Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

RfC on killings of suspected collaborators

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is Consensus to add (much of) the information, but overall, the actual text of option 2 was Opposed for various reasons, including needing to be more neutral in tone. (The text of the section about Volodymyr Struk, in particular, was opposed.)

Kudos to Gitz for trying to find a way forward in the discussion, but from the discussion and survey comments, it would appear that starting over with new text would apparently be the next step/way to move forward.

So no prejudice, of course, against a follow-up discussion in order to try to hammer out new text. - jc37 06:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

---

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)

I am saying that option 3 ("The article should include a section different from the one proposed (specify how).") is not an appropriate option for any RfC. To be definitive, an RfC must include all alternative versions of the text from the beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 for the following reasons..

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

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

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

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

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

Are you talking about this most recent UN report [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)
• Option 3 While it is what it is, the majority of RS has not called it such. Firestar464 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, the proposed sources are important enough to create such a section.--Mhorg (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, but I'm open to option 3 for a rewritten section. As it stands, the sources don't have any clear cases of the Ukrainian military or officials killing civilian administrators - thus far, the sources only have cases of Ukrainian officials targeting military collaborators (non-civilians). Non government Ukrainian partisan groups killing collaborators would be an example of political terrorism, but not war crimes. Notably, the Washington Post source says "raises the question about war crimes" while not actually attributing that label to any specific event. None of the events in the current proposal have clear enough sourcing to be described directly as a war crime, but I would be okay with something more along the lines of "Russian officials have accused the Ukrainian government of war crimes through involvement in assassinations against civilian politicians. Ukrainian officials deny involvement and claim these acts were done by insurgents." And of course, in interests of NPOV, this section must also include details of the accusations against Russia for their own use of political assassinations.--Shadybabs (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Non government Ukrainian partisan groups killing collaborators would be an example of political terrorism, but not war crimes. Actually war crimes can be committed also by civilians, and the same action may qualify both as "terrorism" under national criminal law and as a "war crime" under IHL if there's a nexus with an armed conflict. The OHCHR report says (para. 40) "As such, these killings may amount to extrajudicial executions and war crimes, and should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly". The OHCHR is referring to six documented killings of civilians perceived as "traitors", which "may have been perpetrated by agents of the Government of Ukraine or with their acquiescence". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

The key phrase in WP:DUE, I think, is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So the fact that something has appeared in a WP:RS, is not in and of itself sufficient. It has to be proportionate. "Proportionate" may or may not be zero, and it may become a judgment call. The bit about Volodymyr Struk, for example, to me seemed disproportionate, even though it has appeared in WP:RS. I also agree that we should consider the level of certainty the source expresses that something was a war crime. Just today I came across this article[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)

Hey @Gitz6666:? Remember how you were arguing so strongly that violence committed by one side against its own people was also a "war crime"? How come you're not rushing to include the brutal murder of a Russian mercenary with a blow of a sledgehammer to the head by the Wagner group [16] [17] into this article? Volunteer Marek 01:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unarchiving RFC not actioned Ilenart626 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Failed verification

"The International Criminal court,... recognizes 11 different grave breaches of the Geneva Convention." The source that is there is a really great source but it just doesn't say this. Just notifying that I removed this text. I plan to re-use the source. Elinruby (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 10 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

---

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian war crimes in the invasion of Ukraine – Almost all of this article is only about war crimes by the Russian government. There are some sections on war crimes by the Ukrainian government (such as the Mistreatment of Russian POWs section), but the entire lede and virtually every other section exclusively discuss Russian war crimes.

My suggestion is simply to split off the parts of the article that discuss war crimes committed by Ukraine into an article called Ukrainian war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine- and rename this article to reflect what the overwhelming majority of it is already. We won't even have to rewrite a word of the lede, as the very first sentence only mentions Russian war criminals. If not, then at the very least the lede/other parts could be rewritten to have some mention of Ukrainian war crimes. Not that I'm implying that there is a deliberate omission of their existence, but rather that the article as it is, simply is about Russian crimes only. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The current combined title leaves the issue of attribution and legal convictions for war crimes as an open question for the reader to interpret based on the current consensus text, based on many long editorial debates about how to summarise what's in reliable sources and how to NPOV it. Splitting into two with the proposed two names would open a can of worms for title changes for the two split articles, distracting editing energy from improving the actual content.
  Secondly, the legal parts of the article would also become somewhat off-topic, or require awkward splitting up of content: the International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine, the Universal jurisdiction investigations of war crimes in Ukraine, the Task Force on Accountability for Crimes Committed in Ukraine, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine and the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine cover war crimes and human rights violations in Ukraine by people of any nationality, no matter which side they're on. Remember that war crimes are by individuals, not groups or states (apart from the crime of aggression). Some of the Russian forces committing war crimes are not Russian nationals; and we don't know if those on the Ukrainian side suspected of mis-treating POWs are all Ukrainian nationals. Boud (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Off topic but the crime of aggression is also committed by individuals, and only individuals can be prosecuted for it. (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given by Boud and because it would create problems with attacks where both sides blame each other. In a combined article we can provide information about what RS say without saying in Wikipedia's voice which side is responsible. Sjö (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose split proposal under the guise of a page move. If a split is warranted (I am not convinced) it should be proposed to split the Russian crimes out of the overall article on war crimes during the war. Covering all sides in one article is frequently done and helpful to maintain NPOV, imv. (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment For comparison, the War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article has three sections, which are organized by perpetrator ("By Hamas and allied militant groups", "By the Israeli government", and "by both sides"). Could this article benefit from a similar organizational structure? --JasonMacker 04:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreliable sources

I can say that the information in this article is completely unreliable. Even the speeches of the former Ombudsman of Ukraine L. Denisova are used as sources. Who was dismissed from her position, against whom numerous accusations were made in the press. Denisova was accused of "of making insensitive and unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes". The very name of "Denisova" was simply removed from the text (typed in Latin, while the spelling of Denisova's name in Cyrillic script, which is used in Ukraine, was left). But readers do not know the Cyrillic font and therefore are misled by the accusations of the former Ombudsman of Ukraine L. Denisova. I wrote about it on this page, but I don't see any reaction. The use of unreliable sources is unacceptable, but it is here. 95.25.21.12 (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you be specific on the reliable sources you are saying are unacceptable. The article currently has 392 references, which one’s are you refering to? Ilenart626 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The use of Denisova's speeches is a symptom. A symptom of the general unreliability of sources. As far as I understand, because the spelling "Denisova" (using the Latin alphabet) has been removed from the text. This is just an attempt to hide the unreliability of the sources. 95.25.21.12 (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

WHERE DENISOVA?

"235. John, Tara; Ochman, Oleksandra; Sidhu, Sandi (22 April 2022). "Russian troops use rape as 'an instrument of war' in Ukraine, rights groups allege". CNN. Retrieved 7 May 2022."

СNN journalists tell all sorts of terrible stories about alleged rapes. Refer to whom? To the data of "a national hotline at La Strada-Ukraine",

"Psychologist Alexandra Kvitko, who works on a hotline for trauma victims run by Ukraine’s ombudsman with the support of UNICEF, said she has heard dozens of accounts of conflict-related sexual violence".

Ukraine’s ombudsman - L.DENISOVA.

But who is Alexandra Kvitko? This is Denisova'S DAUGHTER.

I have an opinion that it is unacceptable to use the link number 235. This is false information, for which the former Ombudsman of Ukraine Denisova was dismissed by the Parliament of Ukraine. This link should be removed. 95.25.21.12 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I can continue. It is easy to notice that all sources of the section "Sexual violence" date back to 2022 and almost all are limited to the term of Ms. L.Denisova's tenure as for Ukraine's human rights ombudsman, i.e. June 2022, when she was dismissed by the Parliament of Ukraine. This corresponds to the time when information received from her was uncritically accepted by the American and European media. After her resignation, the flow of information on the topic of accusations of sexual violence against Russian soldiers suddenly drops sharply. This gives the impression that the information previously provided is unreliable. However, this is logical. If you remember that it was for this that she was dismissed from the position of the Ombudsman of Ukraine. 95.25.18.132 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Denisova should be in the article only in the context of how her self-admitted exaggerations and lack of evidence were deemed to have harmed Ukraine internationally, called to account, and played no small part in her dismissal (which itself was a political poopstorm as was her appointment) [ibid.]. This has been known for over a year and should be known to every active editor on this article, but it's been impossible to clean up the constant inflow of garbage on any politicized articles. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I can only say that this is only one example and only from one topic. My opinion is that almost the entire section "Sexual violence" is based on unreliable information from the former Ombudsman of Ukraine L.Denisova. This is just one example and only from one topic. But this inevitably casts doubt on other information from L.Denisova. Her accusations on other topics are also contained in the article. 95.25.18.102 (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing, absolutely nothing. I don't see any response. But in fact, it is incredibly scandalous, the former Ombudsman of Ukraine Denisova was dismissed by the Parliament of Ukraine for falsifications and lies in statements. Her false statements have been quoted 10,000 times by Western media. This article is based on these false statements. So what? And nothing. Her false statements continue to be in the article. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing, absolutely nothing. That's what I expected. 95.25.19.11 (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose to add or remove? I don't see anything sourced to Denisova in the article now. Also, it would be easier to communicate if you could create an account. Alaexis_¿question? 14:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I have already said, you must notice. The entire "sexual violence" section is worthy of removal. 178.155.64.66 (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The section is based on multiple high-quality sources and there is an article about the sexual violence in the conflict, so it definitely should stay. If some of the claims there originate from Denisova or from the Ombudsman's office during her tenure, they should be removed, but you should prove it for each such case. Alaexis_¿question? 09:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand you so that you do not read what is written. I have already pointed out the unreliability of information from the former Ombudsman of Ukraine L. Denisova.

For example,

"235. John, Tara; Ochman, Oleksandra; Sidhu, Sandi (22 April 2022). "Russian troops use rape as 'an instrument of war' in Ukraine, rights groups allege". CNN. Retrieved 7 May 2022."

The definition of "high-quality" to such sources can only be understood in an ironic sense. It was for these allegations that L. Denisova was dismissed from the position of the Ombudsman of Ukraine. 178.155.64.66 (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I understand you now. The article indeed references Denisova's post and it was published before her dismissal. The second reference also quotes Denisova. I'll tag this passage to give other editors a chance to look for newer sources. Alaexis_¿question? 13:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You should put such labels on all links in this section.

228. "Rape as a weapon: huge scale of sexual violence inflicted in Ukraine emerges". The Guardian. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 7 May 2022.

230. "Sexual Violence 'Most Hidden Crime' Being Committed against Ukrainians, Civil Society Representative Tells Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases". www.un.org. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

231. Rai, Sarakshi (29 March 2022). "Ukraine opens first investigation into claims of rape against Russian soldiers". The Hill.

We also need to remember about another dismissed - Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova.

Of course, you need to remove links to Denisova in other sections. 95.25.21.175 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

38. "Денисова: росСМИ сообщили, что в рф из Украины вывезли больше миллиона людей". www.ukrinform.ru.

39. "Оккупанты принудительно вывезли в РФ 402 тыс. украинцев, из которых 84 тыс. – дети, подчеркивает Денисова". Интерфакс-Украина.

40. "Денисова: росСМИ сообщили, что в рф из Украины вывезли больше миллиона людей". www.ukrinform.ru. 95.25.21.175 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

33. Folmar, Chloe (24 March 2022). "More than 400,000 Ukrainians taken to Russia against their will, official says". The Hill. Retrieved 25 March 2022.

34. Qena, Nebi; Anna, Cara (25 March 2022). "Moscow Has Forcibly Taken More than 400,000 Ukrainians to Russia, Ukraine Says". Time. Archived from the original on 24 April 2022. Retrieved 25 March 2022. 95.25.21.175 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm a bit busy atm, as you understand going through sources and comparing them to the article text is quite time-consuming. I hope I'll have time later, in the meantime I urge you to open an account and start doing this yourself.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the section itself should stay. Even though some of the more outlandish claims have not been corroborated, there is enough evidence that sexual violence did happen (for example OHCHR and BBC). So trying to remove it entirely will likely get you nowhere. Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been waiting for a reaction for a long time and I can still wait. I hope that you will not forget your promise and fulfill it, at least until the beginning of 2024. I am sharply critical of the current political regime in Ukraine and therefore prefer that Wikipedia articles about Ukraine be edited by people who like this regime. To avoid accusations against me of alleged bias. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think I like the current Ukrainian government?

All of us have our biases, as long as you follow the rules you can contribute. I haven't made any promises regarding the exact dates. Alaexis_¿question? 06:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that perhaps our views on the current political regime in Ukraine may turn out to be somewhat similar. Nevertheless, I speak on the basis of my editing experience and would like to stick to the position that I have voiced. I hope that you will still perform editing according to the type of what you have already done. For example, when you have enough free time. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It is quite expected that I did not observe any further reaction. A completely scandalous situation with the content of false accusations in the article by the former Ombudsman of Ukraine - no reaction or minimal reaction. 95.25.12.0 (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)