like Ukrainian resistance and provide more information about the context of the killings, or modify the information already provided, if it's faulty or misleading.

Would this be acceptable? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Alaexis_¿question? 13:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ummm, no. You and Gitz are doing "that thing" again. That thing where you declare you have consensus even though you very clearly don't. Gitz if I'm not mistaken has already been warned about this tendency of his. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

As with the word "extrajudicial", I would not use the word "wilful". The vast majority of the killings in this article are wilful. The people were killed. I think that is enough. Also, in the absence of any closure, we shouldn't say that assume that any particular version is supported by RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's drop the "wilful". It would me disappointing if an editor were to remove the section or modufy it significantly claiming that there's no consensus, so maybe we should also ask for a formal closure, which will be straightforward if there's a clear consensus on a middle ground solution. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

As a general matter, a formal closure is probably a good idea. It may take longer than you want it to, but it does tend to happen. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Shall I ask for it already? And is it OK if I publish this draft as a middle ground/Option 3 solution? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There's obviously no consensus for inclusion here. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I requested a formal closure of this RfC [15]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Kupiansk convoy shooting

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

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

more work needed on the indiscriminate attacks section

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

split the article?

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

examples:
"Use of human shields in the Russian invasion of Ukraine"
"Looting in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (or something similar)
"Treatment of prisioners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (we could also fit in general mistreatment and exposure of POWs in that article)
"Deportation of Ukrainian civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (maybe merge with the abductions of children and filtration camps article to make a single, bigger one)
"Torture and murder of civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (or something similar)
SnoopyBird (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable suggestion. Except that I would remove "2022". Just "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is pretty much a "common name" by now, and it will obviously continue in 2023 and possibly beyond. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, makes sense considering that we are already in november, and the war may just continue into next year. SnoopyBird (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The pundits seem to agree that winter weather will severely impede if not stop any major initiative Elinruby (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Both Russia and Ukraine tortured prisoners of war, UN says

• Reuters article
• UN (OHCHR) report

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

Need input at Torture in Ukraine.

The linked page desperately needs more eyes. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And again with the POV

The section title “Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area” is obviously not neutral since it relates, in Wikivoice, the false Russian propaganda line that these soldiers were shot after they surrendered, rather than the fact that a Russian soldier opened fire on Ukrainians while other Russian soldiers tried to surrender. This is clear both from sources which mention perfidy and to anyone who watched the video. The “war crime” here is the false surrender/ambush, so please stop pretending otherwise. Volunteer Marek 13:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area is very close to the sources. I know that titles are no sources, but note the titles used by our RSs:

• "Were Russian soldiers shot after surrendering?" (BBC)
• "Videos Suggest Captive Russian Soldiers Were Killed at Close Range" (NYT)
• "Russia says Ukrainian soldiers executed prisoners of war in Donbas region" (Guardian)
• "Moscow claims this footage shows the 'murder' of 'immobilised' Russian soldiers. Here's what we know" (ABC)
• "Ukrainian AG’s office investigates Russian POW execution video, suspects Makiivka captives of feigning surrender" (Meduza)

Other sources:

• "‘An emphatically provocative crime’ Videos which appear to show the killing of Russian prisoners of war circulate online" (Meduza)
• "UN examines video with possible execution of Russian prisoners of war" (EuroMaidanPress)
• "Russia accuses Ukraine of executing more than 10 POWs" Reuters
• "Russia accuses Ukraine of executing more than 10 POWs" Euronews

How does all this translate into your favoured False surrender of Russian soldiers in the Makiyivka area [16] [17] [18] or False surrender/shooting video [19]?

IMHO Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering in the Makiyivka area is perfectly neutral and it is also the commonly recognizable name of this incident per WP:CRITERIA. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Yeah, titles aren't sources. Here's what the sources say.

• BBC - "A Ukrainian official has claimed that the surrender was "staged" by Russian troops in an attempt to attack their captors. (...) A man emerges from behind a wall. He is armed and opens fire, apparently in the direction of the camera (Ukrainians)."
• NYT - "Ukraine’s commissioner for human rights, Dmytro Lubinets, saying Russian soldiers had opened fire during the act of surrendering. (...) As an 11th Russian soldier emerges from the outhouse, he opens fire, aiming at one of the Ukrainian soldiers. The Ukrainians are taken by surprise. The cellphone camera jolts away as the Ukrainian soldier filming the scene flinches. (...) The Russian gunman’s actions are critical, too, Dr. Vukusic said, and could be deemed perfidy — feigning surrender or noncombatant status as a ruse against the Ukrainians — which may be prosecutable as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. “It may very well be that, had this guy not fired, that they all would have been captured as P.O.W.s, and survived,” Dr. Vukusic added.
• Guardian - well, first there's the very obvious "Russia says". Russia says a lot of shit. Most of which is completely false. That's kind of the point - why are you trying to make the section heading "what Russia says" (in Wikivoice no less)? Anyway - "One of the men wearing all black, however, seems to turn his gun on what appears to be a Ukrainian unit of soldiers wearing yellow armbands as he emerges from the half-destroyed outhouse." This source also does not reference this as a war crime, either way
• ABC - again "Moscow claims". See above about Moscow claims. Again, let's not try to regurgitate Russian propaganda, ok? Anyway - "videos appeared to show one of the alleged Russian soldiers refusing to lay down his weapon and opening fire, before a larger flurry of gunfire erupted. (...) As he emerges, the apparently armed man appears to raise a rifle and open fire, with the muzzle of the gun emitting puffs of smoke. (...) He said the videos appeared to show "a staged capture" where Russian forces were not really surrendering. "In this case, the Russian military personnel cannot be considered prisoners of war, but are fighting and committing perfidy."
• Meduza - yeah there's that "suspects Makiivka captives of feigning surrender" in there, right? Here's text "The investigators are considering the possibility that the Russian soldiers had opened fire while feigning surrender. If true, this would constitute a war crime under the international humanitarian law. " Then the source goes on to explain what is perfidy under international law.

So. Three of YOUR sources explicitly reference this as a potential war crime by the Russians (perfidy, fake surrender). The other ones just describe what happens, INCLUDING describing the fact that a Russian soldier started shooting at Ukrainians while others were surrendering (or pretending to surrender).

But you somehow insist on the section heading capturing ONLY the Russian bullshit disinformation version, contrary to the VERY SOURCES you yourself are providing.

Nope. Not how this works. Volunteer Marek 00:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

We report the Ukrainian version in the text of the section. The title should abide by WP:CRITERIA. "False surrender" is an hypothesis - no reliable source reports it as a fact. "Videos purportedly showing Russian soldiers shot after surrendering", however, is a fact, not an hypothesis, and it's very close to the way all RS summarised the incident. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"We report the Ukrainian version in the text of the section." Great! Then why do we (well, you) report only the (false disinformation) Russian version in the title of the section? See where the problem is? If you reflect upon what you just said perhaps you'll start to understand why this is biased af.

And no "shot after surrendering" is not a "fact". It's as much a hypothesis as anything else, since the very "fact" that they actually "surrender" rather than fake surrendered is what is in dispute. Volunteer Marek 01:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am having a hard time coming up with an title for this that is brief, makes sense to the reader, and is WP:NPOV. My best attempt, which I think is bad, is "Disputed surrender video." It is at least brief and WP:NPOV, but is not informative. Anyone have better ideas? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clear as day from the video that a Russian soldier opened up fire on Ukrainians while others were surrendering. Really the only question is whether the other ones were in on the plan or was this guy some fanatic idiot that got them all killed by his own stupidity, acting alone. Volunteer Marek 01:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, one opened fire while the others were surrendering. But the ones who got killed may not have been committing perfidy. That's part of the problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, it's not "clear as day". All sources use a cautious language ("apparently in the direction of the camera", "apparently armed man", "seems to turn his gun on what appears to be a Ukrainian unit", etc.). As you've watched the video yourself, you know well that you don't see shit. Secondly, the notion that the "other ones were in on the plan" is ridiculous. Brilliant plan! You give away your weapons and lie face down on the ground, what a plan! It's obvious that those soldiers were surrendering. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

Per suggestion of Random Fan Camping in User talk:Random Fan Camping. Please add that russian soldiers hanged hamsters on trees for fun in Kherson. Sources:

1. https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1592151435726454785
2. https://ecopolitic.com.ua/en/news/na-hersonshhini-rosijski-vijskovi-zhorstoko-vbili-hom-yakiv-2/
3. https://www.newsweek.com/russian-soldiers-execute-animals-ukraine-says-1759461
4. https://fakty.com.ua/en/ukraine/20221114-povisyly-na-gilkah-okupanty-znushhalysya-z-chervonoknyzhnyh-homyakiv-na-hersonshhyni/
5. https://www.ibtimes.com/russian-soldiers-torture-animals-theyre-executed-hanging-ukraine-photo-3635856

Thanks in advance, -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 14:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

As horrible and perhaps illustrative as this is, it's not a war crime. I don't know, maybe we need an article on Animal abuse by Russian forces during 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There's so much stuff like this. Volunteer Marek 00:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)