Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Showing photos and videos of killed Russian soldiers

The section Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers begins with two sentences that imply that showing photos and videos of killed soldiers is a war crime. The source is this Washington Post article , but as far as I can see that is taken from the subheading (not reliable sources per WP:HEADLINES) and it is not explicitly called a war crime in the body of the article. As far as I can see no other source calls showing these photos and videos a war crime (but I could not read some that were behind paywalls). Also, the section refers to Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention which is not about the treatment of POWs, not about the deceased. There are rules about the treatment of the dead and against them being "despoiled" but as far as I know photos and videos are not prohibited. I suggest that the text "photos and videos of killed Russian soldiers,[283] soon followed by" is removed. Sjö (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? Russian POWs on the image are alive (in section "Russian POWs"). My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If you read the section I linked at the beginning of my post it will become clearer. I am talking about the photos and videos mentioned in the Washington post source. Sjö (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Military_of_the_Russian_Federation_captured_during_the_Battle_of_Sumy.jpg ? There is on any other with Russian soldiers. I do not see an obvious problem with it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No, some of them (actually most if them) were dead. Washington Post says "But the tactic also could be interpreted as a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which say governments must “at all times” protect prisoners of war from “insults and public curiosity"". Then they interview an international law professor, Rachel E. VanLandingham, who says it's prohibited by "the law" (meaning IHL). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but what part of the campaign is he talking about? Showing POWs or showing soldiers that died before they became POWs? The way I read the article the prohibited part is that which is against the thirteenth article of the Third Geneva Convention, i.e. subjecting them to public curiosity. The Geneva conventions do not say much about the treatment of fallen combatants, and certainly nothing about exposing them to public curiosity. Sjö (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The humiliation of POWs is a war crime. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have never questioned that. My post is about photos and videos of dead soldiers that are not POWs.Sjö (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You must clearly link to a photo/video you are talking about to avoid misunderstanding. Also, no, showing photos and videos of killed soldiers is not a war crime, and not a crime at all. Journalists do it all the time. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

WoP claims, if I understood them correctly, that the campaign (they called it "tactics") by the Ukrainian government of systematically circulating gory images of dead Russian soldiers plus interviews to POWs violates the Geneva convention. There might be an important legal distinction here that is missed, which WoP doesn't trace, doesn't make clear or neglects, between living POWs and images of dead Russian soldiers. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to remove the text as i suggested, so I am going to do that.Sjö (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus whatsoever. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Lack of consensus to include, together with legitimate policy based objections means it stays out until consensus is reached, per WP:ONUS. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing the "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" section while keeping the section called "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" looks like a rather IDONTLIKEIT approach. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, removing that section without removing the other actually looks like tendentious editing. By the way, I had almost forgotten the very existence of that section on Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers. Which is surprising because I myself had written a good part of it. Now, obviously I'd like it to remain as much as I like the section on Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers to remain. To me a reader who's browsing the article on war crimes in the Russian invasion might be interested in finding them both, and I don't see any good reason for dropping them. However, since the section on the Russian POWs has been repeatedly and forcefully removed, I think it's time to say goodbye to the Ukrainian POWs: it's a matter of consistency, that is, neutrality. I'm now removing it myself. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out already not all violations of Geneva conventions are war crimes. Agree with Sjo. Show sources. Volunteer Marek 09:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps would be sensible to wait until there is any kind of consensus before removing content citing "per talk". AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, how are violations of the Geneva conventions not war crimes? And even if they aren't, I think the correct way of proceeding would be to rename the article to "War crimes in ... and violations of the Geneva conventions". But still, war crimes are violations of the laws of war which include the Geneva conventions, don't they? AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

1. No, WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include. 2. "serious violations" of Geneva convention are war crimes. Not everything that is a violation of Geneva convention is a war crime. Do you really think there will be international prosecution of someone because they posted a photo of captured Russian soldiers online? Volunteer Marek 15:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Here we have multiple RS (Amnesty International, HRW, ICRC, Washington Post, Times of Israel, etc.) claiming that the Ukrainian authorities might have violated the Geneva conventions because "prisoners of war and detained civilians must be treated with dignity" and because they are "absolutely protected against ill-treatment and exposure to public curiosity including images circulating publicly on social media". If you think that this is not serious enough a violation to qualify as war crime and/or international prosecution will not be pursued (does it matter?), that's an interesting point: could you provide a reliable source on this?
Speaking about of (lack of) sources, could you please tell us why do you think that drafting a law (was it eventually approved?) facilitating the adoption of Ukrainian children amounts to a war crime? The sources I read speak of a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So I removed your contents on this [1]. I also added a few new contents on the alleged war crime of deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia: [2]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss whether invading armies kidnapping children is a “war crime” or not please start a separate section and we can talk about it there. However since the motivation here appears to be some kind of “if you want let me put in what I won’t into the article I will remove text you added from it” WP:POINT revenge edit, I have doubts if such a discussion will be productive. Also, because, you know, you’re arguing that kidnapping of children by armies isn’t a war crime. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek please, try to refrain from making personal attacks and assumptions. @Gitz isn't arguing that kidnapping children is or isn't a war crime, that is not the subject of discussion there. And I don't think is either for him nor you to decide. AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The part you tried to remove was obviously background and there are other sources, already in the article which explicitly call this a war crime. Your argument seems to be that ALL sources must explicitly call it a war crime. That’s not how it works.

This is actually a pretty good contrast regarding the respective pieces of text. On one hand for phenomenon of kidnapping of children there are multiple sources calling it a war crime as well as some other sources which refer to specific treaties. You’re arguing that ALL sources have to call it a war crime to merit inclusion. On the other hand for the phenomenon of posting pictures of captured Russian soldiers there are NO sources which call it a war crime but you insist on including it anyway because… you think some sources use language which, according to you, is “close enough”. You see the problem here? Volunteer Marek 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if violations of Geneva conventions are not war crimes, it would seem sensible to put them in this article. The attack of the nuclear plant is in this article, and that wasn't a war crime. Yet I don't think it should be removed. Just make the information clear. Perhaps the whole article should be renamed "War crimes and violations of the Geneva convention", or have another section for the Geneva convention violations that don't qualify as war crimes? Just removing the information doesn't seem like the best path to take. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You guys really need to stop it with these WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. As it happens I have no strong opinion either way whether an attack on a nuclear plant is a war crime so you bringing it up here is completely irrelevant. And no, I don’t think we should rename the article as such - though this is an implicit admission on your part that the info you’re trying to add is outside the current scope. I’d support renaming the article to Russian war crimes during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine since that’s what 90% of this article actually is, with other stuff people are trying to add for sake of some misguided and non policy compliant “bothsideism”. Volunteer Marek 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I see your point. Still, I believe this: Such violations might seem minor (...) but they could chip away at Ukraine’s ability to hold Russia accountable for violating international law. deserves being in the article. It is directly related to Russian crimes of war, and important information. AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC) AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I’d support renaming the article to Russian war crimes during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine since that’s what 90% of this article actually is

The reason it's that way is because other editors have been removing any mention of Ukrainian war crimes from the page.

some misguided and non policy compliant “bothsideism”.

Show me where "Bothsideism" is a policy. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason it's that way is because other editors have been removing any mention of Ukrainian war crimes from the page No, the reason it's that way is because Russian forces have committed the overwhelming proportion of war crimes and these were far far far more horrible than anything Ukrainians have done. On one hand we have mass rapes, murder and torture. On the other hand we have... posting of captured POWs on the internet. Gimme a fucking break. That's about as sick of an equivocation as you can make.

Show me where "Bothsideism" is a policy. Here: WP:UNDUE.

Volunteer Marek 21:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, something being on this page doesn't mean that it has the same weight as some other item just because they are on the same page. Readers won't go "Oh no, offensive pictures of soldiers have been posted on the internet, and it is on this page, it must be as bad as killing children!". But we shouldn't protect Ukrainian military from being accused of the things they do. Multiple agencies have told them to stop it and that it is a wrong thing to do and that it breaks laws, and even that it could chip away their ability to hold Russia accountable for violating international law. And I agree with many of your edits (not all), and I am not saying that you are not familiar with it, but perhaps it would be beneficial if you eyed the Wikiquette. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about opinions/pseudoscientific material, not about article content/real events. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No, no it's not. Please actually read the policy. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This is actually an important point and I think you should discuss it thoroughly sooner or later (at NPOV/N?). I agree with Dunutubble: war crimes (the subject of this article) cannot be construed as "viewpoints" for the purposes of WP:UNDUE. If they are notable and verifiable enough they should be reported; there's no way of balancing torture with killing with rape etc. Volunteer Marek argued, if I remember correctly, that as Ukrainian war crimes are less widespread and/or less heinous than Russian war crimes, on most occasions reporting them would be like giving them undue weight. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, some explanations are needed here.

1. I don't want to discuss whether kidnapping children is a “war crime” or not. Denying that would be as absurd as denying that shooting a POW in the leg amounts to torture. I myself have just added info on allegations of forced deportation of children to Russia: they are allegations of war crimes.
2. However I don't think that approving (not even approving: "drafting") a law on easing adoption procedures for Ukrainian children is a war crime. As you first inserted these contents, and now reverted my removal, as per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD I think it is you who should open a discussion and explain your reasons. Reverting my revert is not collaborative and it only forces me or someone else to revert you again.
3. With regard to interviewing Russian POWs, "sometimes blindfolded or bound, revealing their names and personal information, and expressing regret over their involvement in the invasion", I think the legal issue is whether POW abuse passes the threshold of "humiliating and degrading treatment" under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, in which case it may well qualify as a war crime. It all depends on the circumstances of the cases and on delicate assessments. We don't have enough information and our RS don't have them either: so some of them say it's article 13, but others (WoP and HRW) don't exclude humiliation and intimidation; most of them speak of the Geneva conventions without specifying the provision. So unless you have an authoritative source that clearly settles the question and explains that these are not war crimes as they fall under article 13 and not under article 3, I think we should leave the section as it is. Note that when in 2014 pro-Russian separatists organised a parade of Ukrainian POWs in Donetsk, reliable sources said this was a war crime: [3] [4]. I don't see these episodes as being significantly different.
4. With regard to WP:UNDUE we clearly have different readings, and we'd better find a place to discuss them, as here it might be off topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

With regard to the approving of the law, yes, that itself is not a war crime (at least our text doesn't claim it is). BUT, it is the background and context within which the war crime is being committed. It is providing the legal veneer for a war crime. See for example Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany. What's the point of removing it? And whats the justification? It's important and relevant context, and the rationale is provided that "this itself is not a war crime".

As another example, think of a situation where some prominent politician, Russian or otherwise, goes on TV and says "mass murder of Ukrainian civilians is totally fine!". Saying that itself may not be a war crime but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it here, because it's the CONTEXT within which a war crime is being committed.

In regard to #3, look, it's simple. Find a source which says it's a war crime not just your own "it may well qualify as a war crime". Have Ukrainians organized a parade of Russian POWs? No? So what's the relevance? Volunteer Marek 22:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Have Ukrainians organized a parade of Russian POWs?

Yes. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice try but I assume you are capable of telling the difference between "organizing a parade" of POWs and some outlet referring to putting a POW on tv "parading in front of the cameras". Please stop playing games. Volunteer Marek 15:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me understand this. Your text was 20% war crime (Russian authorities have also kidnapped more than 121,000 Ukrainian children) and 80% "background and context" (some parents were killed, the Duma drafted a law, the Ukrainian ministry said there was a blatant threat of illegal adoptions, called on the UN etc etc.). Well, I think that circulating pictures of dead soldiers is also background and context, and actually accounts for less the 5% of the section. WoP itself calls the two things - pictures of dead soldiers and forced interviews to POWs - as part of a "tactic", a unitary propaganda effort; so they belong to the same context. Re war crime, as I said RS speak of violations of IHL and I believe that we should not rule out that some of them amount to war crimes: the issue there was not just privacy concerns but also coercion, humiliation, inhumane and degrading treatments, which qualify as possible war crime under common article 3. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that circulating pictures of dead soldiers is also background and context Background and context to what? Volunteer Marek 15:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Background and context to the section we are talking about: Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers. "The gory online campaign", as WoP calls it: "Ukrainian officials have argued that the chilling images [of dead Russian soldiers] will alert Russians to a devastating war effort the Kremlin has sought to conceal. In videos they’ve shared of the phone calls they’ve allowed prisoners to make to their families, Ukrainians can be heard urging the soldiers to ask their parents to rally against Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop the bloodshed"; according to HRW, "videos of captured Russian soldiers who appear under duress or are revealing their names, identification numbers, and other personal information". The two things (photos of dead soldiers and videos of POWs under duress) belong, according to WoP (and to the Ukr officials they interviewed), to the same "tactic", "effort", as WoP put it, that is, policy, and circulated through official government channels. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

These are breaches of the Geneva convention, a war crime. Significant sources describe these warcrime, they belong here.BaderBad (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No the sources do not describe these as a war crime. Which is the whole point ten-edit WP:SPA. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And here, single purpose account with barely any edits, you're using false (but very laconic and sparse) edit summaries [5] [6] (the whole point is that HRMMU doesn't say anything about war crimes). The purpose here appears solely to exacerbate the dispute. We're in WP:NOTHERE territory now. Volunteer Marek 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"WP:SPA"? Looking at their contributions, Baderbad has 27 edits as I write stretching back to 2020, before the war even started. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhh! Twenty seven edits! Basically 8 edits to "establish the account", then the rest to pick fights with me. And "stretching back to 2020" just means that he is still WP:STALKING my edits two years later [7] <- here calling my good faithed edits "vandalism" two years ago. It's a freaking sleeper WP:SPA account. And let's remember that another user got topic banned from this area precisely for calling other editors' edits "vandalism"

I'm sorry but if you're going to defend this obviously WP:NOTHERE account, just because it jumps in on your side to edit war, I'm not going to be able to take anything you say seriously. Volunteer Marek 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Indeed, according to sources, not all violations of Geneva conventions are war crimes. Only some are. This is consistent with my previous comments on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop trying to bully this info into the article. There's obviously no consensus for its inclusion. Start an RfC if you really insist on it. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with excluding this material. Yes, this might be clarified at an RfC, but I doubt there will a consensus for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

[8] - yes, this also can go, unless something new will be discovered about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you guys debate here, but definitely not "Showing photos and videos of killed Russian soldiers". Please open new thread and explain what's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Gitz6666, I’m fine with excluding this material as well [9]. Volunteer Marek 18:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

POV tag

This section about the mistreatment of perceived "marauders" has been repeatedly removed from the article even though it was well sourced and well documented. The decision of some editors to remove the "Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers" section but to keep "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers" was an obvious case of POV (the Ukrainian soldiers section has recently been deleted, a decision I would also criticize), even though the parading of Russian POWs has been documented.

I have no idea why but some editors refuse to let any mention of Ukrainian war crimes enter the article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not “well sourced”. None of these sources refer as a war crime because it isn’t. If I burglarize my neighbors house while our country is being invaded by Canadians, that is not a “war crime”. It’s just a regular crime that happened during a war. Sources. Sources. Sources! Sources which say this is a war crime, not your own original research. If this was indeed a war crime then it should be trivial to find a freakin’ source which says so! We’re wayyyyyy past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and this spurious POV tag is just more of this WP:TENDENTIOUSness. Volunteer Marek 18:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No one suggested to keep section "Humiliation of captured Ukrainian soldiers", and it was removed. All that content may belong to page Human rights in Ukraine, not this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tag. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Not Vishegirskaya, not Podgurskaya

https://www.instagram.com/gixie_beauty/ Марианна Вышемирская Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the whole paragraph about the unencyclopedic person? Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian prisoners of war

"Ukrainian prisoners of war" section is, as Volunteer Marek would put it, an attempt at "bothsideism". Please read it carefully.

1. It starts with the HRMMU expressing "worries" about their treatment. Indeed the HRMMU wrote about "a large number of videos with intimidation and insults of Ukrainian POWs following their capture". Based on the discussions we've recently had and standards we applied to similar videos with Russian POWs (very detailed and well-sourced section "Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers", now removed), this doesn't qualify as a war crime (RS doesn’t' qualify it as such).
2. Then we have Denisova reporting that "Ukrainian prisoners of war had launched complaints about their mistreatment by Russian authorities". Again, for the same reasons and based on the same standards, this needs to go: no allegation of war crime.
3. Then we have subsection "Executions of surrendering Ukrainian soldiers", where a US ambassador says they have "evidence". That was in April, since then that evidence has not been released, AFAIK, so the whole subsections lacks notability (if its subject is "US ambassadors says") or verifiability (if its subject is "Russian army killed Ukr. POWs").
4. Then we have the news by CNN (also others) on a POW confirmed dead. suspicious but we know too little, and RS make no allegation of war crime.
5. Finally we have "Intercepted conversation about killing". Same as before: no allegation of war crime, RS saus "unverified".

Given the criteria for inclusion we have decided to follow (war crimes stricto sensu and strict verifiability) the whole section needs to go, unless we come up with better contents and sources - I've done a quick research without success. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that executions of POWs qualify as a war crime, no matter what side. I would say that an official statement by Beth Van Schaack, a US ambassador-at-large for global criminal justice to the UN Security Council carries a lot of weight. Was she found previously to promote an obvious misinformation and nonsense, such as some of her Russian counterparts? Not to my knowledge (same can be said about Denisova). Something like a couple of videos with disputable content about the alleged abuse of Russian POW is more questionable. Therefore,I would suggest to keep both parts (i.e. about Ukrainian and Russian POWs), but make them very short and approximately of the same length. Both are only/mostly allegations at this point, but clearly allegations of war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I do agree there is no 100% reliable documentation/proof about all such cases in section War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Treatment_of_prisoners_of_war. So it might be reasonable to remove this whole section if we want to keep the bar very high. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This way of arguing undermines any attempt at using the talk as a means of cooperation among editors. The sections "Kneecapping of Russian soldiers" and "Execution of captured Russian soldiers" are well-sourced, with independent and reliable news outlets and human rights organisations making explicit allegations of "stricto sensu" war crimes - the test that you yourself proposed. Why do you bring those sections up? You were told that that test of yours was inevitably going to have major consequences on the whole article.

Points 1 and 2 above don't pass the "stricto sensu" test and need to go. Points 3 has a serious issue with verifiability: you said we needed RS alleging war crimes, and now you claim that an ambassador saying "we have evidence" and not disclosing evidence is enough. Point 4 and 5: no RS claims that a war crime was committed. The POW died, there's a suspicion of ill-treatment or killing but nothing more; an intercepted conversation circulated but RS says "not verified" and we don't know if that conversation was followed by deeds.

So I think that if we want to keep the section on we must find different contents. For example, this article (on Bucha) is relevant: those men were Ukrainian defence volunteers who had surrendered, surely they qualified as POWs. We need to report stuff like this, not "intimidations and insults", war talk by ambassadors, and suggestive photos and recordings with no actual allegation of war crimes based on them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This whole section is sourced. But all of that: (a) alleged isolated/anecdotal incidents/cases as opposed to systematic violations/crimes described in other sections, and (b) we can not be 100% sure that the alleged incidents even had place and what exactly had happen (there is no such concerns about most other incidents described on this page). Therefore, one could argue this whole section should be removed. As about NYT ref, does it say these people were POWs? I think they were just civilians or at least not acting/active members of the Ukrainian forces when arrested/captured. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

NY Times says "They were husbands and fathers, grocery store and factory workers who lived ordinary civilian lives before the war. But with restrictions on men leaving the country, coupled with a resolve to protect their communities, most of the men joined various defense forces in the days before they were killed. " That means (even if the RS doesn't say so explicitly) that they qualified as POWs under IHL (see article 4(2) Geneva Convention III). I would have no objection to having this (and other similarly well-sourced contents) in the section on "Ukrainian prisoners of war". This is the kind of contents we should report.

Note that the section on Russian POWs is equally well-sourced. The distinction between isolated/anecdotal and systematic has been proposed by some editor for the lead section. It proved to be untenable (is Bucha isolated or systematic? how to distinguish btw individual and collective case?) and in any case it wouldn't make any sense outside the lead section (e.g. Mariupol theatre airstrike would fall short of this test, which is absurd). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, this can/should be included.My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol hospital airstrike

Let's remove the second and third paragraph. Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. If I'm not wrong (my memory is bad) I myself wrote those two paragraphs. At the time they were (or at least they looked to me) highly notable; now, in the midst of the catastrophe, what happened to those two pregnant women is no longer notable enough. Besides, there might be some WP:BLP concerns here - am I wrong? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it was me: [10] - not that it's important in anyway, but still... what d'we do? I agree with Xx236 and would remove the paragraphs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You may want to replace the whole section with the lead from Mariupol hospital airstrike, that reads pretty well. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have tried, I am unable to do the edits.Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Ukrainian children

Re this, as already explained (although not in a separate section), the first paragraph of that section provides context for the section. The sources which state this is a war crime are there. Not every sentence or piece of info needs to be sources to a source which explicitly use the term "war crime". That seems like either WP:POINT or WP:GAME.

As far as the numbers, these have actually been confirmed by... Russian authorities, and have been widely reported in reliable sources, so pretending that this is just Denisova is misleading to say the least. Same phrasing has been used by the US embassy [11], the UK foreign ministry and it's ambassador to UN.

Sources here use the phrasing "kidnapped" or "abducted". Not "deportations", which is kind of ... let's call it "insulting". At most they might call it "forcible deportations". Volunteer Marek 21:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

All the sources use the term deportation, while the term "kidnapping" always appears in "scare quotes" and is attributed. While it is fine to say that the U.S. calls this kidnapping, we don't have a reliable source for the term. Deportation is listed by the U.N. as a war crime, while kidnapping is not.[12] That's what the perpetrators would be accused of if they are put on trial for war crimes. TFD (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This is simply not true. This source does not use scare quotes on the word kidnapping, nor does it use the term "deportation" (yes it attributes the info). This source does not use scare quotes on the word kidnapping, although it also used the phrase "deported AGAINST THEIR WILL". This source uses the word kidnapping, without scare quotes, to refer to the abduction of children specifically and saves the word "deportation" for the broader phenomenon of Russia abducting Ukrainian citizens. This source uses the word kidnap and abduct, without scare quotes, and compares the practice to the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany and the abduction of Native American children by the US government in 20th and 19th centuries. This source uses the word kidnap, without scare quotes, and does NOT use the word "deport".

I could keep going. But this is more than enough to show that your claim that, quote, "All the source ue the term deportation, while the term "kidnapping" always appear in scare quotes" is just completely false. Volunteer Marek 06:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to go one by one, but most of the sources you posted don't say "Ukrainian children are being kidnapped". They say that Ukraine or the US Embassy is accusing Russia of that. I'll go one by one if you want me to. And also, see WP:CHERRYPICKING. I think TFD is right, I don't know why you insist in using the word kidnap. If deportation is a war crime and Russia is deporting children, that is what we should put on the article and not complicate or editorialize the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

We can - and should - definitely attribute statements which are relayed by reliable sources. However, these sources do use the term "kidnapping" (without scare quotes). Volunteer Marek 09:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"Kidnapping" and "deportation" obviously describe exactly same events, which we all seem to agree are war crimes. But we must make an attribution: "according to Ukrainian authorities", and they call it "kidnapping". Hence kidnapping. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should avoid giving any attribution to the Ukrainian authorities, as they are clearly not neutral, and just focus on actual research by neutral reliable sources. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, allow me to quote from the first source you mention: "Russia is kidnapping children in Ukraine, says US embassy":

• The mayor of the besieged city of Mariupol compared the ‘kidnappings’ to the actions of the Nazis during World War II
• The US embassy accused Russia of “kidnapping” thousands of Ukrainian children as local officials alleged Russian troops are forcing deportations of civilians as they bombard eastern cities.
• This is not assistance. It is kidnapping,” they said.
• Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boichenko also compared the “kidnappings” to the work of the Nazis during World War II.

So yes, "kidnapping" is always in "square quotes" or attributed, while deportation is not.

Incidentally, it's worth noting the final paragraph of the article. "The reports of forced removals have not yet been independently verified, though Russian state news agency TASS claimed that millions are asking to be moved into Russia." So your statement that Russia has confirmed the number of deportations is misleading.

We should report what the sources say as fact, not the unconfirmed accusations they are reporting.

My very best wishes, I do not agree that kidnapping is a war crime. Article 135 - NY Penal Law lists kidnapping as an offense under New York State criminal law. But there is no mention of kidnapping in the UN list of war crimes. Note that when American police illegally arrest and detain people when acting in their official capacity, we don't refer to it as kidnapping. We would only use it if they were acting in their personal capacity. In this case, the term kidnap would only be appropriate if Russian soldiers acting in their personal capacity abducted people for their own personal criminal motives.

TFD (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The first source does not use scare quotes in the headline. It does use them in a sub title. It does NOT use the word "deportations" contrary to your assertion.

Now do second source. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it does not use scare quotes in the headline because it is directly attributing it. Russia is kidnapping children in Ukraine, says US embassy. Second source is a weird one. The writing is extrange, and they do say that Russia is kidnapping children. They even go ahead and put the link to the source in the middle on the text between parentheses, which is ukrinform. They end however stating This could be qualified as kidnapping, which is just weird. I checked the website and seems to be managed by just six people. I am not saying is a bad website, but we should find better sources for Wikipedia.
Third source does not use quotes in the title, because again they directly address that it is an accusation by the US Embassy in Ukraine: US Embassy accuses Russia of kidnapping children. Even ends up saying Reports of the forced removals have not been independently verified. Fourth source: Russia’s reported abduction, then talks about how bad it would be, and ends with If Russia is forcibly adopting Ukrainian children. And your last source, again, says that Russia has been accused. I think this puts the subject to rest. For now (and of course this can be subjected to change in the future), and per reasons stated, by your own picked sources, I am a clear oppose against changing deported to kidnapped on the article. I am not against putting something along "Ukraine accused Russia of ...", although I don't like putting accusations, for the same reason we don't put Russian accusations in. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If anything, this disproves your point. Your linked source [13] is actually South China Morning Post that is allegedly "on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad". In this citation it spins the issue by providing "..." for kidnappings in the body of the text (although not in the title of the article). If you look at the actual citation of statement by US embassy (in the same article), it says:

“According to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Russian forces have illegally removed 2,389 Ukrainian children from Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts to Russia,” the US embassy in Kyiv tweeted on Tuesday. “This is not assistance. It is kidnapping,” they said.

There was no "..." for kidnappings. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi MVBW, I believe you got confused with what TFD is saying. It is not his linked source. It is the source that Marek chose for his argument. And the US embassy of Kyiv is not a good source. We can put in the article what they are saying, of course, but can't put their information as true without third party verification. By the way, I imagine with "..." you meant quotation marks? Took me a second to understand what you were saying, I was looking for ellipsis on the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I mean scare quotes introduced as a spin by South China Morning Post in their article, while the claims by Ukrainian and US authorities do not have such scare quotes. But regardless to exact wording (kidnapping, abduction or forced deportation) that all means exactly same actions by the occupiers, which are also more or less similar to actions described on page Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany (it now belongs to the category "Nazi war crimes in Poland"). My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Well of course Ukrainians and the US don't use the quotes. It is their statement. What TFD and VM are arguing is that the term "kidnapped" should not be used here in Wikipedia because the only time the reliable sources are using them is either when directly attributing the statement (no need for quotes), or with quotes, which they used to refer that it is from a statement and not their wording. That means it isn't first hand information, it is second hand information through an unreliable source. As such, that info shouldn't be added to Wikipedia (unless attributed, as the RS themselves do). AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As was mentioned, I did not introduce the South China Morning Post as a source, VM did, and I merely mentioned what it said. And I cannot follow your logic that we should take unverified claims by the U.S. and Ukrainian governments as facts, when secondary sources do not.

Note also that people do not but their own words in quotes, that is done by people reporting what they said. For example, I have not put these comments in quotes but, if I decide to quote your comments, I will put them in quotes.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what you guys are suggesting here because both versions in the diff under discussion [[14] are sourced and say essentially the same. Do you suggest to replace "Kidnappings" by "Forced deportations" in the title? Well, I do not see much difference, but cited sources say "kidnapping". My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the cited sources do not say kidnapping. The choice is between following sources and writing the article from a neutral point of view or writing it from the view of the U.S. and Ukrainian governments. There are two problems with the second method that you propose: (1) There's no clear reason why to use their viewpoint rather than that of Russia. (2) Government positions are subject to change. Biden and Trump for example often had alternative facts from each other. Under your view, every time the U.S. gets a new president, Wikipedia would have to change many of the facts in articles. TFD (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources do say kidnapping. From the second source: "This could be qualified as kidnapping and requires an immediate and forceful response from the international community." and "By shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure, Russians kill parents and kidnap children on the territories in Ukraine which they have invaded and temporarily occupy. " You just completely ignored all the sources I posted and simply repeated your false claim. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping", just like we use (wilful) killing of civilians, not assassination (or murder) of peaceful citizens, and we talk about indiscriminate attacks, not about massacres of innocent people. This follows from WP:NPOV: prefer nonjudgmental language, use impartial tone. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping". It does not make any sense to me. For example, Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany does correctly belong to the category "Nazi war crimes in Poland", right? My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

yes, but... so what? this is a non sequitur. The article you mention is not "War crimes in Nazi Germany". It is about "Kidnapping", and obviously and rightfully kidnapping can be categorised under war crimes (in Poland). I really don't see the point. Nobody is claiming that "kidnapping" is a "wrong" word or that it doesn't mean (in certain contexts) "forced deportation"; we are claiming that in this article NPOV suggest we use a less impactful, more restrained and more precise terminology. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you do agree that kidnapping of children (this is not adoption!) can be a war crime? Great! Well, that is exactly what the cited sources say, and they are not Facebook. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course I agree with this! Forced deportations of civilian is a serious war crime. I myself added this a few days ago as well as the sections "Deportations" and "Arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of civilians" almost in their entireties. I object to 1) using the word "kidnapping" and 2) providing sketchy, unilateral and not pertinent information about adoption. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What is 'Enforced disappearence'? Enforced conjuring trick? Or rather a language trick? Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides, there's another issue: drafting a law on adoption is not a war crime. Does anyone know who drafted the law, did they approve it, what did it establish? So far we only have the "not so reliable" allegations on Facebook by former-ombudswoman Denisova, duly reported without fact-checking by some news outlets. To be clear: I don't think that this decree is an act of generosity by the Russian state - not at all. But we cannot even depict it as a war crime - if that's what we're speaking about in the article - can we? There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. We cannot just say that it is "background and context" to an alleged war crime (forced deportation) and report it without any scrutiny directly from the Facebook account of Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666, your comment is strange. Are you denying that the Duma "drafted a law which would formalize the kidnappings by allowing Russians to "adopt" these children"? Are you saying this is false info from Denisova? The source being used in the article is not Denisova nor does it attribute this claim to her.

And sorry, we don't have articles on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Aodoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, probably because ... to start articles like that would be fucking sick and disgusting. Volunteer Marek 22:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Why sick and disgusting? No, don't answer: I'd rather not know. These are notable topics and there's no reason to politicise everything, to see everything in terms of "us against them": that's the contrary of writing an Encyclopedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is something that should be obvious. Calling a duck a duck is not "politicising" anything. Weaseling information to the point where you're whitewashing war crimes against childten is "contrary of writing an Encyclopedia". Maybe info on Bucha massacre belongs in an article on Unfortunate deaths during the invasion of Ukraine but not here, ey? Volunteer Marek 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW, we should update the info because such a law was not only drafted but actually passed [15]. Volunteer Marek 22:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

But that's exactly the same link I've just shared in the comment you're replying to, isn't it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(honestly, I can't get over the proposal above. Should someone start an article on Adoption of poor orphaned Polish children by magnanimous Nazi German families during World War Two as well?) Volunteer Marek 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeh, I think that calling a probable act of genocide [16] an "adoption" is a very peculiar POV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh god, I missed this the first time. This is fucked up too: the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child) Apparently the interests of Ukraine children is to have their parents murdered by Russian soldiers so that some super awesome benevolent Russian family can adopt them instead. Of course they'll be better off with a *Russian* family than with their backward, probably nationalist, Azov azov azov, not-denatzified Ukrainian birth family!!!!! (/s).

Jfc, you're really tipping your hand here Gitz6666. Volunteer Marek 22:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And of course these kids will rarely be adopted, but rather go to a Russian orphanage, which is really a hell (frequently a death sentence) as described by Rubén Gallego in his "White on Black". This is not to say that Ukrainan orphanages are great. That kind of things was highly controversial even when done by Elizaveta Glinka, but it looks a lot worse in context of this invasion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany was not considered a war crime but a crime against humanity? TFD (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Really, this is taking it too far. There are far reaching Ukrainian claims. They are just claims. All that may have happened is a draft law and some Russian speaking kids crossing with their families as well as some Russian speaking orphans crossing the border to Russia from a warzone. Civilians die in Donetsk and Lugansk, in the Russian controlled parts, from Ukrainian shelling regularly like here. They flee the warzone.BaderBad (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And your source is? Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

'Forced Deportation' is not 'Naturalisation'. This is propaganda language. Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not just [voluntarily] crossing the border. The people, including children are detained by Russian forces or occupation authorities and then deported to Russia, instead of allowing their evacuation to Ukrainian territory. Usually their Ukrainian passports are confiscated in the process. That is what (and more) cited sources, e.g. [17], say. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your link says, "Some sources claim." There is a different between proven facts and unverified claims. Here's an interesting 2002 editorial in the Christian Science Monitor about the false Nayirah testimony, "When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators." If you remember, the U.S. government successfully promoted an obviously false story that Iraqi troops have killed babies in incubators. It seems unlikely that with a surplus of orphans, Russia would want to acquire more. TFD (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What in the world does Nayirah or US have to do with any of this? Also - "It seems unlikely that with a surplus of orphans, Russia would want to acquire more." - this is pure original research on your part. We follow sources. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, the numbers of deported children provided by Ukrainian and Russian authorities are the same/similar: "Nebenzia, the U.N. official, stated that 190,000 Ukrainian children had been transported to Russia." [18]. This is not "fake". Now, according to this [19], "International humanitarian law classifies the forced mass deportation of people during a conflict as a war crime. "Forcibly transfering children" in particular qualifies as genocide, the most serious of war crimes, under the 1948 Genocide Convention that outlawed the intent to destroy - in whole or in part - a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. And yeh, that exactly what they do. According to "Lilia Gumerova, education committee chair in Russia’s senate, said last month she was appalled that Ukrainian children brought from the “liberated territories in Ukraine” did not speak Russian. She promised they would attend summer school to learn Russian and “liberate their tongues.”" [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  She did not say it. I suggest you watch the video and check the official transcript here. She said (I'm quoting a Ukrainian source that Polygraph quotes) "Many children don't speak Russian at the level required to master our school curriculum" ("Многие ребята с освобождаемых территорий не владеют русским языком в достаточной степени для освоения нашей общеобразовательной программы") and nothing about liberating their tongues. Alaexis_¿question? 18:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is a dispute about whether the children were deported or evacuated. Neither version has been independently verified. And the Reuters story is wrong. Genocide is considered separate from war crimes. That's why it has a separate convention. I suggest you consult the information posted on the UN website.[21] TFD (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is NO such dispute in the sources. Stop inventing absurd original research. If you think that "Reuters story is wrong" well, kudos to you, but we go with Reuters not the personal opinion of some Wikipedia editor. This is pretty much a straight up admission that you are conducting WP:OR here and not following our policies. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously the Russians didn't admit they have "deported" 200.000 children. As they've been accused of forced deportations, we can report this and we can report the source of the accusations which, for the time being, is Ukrainian authorities only; as far as I know, Save the Children, HRW, Amnesty, the HRMMU, etc., have not yet taken a stance on these allegations.
With regard to we go with Reuters not the personal opinion of some Wikipedia editor, I disagree. The point is quite simple, really: genocide is not a war crime. This is beyond doubt, a quick search on the web proves it abundantly, and we have loads of authoritative sources that overshadow Reuters. Do you want one more? This one, accessible through the Wikipedia Library, is entirely dedicated to the distinction between war crimes and genocide ("both categories of crime cover essentially different protected interests", "Both categories of crimes ... contain a number of elements which are not required by the other", "The facts of a particular situation may be such that both genocidal crimes and war crimes might have been committed in the course of a particular conflict and it will be appropriate to recognize these as distinct criminal events" - therefore cumulative convictions are possible). So if two journalists of Reuters write "genocide, the most serious of war crimes", they are simply wrong. Genocide is the subject of a different article, Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and is not the subject of an article on war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it strange that you continue saying: genocide is not a war crime. This is beyond doubt.... A genocide can be also a war crime. The cited source say [22]: "International humanitarian law classifies the forced mass deportation of people during a conflict as a war crime. "Forcibly transfering children" in particular qualifies as genocide, the most serious of war crimes, under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Do you have any sources saying that forcibly transferring children during this war does not qualify as a war crime and potentially as a genocide? For example, your link above does NOT say that genocide can not be also a war crime. Sure, the representatives of Russia say otherwise, just as a lot of other things (e.g. that they are not engaged in the war with Ukraine, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Genocide and war crime are different points of view. The same fact may be both or one or none. Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

this is entirely correct. "The same fact may be both or one or none". War crimes and genocide are two different crimes/concepts/descriptions. Just like, say, "white" and "heavy", or "crime" and "sin". Now, if we have an article on white, we don't want a section on heavy (although heavy items can be white). If we have an article on "crime in the state of New York", we don't want a section there on "Sin in New York" (although certain crimes are also sinful, blasphemous, etc.). But you're arguing that in an article on war crimes in Ukraine we must have a section on genocide (althoughwe already have a dedicated article on the subject). Why? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Right so let's recap. According to Gitz6666:

1. Genocide during war committed by the aggressor is not a "war crime"

2. Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians

3. A law which legalizes and facilitates this practice internally within Russia is not important context for this because no one called the law itself "war crime".

I think that sums it up. Now, go ahead and proceed with more WP:WIKILAWYERing. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your n. 1 is a correct summary of my arguments; n. 3 is a tendentious summary, because of the "legalizes and facilitates this practice" (which practice?); n. 2 is entirely false: where did you get this from? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, could you please answer my question: where did you get your number 2 from? Please remember Wikiquette and strike through your comment, which is a gross misrepresentation of what I've been arguing for in this thread. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)