Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Lead is clearly POV

The lead is POV and doesn't adequately summarize the article, as the lead exclusively discusses Russian war crimes whereas the body, while mostly focused on Russian war crimes, also in several instances discusses allegations against Ukrainians.

A more fair wording would be something like (roughly) "war crimes happened, the vast majority of allegations against Russians although some against Ukrainians as well..." JDiala (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Going to need to carefully balance "allegations" there if we want to stick to WP:NPOV, whereas war crimes committed against Ukrainians have wide data and references, a lot of the allegations against Ukraine in terms of war crimes are by Russia itself. The Russian state doesn't qualify as WP:RS. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt we have sources saying Both Russia and Ukraine have been accused of war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the overwhelming majority of both alleged and verified war crimes being perpetrated by Russia or the like [1] .

If we don't, saying that in the lead is the violation of WP:BALANCE.

Quite the contrary, every source says
Moscow’s Disregard of International Humanitarian Law
Historical Soviet and Contemporary Russian Criminal Acts Against Ukrainians Under the UN Genocide Convention
Engaging Post-Truth in Shadowing Russian War Crimes
Russia’s War Crimes in Ukraine as a Tool of War

and so on The Russian-Ukrainian Conflict and War Crimes: Challenges for Document (routledge.com) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, where's "deliberately operating in highly populated areas" characterized as a war crime in your source [2] ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article body. See WP:LEAD. The article body describes a variety of war crimes the overwhelming majority of which are Russian, but also includes some by Ukrainians too. A lead paragraph exclusively describing Russian war crimes is propagandistic. As to your other question, Ukrainian fighting tactics were explicitly described as IHL violations by Amnesty International in the cited source: "Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure." JDiala (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

A lede paragraph which says “both Ukraine and Russia have been accused of war crimes” when the article itself, as well as all the sources pretty much say “almost ALL of the war crimes that have occurred have been perpetrated by Russia” is “propagandistic” and violates WP:LEDE. It’s simple false equivalence which violates NPOV. Volunteer Marek 07:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a false equivalence if the sentence I wrote expressly refutes the premise that there is an equivalence by using the qualifier "overwhelming majority" for Russian war crimes. One being an overwhelming majority compared to another, does not indicate an equivalence. You also concede your own argument by using the word "almost": the current version of the first paragraph of the lead doesn't suggest to the reader "almost"; it suggests "all." JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

About operating in populated areas: Not every violation of IHL is a war crime. In that same source Amnesty says that Russia committed war crimes so it is not that Amnesty chose to avoid that phrase in the report. Instead, they chose to write that Ukraine violated IHL, which shows that they did not view Ukraine's actions as war crimes. Sjö (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how your inference that this "shows that they did not view Ukraine's actions as war crimes" follows. Not stating something explicitly does not imply that they reject said thing. In any case, I'd be fine re-wording it to indicate that an IHL violation rather than a war crime per se. This is pedantry. JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic and you should not restore the reverted version until objections raised above have been addressed.
As to your other question, Ukrainian fighting tactics were explicitly described as IHL violations
So, why you added it to "War crimes" article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, this is pedantry. The term "war crime" colloquially refers to violations of the laws of war. This purpose of this article is to document violations of the laws of war over the course of this conflict. IHL violations fall within the scope of this, even if AI doesn't explicitly use the word "war crime." That there is a tighter, more specific legal description of the term "war crime" is besides the point. You are trying to exclude quality sourced material on the basis of what amounts to a technicality. This standard is not used for other articles on war crimes in other wars or even for Russian alleged war crimes enumerated in this article. JDiala (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: For now, I'll keep the first paragraph of the lead as is (your version). However, I've reverted your removal of the Amnesty source. You need consensus for this as the Amnesty report has been discussed extensively in the past and we've decided to keep it. I've also corrected your grammar much of which was very incorrect. JDiala (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read through the talk page archives. This has been discussed a few dozen times before. Volunteer Marek 07:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that matters. It's certainly not uncommon to restart discussions that have been had previously on Wikipedia. JDiala (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: @Sjö: I'm going to kindly ask that the two of you follow BRD. I have been cooperative and have chosen not to revert the first paragraph even though I disagree with it, per BRD. However, for the removal of the Amnesty report, it is long-established consensus that it deserves to stay in the current article. In light of that I'd ask you not remove the source without further discussion. JDiala (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The consensus version is here [3] (diff [4] ) and your newly added sentence "Allegations against the Armed Forces of Ukraine include deliberately operating in highly populated areas[13] and the torture and execution of Russian POWs.[14][15]" is not there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The objection you're bringing up is on the validity of the Amnesty report to the article itself. This is established consensus. Contesting the inclusion of the Amnesty report requires consensus. JDiala (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, in the message above it was pointed out that it's your addition that is contested. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You said earlier "So, why you added it to "War crimes" article?" indicating that you don't want the AI report in the article because it "merely" describes an IHL violation. JDiala (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

in the message above it was pointed out that it's your addition that is contested. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your objection is to the inclusion of the AI report. JDiala (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ask me about what my objection is. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The logic that you've articulated is clearly against the AI report itself, because you're objecting to the AI report's mention of IHL violations as opposed to war crimes. JDiala (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The logic is The consensus version is here [5] (diff [6] ) and your newly added sentence "Allegations against the Armed Forces of Ukraine include deliberately operating in highly populated areas[13] and the torture and execution of Russian POWs.[14][15]" is not there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the basis for your objection to the AI report, which I quoted above and you haven't engaged with. That was an attempt to change established consensus on that report. JDiala (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jdala. Last paragraph is not ideal, but you need WP:Consensus for your change [7]. I would say we should not include any disputed allegations in the lead. Let's focus on the facts that were proven, the most important ones, those that are repeatedly happening during the war and covered widely in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"the vast majority of allegations against...". No, these are not just allegations, that's the point. And we should not talk about merely allegations in the lead. Such wording is OK in official legal context (i.e. they investigate allegations), but speaking on the essence of this and based on the coverage in sources, there is no any doubt that actual war crimes have been committed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for not including disputed allegations in the lead. In fact, MOS:LEAD encourages us to "include prominent controversies"; the debate on the AI report is perhaps the most controversial thing in this topic. Even putting that aside, there is ample documented evidence of the torture and execution of Russian POWs in captivity, in multiple instances, documented by the OHCHR. These are beyond "alleged" for all intents and purposes. JDiala (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You say: These are beyond "alleged". Great. So you do agree with my point. But if they are actually beyond alleged should be established by RS. This maybe so in some examples, but not so in some others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that allegations should not be included in the body of the page. They should if they were notable and widely reported. I am only saying we should focus on the most important facts in the lead. I also agree that a paragraph about it can be added to the lead. I just do not think it was a good summary to reflect the general situation during the war. The Ukrainian side actually makes a huge effort to evacuate their own civilian population. But many people, especially elderly and sick, refuse to leave and became victims of the shelling by Russian forces. This is hardly "human shields" or intentional endangering of civilians by the Ukrainian side. By Russian side - yes, absolutely - if we are talking about general trends during the war (that is what the summary should describe). My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current version of the lead if you are. We can consider this discussion concluded if so. It's a good compromise: brief one sentence discussion of Ukrainian POW mistreatment in lead, but not the human shields stuff which is more contested. JDiala (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion everyone. It's obvious we have not come to an agreement here. I am strongly considering an RfC on this matter as I simply do not believe that the wholesale whitewashing of Ukrainian war crimes, documented by the article body, in the lead is consistent with the principles of neutrality and the purpose of a lead. I'd like to get the opinion of a wide variety of editors in this topic area to establish consensus. Does anyone have objections to this before I start it? JDiala (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

JDiala, you made 4 or 5 reverts (I don’t feel like counting exact time stamps) in last 24 hours. Volunteer Marek 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't consider this edit a revert, rather a normal copy-edit, but I'll admit this is probably an edge case, see this recent discussion involving many prolific editors and administrators on revert edge cases. In my judgement, adding in a clarifying adjective ("reportedly") to better reflect the source, and correcting grammar, without substantively undoing and reversing existing work, does not constitute a revert, but is rather just a normal edit. This and this edit count as a single revert since they're consecutive. Taking all of the above into account, 3RR was not violated.

At the same time, I do understand your concern on edit warring, even putting aside the technicalities associated with the definition of a revert. My goal is to be diplomatic, and I apologize if my conduct was not perceived as such. In the interests of diplomacy I will not make further reversions on the lead until we have a clear consensus for that (this might mean an RfC). JDiala (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)