![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Why is the entire lead of the article talking exclusively about "Russian war crimes" when the actual article acknowledges in multiple instances that war crimes were committed by both sides? 2001:569:57B2:4D00:1B4:407:B56B:10A3 ( talk) 09:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
there are some parts of the first section (and its subsections, the "indiscriminate attack on civilians" part) that could be moved to the Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article as a new section, we could also summarize some of the more relevant attacks on that article here so the reader doesn't need to go to that article and read everything just to get a summary of the attacks, thoughts? 2804:14D:4482:46D:B1D4:BA4A:BE69:C6E ( talk) 20:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Q1: shall we include a subsection on the
March 2022 Donetsk attack in the section "
Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" of this article? Please say Yes/No and why. Q2: shall we include a subsection on the
Maisky Market attack? Please say Yes/No and why.
A rough draft of the two subsections can be read in this
sandbox. For background discussions see thread
#one missile falls on Donetsk and thread
#Indiscriminate attacks on Donetsk People's Republic above.
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs)
11:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (updated 00:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC))
This strongly suggests that the Ukrainian claim is correct, and Russia fired the missile. Of course the WaPo source is dated March 17, while the proposed section says "as of March 14 . . ." thereby excluding the March 17 source. I'll comment on question 2 separately. The upshot is that this was likely just another Russian attack, this time a false flag on its "own" people, which they've also done in the past; see for example Russian apartment bombings. Adoring nanny ( talk) 17:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Ruslan Leviev, founder of a Russian analytical group that uses open-source data to track military activities, said photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted.
rough draftin the opening statement. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 20:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
New sources These excerpts from a recent report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are relevant for this RfC.
OHCHR has reasonable grounds to believe that both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups, as well as to a lesser extent Ukrainian armed forces, have been using weapons, in most cases MLRS and missiles, equipped with cluster munitions (...) OHCHR is concerned that both the Russian Federation and Ukraine have been using Tochka-U missiles armed with cluster munitions in their conduct of hostilities (...) OHCHR was able to identify and corroborate at least 10 attacks by Russian armed forces and 25 attacks by Ukrainian armed forces with the use of Tochka-U missiles. (...) Ten such incidents have resulted in at least 279 civilian casualties (83 killed and 196 injured): four incidents in Government-controlled territory (65 killed and 148 injured), four in territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups (16 killed and 41 injured) and two in territory controlled by Russian armed forces (2 killed and 7 injured) (...)
Emblematic attacks with the use of cluster munitions
31. On 14 March, Russian affiliated armed groups claimed to have intercepted a Tochka-U missile equipped with a cluster munitions warhead over the centre of Donetsk. As a result of the detonation of four sub-munitions in the vicinity of the missile’s crash site, 15 civilians were killed (3 women, 1 man, and 11 adults whose sex is still unknown) and 36 injured (20 women, 14 men, 1 boy, and 1 adult whose sex is still unknown). Ukrainian armed forces denied any involvement in the incident.
— The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24 February to 15 May 2022 (Report). OHCHR. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 08:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
[1] Dunutubble ( talk) ( Contributions) 18:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Random Fan Camping, I appreciate the effort you've made to add the sources, however I still think that your summary is not entirely accurate. This is what the source says
“ | In an interview with DW, the head of the UN Mission for Human Rights in Ukraine, Matilda Bogner, said that the conditions of detention for Russian prisoners of war were satisfactory overall. According to Bogner, however, UN observers had also received information that Russian soldiers were allegedly mistreated and tortured after their capture. | ” |
In addition to these general statements there are a few accounts of individual soldiers which can't be used to make general claims about the conditions of Russian prisoners. This is what you wrote
“ | The Russian POWs was usually treated well, according to them: they received food when needed, medical care when needed, and haved normal living conditions. | ” |
First, if the statement is based on Bogner's words it should be attributed accordingly. Second, Bogner also mentioned the mistreatment reports and cherrypicking her words is a violation of WP:NPOV. The second part of the statement comes from the interviews with several soldiers. The source does not say that all (or even most) Russian prisoners live in similar conditions, so we can't write it here. Alaexis ¿question? 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
There are three questions on military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack:
Proposed text
|
---|
Placement of military objectives near civilian objectsInternational humanitarian law requires all parties to the conflict to avoid, to the extent feasible, "locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas" [1] and it also requires them to "remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives". [2] On 28 March human rights activists and international humanitarian law experts told the The Washington Post that "Ukraine's strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". [3] On 13 June Amnesty International said that Ukrainian forces had violated international humanitarian law and endangered civilians by locating military objectives in densely populated areas of Kharkiv. [4] On 29 June, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern about Russian as well as Ukrainian armed forces taking up positions close to civilian objects without taking measures for protecting the civilians; the human rights agency had also received reports of the use of human shields, which involves utilizing the presence of a civilians to render certain areas immune from military operations. [5] OHCHR documented the consequences of these fighting tactics in the case of Stara Krasnianka care house attack and in the case of a school in Yahidne, where 360 residents, including 74 children, were held captive by Russian forces for almost a month. [5] On 20 July, also a report by OSCE mentioned these two incidents to illustrate concerns about possible use of human shields. [6] According to OSCE, there was evidence that both the Russian and the Ukrainian armies had endangered the civilian population by placing their forces in residential areas. [6] On 21 July, Human Rights Watch said that both Russian and Ukrainian armies had based their forces in populated areas without first evacuating the residents and, in so doing, had exposed them to unnecessary risks. [7] The human rights organisation documented four cases in which Russian forces had placed their bases in populated areas ( in Mykhailo-Kotsiubynske and Yahidne, Chernihiv region, in Malaya Rohan, Kharkiv region, and in Polohy, Zaporizhzhia region) and three cases in which Ukrainian forces had taken position in residential areas without attempting to evacuate residents (in Pokotylivka, Selekstiine and Yakovlivka, Kharkiv region). [7] On 4 August, Amnesty International reported that it had found evidence that Ukrainian forces had repeatedly put civilians in danger by establishing bases and firing positions in populated residential areas, including schools and hospitals; some areas were were kilometres away from front lines and, according to Amnesty International, alternative locations were available to the Ukrainian army. [8] Between April and July, Amnesty International researchers found evidence that Ukrainian military objectives had been placed within residential areas in 19 towns and villages in the Kharkiv, Donbas and Mykolaiv regions. Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard stated that there was "a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated area". [8] The Amnesty report sparked significant outrage in Ukraine and the West. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Amnesty of trying "to amnesty the terrorist state and shift the responsibility from the aggressor to the victim", while Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba stated that the report created "a false balance between the oppressor and the victim". [9] [10] Oksana Pokalchuk, head of Amnesty International in Ukraine, resigned from her post and left the organization in protest over the publication of the report. [11] According to Ukraine’s deputy defence minister, Hanna Maliar, Ukrainian forces were placed in cities to defend the population from Russian forces. She stressed that civilians often refused to evacuate despite repeated offers of transport to safer regions. [12] Stara Krasnianka care house attackOn 7 March the Ukrainian armed forces occupied a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka, near Kreminna, Luhansk region, and set up a firing position there without first evacuating the residents. [13] [14] On 9 March, the Ukrainian forces based at the care house engaged in a first exchange of fire with Russian affiliated armed groups without casualties among the civilian residents. On 11 March 2022 pro-Russian separatist forces attacked the care house with heavy weapons while 71 patients with disabilities and 15 members of staff were still inside. A fire broke out and approximately fifty people died. A group of residents fled the house and ran into the forest, until they were met five kilometers away by Russian affiliated armed groups, who provided them with assistance. [13] Ukraine officials accused the Russian forces of deliberately targeting a medical facility and forcefully deporting the survivors. [15] [16] On 29 June, a report of the OHCHR described the incident as "emblematic" of its concern over the potential use of human shields to prevent military operations. [14] [17] [18]
|
took no apparent action to move residents to safer areas( Human Rights Watch) and that
viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians( Amnesty International); one case (Stara Krasnianka) is described as
emblematicof the OHCHR's concerns about placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields ( here at para. 34); in all cases, RS say that these behaviours may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law (OHCHR, OSCE, HRW, AI) or may weaken the efforts to hold Russia responsible for war crimes (Washington Post).
1.Concerned wikipedia article is about war crimes in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, placement of military objectives near civilian objects is a violation of international law As per --
Mrboondocks (
talk)
01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Article 58(b) of Additional Protocol I it is the duty of each party to the conflict to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areasBold text. Thus this is well in line with the topic of the article (i.e war crimes).
Amnesty international recently released report
report is a credible independent secondary source, documenting how Placement of military objectives near civilian objects by Ukrainian army endangered civilians. Excluding this a report of a credible organization in human rights, concerning violation of international humanitarian law could harm [
[7]] of the article.
2.Proposed text should be used, as it clearly defines and cites references of credible organization for placement of military objectives near civilian objects.
3. yes it should be used as proposed.
Mrboondocks (
talk)
01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet
Sennalen ( talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Concerned that the proposal misses the most-notable case of this I think the most-notable case of military objects near civilian locations are the Russian forces placed near, and firing from, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. It seems like there are high-profile stories on that topic with a lot of regularity, i.e. recent NYT story entitled "Fresh Shelling at Nuclear Plant in Southern Ukraine Deepens Grave Safety Concerns" [8]. (link may go stale? Not sure how to permalink it). So this area may well belong in the article, but the answer to questions 2-3 above is definitely no. For question 1, I think the particular topics proposed in this RfC are pretty far down the list of notable cases of military objects placed near civilian objects. So I'm not opposed to having a section on that, but for the particular proposed topic, my answer is again no. Adoring nanny ( talk) 14:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Sennalen: The article has recently been split and the destination article is Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. To know how the article looked before the split you can click here; as you can see, it included detailed descriptions of individual incidents. Following the split, I agree that WP:UNDUE considerations suggest having a shorter text in this article while - I believe - the more detailed account of the events (including Stara Krasnianka) could be placed in the newly created article "Attacks on civilians". It is however important to determine that no principled consideration prevents publishing this kind of contents in "War crimes in Ukraine" and related articles. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
As discussed with @ Gitz6666: on his Talk page, I have requested an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close this RfC, refer Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_on_military_objectives_near_civilians_and_Stara_Krasnianka_attack. May take a few days depending on response Ilenart626 ( talk) 10:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the "ask for an admin" option there. So following that guideline @ Ilenart626 made a request for closure here, and I think that if you want the closer to be an admin, @ My very best wishes, maybe you could explain your reasons there, at WP:RFCL after Ilenar626's request, and perhaps an admin will be persuaded to accept the task. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 13:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
The photo apparently by Сергій Болвінов (Serhii Bolvinov) on Twitter of a box full of gold crowns, presumably removed from Ukrainian victims by Russian military occupation forces in a torture chamber, discovered in Pisky-Radkivski after its liberation, is starting to circulate widely.
Do we have WP:RS for this? Is this notable enough for an article? What is most notable for the article title: the torture chamber, the gas mask, or the suggested comparison with Auschwitz? Following recent similar discussions, an appropriate name might be Pisky-Radkivski box of gold crowns, rather than using words such as massacre that are not directly stated by the Western mainstream media, or maybe Pisky-Radkivski chamber where some unusual items were found. However, I would probably rather go for Pisky-Radkivski torture chamber, which might have a chance of achieving consensus. Boud ( talk) 22:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
So, there was an IP who determined the category Ukrainian war crimes didn't belong on the article (as well as Stara Krasnianka care house attack). I've been sent here by Johnuniq following a failed request for page protection. On second thought by reading the article, I can see that the article doesn't mention much in the way of Ukrainian war crimes (same with the aforementioned Stara Krasnianka care house attack), and I wanna make triple sure everybody else is on that same wavelength. LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 01:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The mission also expressed concern about mistreatment of prisoners of war in the conflict, as prisoners of war held by both Ukrainian and Russian/separatist forces have been repeatedly abused....(lead section);
According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, weapons equipped with cluster munitions have been used both by Russian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists, as well as to a lesser degree by Ukrainian armed forces.(Use of cluster munitions);
Since the beginning of the invasion, Russia has repeatedly accused Ukraine of using human shields, a claim which is regarded by third-party observers as baseless.(Human shields);
Both the Russian and the Ukrainian army have been accused of violating international humanitarian law by locating military objectives within densely populated areas without removing civilians to safer areas ... OHCHR documented the consequences of these fighting tactics in the case of a care house in Stara Krasnianka where the Ukrainian army had set up a firing position without first evacuating the residents(Placement of military objectives near civilian objects);
The alleged perpetrators were ... from Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement in 10 cases(sexual violence; contents and source recently restored);
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 06:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)On 29 June, a report of the OHCHR described the incident as an "emblematic" case of a military objective placed near civilian objects and possible use of human shields to prevent military operations in the area
I think people stopped updating this article out of exhaustion. In the meantime, mass graves of civilians murdered by Russians were found in Kupyansk, Lyman and across other recently liberated areas. Torture chambers have been found. Russia has launched terror strikes against civilian targets in multiple Ukrainian cities. More reports of rape being used to terrorize people.
Yes, this article is about Russian war crimes because that is who is committing almost all of them here. We need to stop pretending otherwise and trying to "both sides" this issue. Volunteer Marek 08:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Per
WP:CRIME, which reflects practice across the encyclopedia, convictions in a court of law are required for us to state without modifiers that any living person has committed a crime, war crime or otherwise. As
WP:BLPCRIME states, Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
; we should therefore acknowledge that crimes are "suspected" or "alleged" until convictions are handed down (which are likely to follow in months and years to come, as signaled by the International Criminal Court and courts within Ukraine). While understandably difficult, in following our BLP policy Wikipedia follows suit with the reliable sources that it cites (which are showing similar editorial prudence) and maintains its credibility; it should further be noted that this is a matter subject to BLP discretionary sanctions. The current article is fairly careful and seems to be generally compliant with BLP policy – I have made one edit, adding "allegedly" to the lead sentence; it being a highly-edited and important part of the article, it should continue to be watched carefully. —
Goszei (
talk)
05:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.— Goszei ( talk) 06:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Not this again. We are not naming any person as having committed a crime. We are not putting in "allegedly" in the lead sentence. See WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED. Wrongdoing HAS been determined. We're not doing this. Volunteer Marek 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Why is the entire lead of the article talking exclusively about "Russian war crimes" when the actual article acknowledges in multiple instances that war crimes were committed by both sides? 2001:569:57B2:4D00:1B4:407:B56B:10A3 ( talk) 09:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
there are some parts of the first section (and its subsections, the "indiscriminate attack on civilians" part) that could be moved to the Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article as a new section, we could also summarize some of the more relevant attacks on that article here so the reader doesn't need to go to that article and read everything just to get a summary of the attacks, thoughts? 2804:14D:4482:46D:B1D4:BA4A:BE69:C6E ( talk) 20:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Q1: shall we include a subsection on the
March 2022 Donetsk attack in the section "
Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks" of this article? Please say Yes/No and why. Q2: shall we include a subsection on the
Maisky Market attack? Please say Yes/No and why.
A rough draft of the two subsections can be read in this
sandbox. For background discussions see thread
#one missile falls on Donetsk and thread
#Indiscriminate attacks on Donetsk People's Republic above.
Gitz (
talk) (
contribs)
11:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (updated 00:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC))
This strongly suggests that the Ukrainian claim is correct, and Russia fired the missile. Of course the WaPo source is dated March 17, while the proposed section says "as of March 14 . . ." thereby excluding the March 17 source. I'll comment on question 2 separately. The upshot is that this was likely just another Russian attack, this time a false flag on its "own" people, which they've also done in the past; see for example Russian apartment bombings. Adoring nanny ( talk) 17:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Ruslan Leviev, founder of a Russian analytical group that uses open-source data to track military activities, said photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted.
rough draftin the opening statement. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 20:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
New sources These excerpts from a recent report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are relevant for this RfC.
OHCHR has reasonable grounds to believe that both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups, as well as to a lesser extent Ukrainian armed forces, have been using weapons, in most cases MLRS and missiles, equipped with cluster munitions (...) OHCHR is concerned that both the Russian Federation and Ukraine have been using Tochka-U missiles armed with cluster munitions in their conduct of hostilities (...) OHCHR was able to identify and corroborate at least 10 attacks by Russian armed forces and 25 attacks by Ukrainian armed forces with the use of Tochka-U missiles. (...) Ten such incidents have resulted in at least 279 civilian casualties (83 killed and 196 injured): four incidents in Government-controlled territory (65 killed and 148 injured), four in territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups (16 killed and 41 injured) and two in territory controlled by Russian armed forces (2 killed and 7 injured) (...)
Emblematic attacks with the use of cluster munitions
31. On 14 March, Russian affiliated armed groups claimed to have intercepted a Tochka-U missile equipped with a cluster munitions warhead over the centre of Donetsk. As a result of the detonation of four sub-munitions in the vicinity of the missile’s crash site, 15 civilians were killed (3 women, 1 man, and 11 adults whose sex is still unknown) and 36 injured (20 women, 14 men, 1 boy, and 1 adult whose sex is still unknown). Ukrainian armed forces denied any involvement in the incident.
— The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24 February to 15 May 2022 (Report). OHCHR. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 08:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
[1] Dunutubble ( talk) ( Contributions) 18:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Random Fan Camping, I appreciate the effort you've made to add the sources, however I still think that your summary is not entirely accurate. This is what the source says
“ | In an interview with DW, the head of the UN Mission for Human Rights in Ukraine, Matilda Bogner, said that the conditions of detention for Russian prisoners of war were satisfactory overall. According to Bogner, however, UN observers had also received information that Russian soldiers were allegedly mistreated and tortured after their capture. | ” |
In addition to these general statements there are a few accounts of individual soldiers which can't be used to make general claims about the conditions of Russian prisoners. This is what you wrote
“ | The Russian POWs was usually treated well, according to them: they received food when needed, medical care when needed, and haved normal living conditions. | ” |
First, if the statement is based on Bogner's words it should be attributed accordingly. Second, Bogner also mentioned the mistreatment reports and cherrypicking her words is a violation of WP:NPOV. The second part of the statement comes from the interviews with several soldiers. The source does not say that all (or even most) Russian prisoners live in similar conditions, so we can't write it here. Alaexis ¿question? 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
There are three questions on military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack:
Proposed text
|
---|
Placement of military objectives near civilian objectsInternational humanitarian law requires all parties to the conflict to avoid, to the extent feasible, "locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas" [1] and it also requires them to "remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives". [2] On 28 March human rights activists and international humanitarian law experts told the The Washington Post that "Ukraine's strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". [3] On 13 June Amnesty International said that Ukrainian forces had violated international humanitarian law and endangered civilians by locating military objectives in densely populated areas of Kharkiv. [4] On 29 June, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern about Russian as well as Ukrainian armed forces taking up positions close to civilian objects without taking measures for protecting the civilians; the human rights agency had also received reports of the use of human shields, which involves utilizing the presence of a civilians to render certain areas immune from military operations. [5] OHCHR documented the consequences of these fighting tactics in the case of Stara Krasnianka care house attack and in the case of a school in Yahidne, where 360 residents, including 74 children, were held captive by Russian forces for almost a month. [5] On 20 July, also a report by OSCE mentioned these two incidents to illustrate concerns about possible use of human shields. [6] According to OSCE, there was evidence that both the Russian and the Ukrainian armies had endangered the civilian population by placing their forces in residential areas. [6] On 21 July, Human Rights Watch said that both Russian and Ukrainian armies had based their forces in populated areas without first evacuating the residents and, in so doing, had exposed them to unnecessary risks. [7] The human rights organisation documented four cases in which Russian forces had placed their bases in populated areas ( in Mykhailo-Kotsiubynske and Yahidne, Chernihiv region, in Malaya Rohan, Kharkiv region, and in Polohy, Zaporizhzhia region) and three cases in which Ukrainian forces had taken position in residential areas without attempting to evacuate residents (in Pokotylivka, Selekstiine and Yakovlivka, Kharkiv region). [7] On 4 August, Amnesty International reported that it had found evidence that Ukrainian forces had repeatedly put civilians in danger by establishing bases and firing positions in populated residential areas, including schools and hospitals; some areas were were kilometres away from front lines and, according to Amnesty International, alternative locations were available to the Ukrainian army. [8] Between April and July, Amnesty International researchers found evidence that Ukrainian military objectives had been placed within residential areas in 19 towns and villages in the Kharkiv, Donbas and Mykolaiv regions. Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard stated that there was "a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated area". [8] The Amnesty report sparked significant outrage in Ukraine and the West. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Amnesty of trying "to amnesty the terrorist state and shift the responsibility from the aggressor to the victim", while Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba stated that the report created "a false balance between the oppressor and the victim". [9] [10] Oksana Pokalchuk, head of Amnesty International in Ukraine, resigned from her post and left the organization in protest over the publication of the report. [11] According to Ukraine’s deputy defence minister, Hanna Maliar, Ukrainian forces were placed in cities to defend the population from Russian forces. She stressed that civilians often refused to evacuate despite repeated offers of transport to safer regions. [12] Stara Krasnianka care house attackOn 7 March the Ukrainian armed forces occupied a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka, near Kreminna, Luhansk region, and set up a firing position there without first evacuating the residents. [13] [14] On 9 March, the Ukrainian forces based at the care house engaged in a first exchange of fire with Russian affiliated armed groups without casualties among the civilian residents. On 11 March 2022 pro-Russian separatist forces attacked the care house with heavy weapons while 71 patients with disabilities and 15 members of staff were still inside. A fire broke out and approximately fifty people died. A group of residents fled the house and ran into the forest, until they were met five kilometers away by Russian affiliated armed groups, who provided them with assistance. [13] Ukraine officials accused the Russian forces of deliberately targeting a medical facility and forcefully deporting the survivors. [15] [16] On 29 June, a report of the OHCHR described the incident as "emblematic" of its concern over the potential use of human shields to prevent military operations. [14] [17] [18]
|
took no apparent action to move residents to safer areas( Human Rights Watch) and that
viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians( Amnesty International); one case (Stara Krasnianka) is described as
emblematicof the OHCHR's concerns about placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields ( here at para. 34); in all cases, RS say that these behaviours may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law (OHCHR, OSCE, HRW, AI) or may weaken the efforts to hold Russia responsible for war crimes (Washington Post).
1.Concerned wikipedia article is about war crimes in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, placement of military objectives near civilian objects is a violation of international law As per --
Mrboondocks (
talk)
01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Article 58(b) of Additional Protocol I it is the duty of each party to the conflict to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areasBold text. Thus this is well in line with the topic of the article (i.e war crimes).
Amnesty international recently released report
report is a credible independent secondary source, documenting how Placement of military objectives near civilian objects by Ukrainian army endangered civilians. Excluding this a report of a credible organization in human rights, concerning violation of international humanitarian law could harm [
[7]] of the article.
2.Proposed text should be used, as it clearly defines and cites references of credible organization for placement of military objectives near civilian objects.
3. yes it should be used as proposed.
Mrboondocks (
talk)
01:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet
Sennalen ( talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Concerned that the proposal misses the most-notable case of this I think the most-notable case of military objects near civilian locations are the Russian forces placed near, and firing from, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. It seems like there are high-profile stories on that topic with a lot of regularity, i.e. recent NYT story entitled "Fresh Shelling at Nuclear Plant in Southern Ukraine Deepens Grave Safety Concerns" [8]. (link may go stale? Not sure how to permalink it). So this area may well belong in the article, but the answer to questions 2-3 above is definitely no. For question 1, I think the particular topics proposed in this RfC are pretty far down the list of notable cases of military objects placed near civilian objects. So I'm not opposed to having a section on that, but for the particular proposed topic, my answer is again no. Adoring nanny ( talk) 14:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Sennalen: The article has recently been split and the destination article is Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. To know how the article looked before the split you can click here; as you can see, it included detailed descriptions of individual incidents. Following the split, I agree that WP:UNDUE considerations suggest having a shorter text in this article while - I believe - the more detailed account of the events (including Stara Krasnianka) could be placed in the newly created article "Attacks on civilians". It is however important to determine that no principled consideration prevents publishing this kind of contents in "War crimes in Ukraine" and related articles. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
As discussed with @ Gitz6666: on his Talk page, I have requested an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close this RfC, refer Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_on_military_objectives_near_civilians_and_Stara_Krasnianka_attack. May take a few days depending on response Ilenart626 ( talk) 10:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the "ask for an admin" option there. So following that guideline @ Ilenart626 made a request for closure here, and I think that if you want the closer to be an admin, @ My very best wishes, maybe you could explain your reasons there, at WP:RFCL after Ilenar626's request, and perhaps an admin will be persuaded to accept the task. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 13:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
The photo apparently by Сергій Болвінов (Serhii Bolvinov) on Twitter of a box full of gold crowns, presumably removed from Ukrainian victims by Russian military occupation forces in a torture chamber, discovered in Pisky-Radkivski after its liberation, is starting to circulate widely.
Do we have WP:RS for this? Is this notable enough for an article? What is most notable for the article title: the torture chamber, the gas mask, or the suggested comparison with Auschwitz? Following recent similar discussions, an appropriate name might be Pisky-Radkivski box of gold crowns, rather than using words such as massacre that are not directly stated by the Western mainstream media, or maybe Pisky-Radkivski chamber where some unusual items were found. However, I would probably rather go for Pisky-Radkivski torture chamber, which might have a chance of achieving consensus. Boud ( talk) 22:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
So, there was an IP who determined the category Ukrainian war crimes didn't belong on the article (as well as Stara Krasnianka care house attack). I've been sent here by Johnuniq following a failed request for page protection. On second thought by reading the article, I can see that the article doesn't mention much in the way of Ukrainian war crimes (same with the aforementioned Stara Krasnianka care house attack), and I wanna make triple sure everybody else is on that same wavelength. LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 01:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The mission also expressed concern about mistreatment of prisoners of war in the conflict, as prisoners of war held by both Ukrainian and Russian/separatist forces have been repeatedly abused....(lead section);
According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, weapons equipped with cluster munitions have been used both by Russian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists, as well as to a lesser degree by Ukrainian armed forces.(Use of cluster munitions);
Since the beginning of the invasion, Russia has repeatedly accused Ukraine of using human shields, a claim which is regarded by third-party observers as baseless.(Human shields);
Both the Russian and the Ukrainian army have been accused of violating international humanitarian law by locating military objectives within densely populated areas without removing civilians to safer areas ... OHCHR documented the consequences of these fighting tactics in the case of a care house in Stara Krasnianka where the Ukrainian army had set up a firing position without first evacuating the residents(Placement of military objectives near civilian objects);
The alleged perpetrators were ... from Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement in 10 cases(sexual violence; contents and source recently restored);
Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 06:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)On 29 June, a report of the OHCHR described the incident as an "emblematic" case of a military objective placed near civilian objects and possible use of human shields to prevent military operations in the area
I think people stopped updating this article out of exhaustion. In the meantime, mass graves of civilians murdered by Russians were found in Kupyansk, Lyman and across other recently liberated areas. Torture chambers have been found. Russia has launched terror strikes against civilian targets in multiple Ukrainian cities. More reports of rape being used to terrorize people.
Yes, this article is about Russian war crimes because that is who is committing almost all of them here. We need to stop pretending otherwise and trying to "both sides" this issue. Volunteer Marek 08:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Per
WP:CRIME, which reflects practice across the encyclopedia, convictions in a court of law are required for us to state without modifiers that any living person has committed a crime, war crime or otherwise. As
WP:BLPCRIME states, Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
; we should therefore acknowledge that crimes are "suspected" or "alleged" until convictions are handed down (which are likely to follow in months and years to come, as signaled by the International Criminal Court and courts within Ukraine). While understandably difficult, in following our BLP policy Wikipedia follows suit with the reliable sources that it cites (which are showing similar editorial prudence) and maintains its credibility; it should further be noted that this is a matter subject to BLP discretionary sanctions. The current article is fairly careful and seems to be generally compliant with BLP policy – I have made one edit, adding "allegedly" to the lead sentence; it being a highly-edited and important part of the article, it should continue to be watched carefully. —
Goszei (
talk)
05:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.— Goszei ( talk) 06:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Not this again. We are not naming any person as having committed a crime. We are not putting in "allegedly" in the lead sentence. See WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED. Wrongdoing HAS been determined. We're not doing this. Volunteer Marek 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)