Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Intent of Page

The title, "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is stating that this page contains the war crimes that wikipedia is aware of. Within the article it lists all incidents that might be (considered) war crimes and the status of evidence that might answer the question of whether it is in fact a war crime. If a reader judges that the information presents implies there are 0, 1 or any other number of war crimes, then they have a right to an opinion. The title does not prejudge how many are war crimes. It is simply a list of incidents that might be considered to be war crimes. Mdaviscs (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This Man is Now In Charge of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine (and is under orders to intensify / accelerate it)

From the BBC (source link at bottom of this post)--

"Viktor Zolotov

...he runs Russia's national guard [strength 400,000 troops]...

...Vera Mironova believes the original Russian plan was to complete the invasion within days, and when the military appeared to be failing, Russia's national guard [led by Victor Zolotov] took the lead. The problem is that the national guard's leader has no military training..."

SEE CITATION / SOURCE LINK HERE: Ukraine conflict: Who's in Putin's inner circle and running the war? (See section near bottom of article-- "Victor Zolotov")

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

And this is relevant to the article how? Letcord (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Has he ordered any actions that are war crimes? Unknown. But we have to know who the leaders are (from top down to battlefield generals and below) in order to search for any possible sources that indicate the ordering of an alleged war crime.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but there can be no synthesis along the lines of: "Person X is in charge of the Russian army per source A", "the Russian army has allegedly committed war crimes per source B", "person X has ordered alleged war crimes to be committed per sources A and B". Any accusations of an individual must be directly sourced. Letcord (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Understood.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Encyclopedic knowledge about the Russian Armed Forces and notable individuals involved in decision-making there, based on WP:RS, is useful for Russian citizens, for the ICC, and for all other people interested. You could check US armed forces Wikipedia pages for examples of listing individuals' roles in the chain of command: I expect that there is a very high level of transparency (except for the intelligence agencies, but even there, I expect that the heads are publicly identified individuals and almost always considered Wikipedia-notable). There are, of course, many sub-pages of Russian Armed Forces. Boud (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic photo / Need for more photos in article(s)

What is the relevance of the image File:Reporter’s Notebook - Thriving Kyiv Becomes Battle Zone, Almost Overnight 03.jpg with the caption Civilians preparing Molotov cocktails in Kyiv on 25 February 2022? Is this supposed to suggest that civilians will throw Molotov cocktails at soldiers who have already been taken prisoner (a war crime, but not plausible, let alone being supported by WP:RS)? Or that it is a war crime to use Molotov cocktails against tanks and other military vehicles (which is unlikely to qualify as a war crime)? Neither make sense. Unless there is a good reason for keeping the image in this article, the link should be removed. Boud (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the article doesn't mention molotov cocktails outside of that image. I've removed it. — Czello 21:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
We still need photos that are closer to the topic. We have no claims about IDPs being forcibly displaced, and the credible statement that people are, according to the Ukrainian authorities, internal refugees sheltering in a basement is only indirectly associated with war crimes. Even if military forces only target military objectives, it's still wise for civilians to shelter in any war situation. (The actual statement that the people are refugees is a rather loose term, though; the less ambiguous term is internally displaced persons (IDPs).) Boud (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, more photos are needed for the article—
1) non-copyrighted or federal government photos,
or 2) if anyone has the rights to photos (including having taken them themselves) and wants to release them to Wikipedia.
There is a process in either case— if you have relevant photos, post here and, if appropriate / still needed, someone will help you get them onto Wikipedia.
Photos are needed for both the main article— and for a thumbnail gallery at the bottom of the article.
Unfortunately some of the subjects in the article will probably expand over time— and may require their own Wikipedia articles, also requiring more photos.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
A good start for uploading photos is Commons:Commons:First steps at Wikimedia Commons, so that the photos can be used throughout the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) supported projects. Boud (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I removed the link to the IDPs photo as off-topic. Ukrainian refugee crisis seems to be the closest article that might be relevant, although at least currently that doesn't cover IDPs. Boud (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2022

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 section.

War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian War – There appears to be a part of the article dedicated to 2014-dated crimes, which is decidedly before the 2022 invasion. All of this is a part of the Russo-Ukrainian war, which spans a longer period of time, so it would be more accurate to re-title the article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment I'm reading the article and it doesn't specifically say what war crimes have been committed, but has "and other war crimes may also have occurred" in the lead, and that evidence was being gathered further down the page. Maybe move to Allegations of war crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian war? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The 2014 (and slightly beyond) epoch of the broader war since 2014 is covered in Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas#War crimes, but there is almost no information there on war crimes during 2016 to 2021, even though sources (OSCE SMM, OHCHR) are available. There's no point trying to cover the pre-February-2022 period in this article, which is very likely to expand considerably, since Russian forces have a strong track record of war crimes (they're not alone in this). Ukraine does have cluster munitions, and has used them in the Donbas war, so (unfortunately), it's very likely that war crimes will continue to be committed by both sides, even if so far there's only evidence of war crimes by one side reported by well-established human rights organisations. Regarding "doesn't specifically say": both Amnesty and HRW give detailed documentation on the Vuhledar indiscriminate attack that killed civilians near a hospital; and Amnesty lists two other similar attacks that it documented. A possible alternative name could be Crimes against peace in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, since crime against peace can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression). @Buidhe: knows more than me about the terminology, research and legal aspects of war crimes, genocide and associated topics and might like to comment. This would be less recognisable, since there is very weak popular (and media) knowledge of international law, but it would be correct in terms of formal terminology, it seems to me. Boud (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly per Boud. There have already been serious violations already and there are likely to be more; the article is already notable; so I do not think it makes sense to broaden the scope.
  • As for the international law issues, yes, technically courts charge crime of aggression, crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes as separate counts. But the articles "war crimes in X war" on Wikipedia invariably cover all serious violations of the law of armed conflict or international criminal law that occurred during the war, including all the above as are applicable to the conflict. It seems to me that this broader definition makes more sense for us encyclopedia writers because it is more intuitive for readers and real events can violate multiple categories of international law. (For example, Radko Mladic was convicted of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in the Srebrenica massacre). We follow that in other areas as well; the murder of George Floyd article covers the "second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter" that occurred during that event. Some things in international law are disputable, but this about as clear cut as it gets when it comes to international aggression. See here for a colorful but accurate view. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    It's pointless having a second article (to the invasion one) if the only war crime were the crime of aggression. For this article to make sense there needs to be other war crimes. So I don't think Some things in international law are disputable, but this about as clear cut as it gets when it comes to international aggression., while true, is relevant here. It does seem like the scope of this article is broader than the 2022 invasion and is about the war more generally. So I'm leaing support personally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    My point in making this is more that the article should be titled to cover the Russo-Ukrainian war rather than just the invasion, since it has content regarding violations of international law that well predate the invasion. I'm not overly tied to the first two words of the proposed new title, but I thought that the proposed new title is an improvement over the current one. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment - just to note that I have changed the title slightly to make it grammatically correct but kept it at the status quo until the completion of this discussion. Buttons0603 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Allegations of war crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian war because WP:NPOV. Just to clarify this does not mean I agree or disagree with the claim, I just feel that until its proven there is no need to rush here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine has become a distinct event, already requiring a separate Wikipedia article. Burying 2022 War Crimes in a general article about an older territorial conflict, limited to far-Eastern Ukraine, would do the subject matter of war crimes allegedly occurring in the 2022 Russian invasion a great injustice. Chesapeake77 (talk) 04:13, 5 March 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.

Premise of title

So we have an article saying matter-of-factly, in wikivoice, that "[title] are war crimes that occurred during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" (note the plural), and a title with the same premise, even though no formal investigations into any incident have even been opened? The body of the article has "As of [yesterday], the ICC had not yet requested permission from its judges to open an investigation" and "could exercise its jurisdiction and investigate any ... war crime committed within Ukraine." i.e. a theoretical. Likewise with the statement that the deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine was "gathering evidence of war crimes" i.e. also hasn't even alleged any crimes yet. The body then lists three incidents, the first which Amnesty says "could constitute war crimes" (uncertain), the second which it says definitely does in its analysis (which may be contested), and the third, the incident with the tank, in which no mention of it potentially being a war crime is made in the source. This is frankly insufficient sourcing for the very strong claim of multiple war crimes having been committed that is made in the title and lead.

The article should therefore be re-titled Alleged war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the lead sentence rephrased to make it clear that any allegations are untested in court, and so whether the incidents in question constitute war crimes remains to be seen. Letcord (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Letcord: I rephrased the first sentence. If you see a problem like that in the future, by all means edit it yourself. See WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
I agree with you about the title. (Cf. Alleged Saudi role in the September 11 attacks, but if there are are any counter-examples, I'm not aware of them.) You can do a page move.
— W.andrea (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@W.andrea: Thank you. I don't dare edit political articles. Already your change was reverted and we have opinion pieces added as supposed sourcing for charges of war crimes, as if a few Australian academics, none of whom specialize in this area, have the last word on these matters. Such is the state of Wikipedia. Letcord (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
You may wish to open a requested move if you don't want to edit the page directly. Anarchyte (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Talking about "Alleged": Look at it from this perspective: Anything in Science is always "Alleged" and under discussion. It is an argument, that is all. Example: "Plate Tectonics", or "Global Expansion". Many scientists may not believe in some of these arguments, but there is no "Court" or "International Commission" or "Committee" that decides whether it is actually so or not. It is simply an "Argument". Not for this we call the pages "Alleged Plate Tectonics" or "Alleged Global Expansion". It is not Wikipedia's role to establish how real or not things are. There is a listing of who denies it, who believes in it, who decides that somebody was guilty, who published a paper to prove it was false, in politics, science, whatever we are dealing with. As long as there is INFORMATION, WRITING, DISCUSSION about it, it is an Argument that "needs" to be summarised and reported to provide and reveal the information to all Mankind. Full stop, and it seems quite easy and transparent for me.Jpvandijk (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    Completely agree re science, where there is an objective underlying reality. Criminality however is a subjective social construction, determined in a court of law. There is no underlying truth - the same laws can be interpreted differently by different judges, and so we should wait for a guilty verdict before declaring any person or entity guilty of any specific crime without attribution. Letcord (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of 'disputed' tag

Since there is no dispute about facts, only a question of the title, and a title change proposal has already been started below, the {{disputed}} tag should be removed.

Are there any objections to removing the 'disputed' tag? Boud (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, strong objections. The lead has "war crimes have occurred" and "the invasion itself constitutes a crime of aggression". These are legal opinions, not undisputed facts, as there have been no investigations and no trial. As such, they must be attributed to the organizations making the allegations. Likewise in the "Crime of aggression" section, where "the invasion of Ukraine violated the Charter of the United Nations prohibition on aggression and constitutes a crime of aggression according to international criminal law" is written in wikipedia's voice, when criminality has not been determined in a court. The sources for the alleged tank driving on car and shelling of neutral merchant ships in the "Distinction between civilian and military targets" section make no mention that these events could constitute war crimes. This breaches rules on synthesis of materials and original research, so either details of these incidents should be removed or sources found that do allege them to be war crimes. Until these issues are addressed, the article remains very much in dispute. Letcord (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
What RS dispute that Russia launched a war of aggression in violation of international law? Produce them and we can discuss. (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not up to RS to determine criminality, it's up to the courts. Mladić who you mentioned below can be said to have committed war crimes because he was convicted by a UN tribunal on those charges. No investigations have even been started related to the invasion, so all allegations remain allegations and must be attributed. Letcord (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
So we should rename the Armenian genocide article because none of its perpetrators were ever tried for genocide? No, that's not how it works; we follow what RS say. (t · c) buidhe 06:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not a good example as international law on genocide was only developed decades after the Armenian genocide occurred, and the convention is not retro-actively applied. A better example is Uyghur genocide where the lead section says "Uyghur genocide is the characterization of the" (not "is the") and "some governments, activists, NGOs, human rights experts, and academics termed it genocide." The equivalent to that should be written in this article, not "[title] are war crimes that were committed". The synthesis issue also remains unaddressed. Letcord (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
In the case of the Uyghur human rights violations, RS don't agree that it was a genocide or that we have enough evidence to know for sure. In this case, it's very clear cut and you've refused to provide any RS that contest the fact that according to international law, it's an illegal war of aggression by Russia. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The Uyghur genocide lead sentence is currently under discussion and basically nobody involved in those discussions thinks that the current lead sentence there is optimal. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm with Buidhe here, the sources that have been supplied for this statement (that I've read) seem unequivocal about their assessment of it being a crime of aggression. While caution is necessary when expressing opinion (MOS:WEASEL provides relevant guidance, although it's important to remember that it's a guideline, not a policy), in this case there appears to be no serious contestation of the issue among RS. Obviously if RS appear raising questions about this assessment we would need to revisit this – and I expect more sourcing will appear relatively quick on this anyhow. Jr8825 • Talk 18:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • If the vast majority of the WP:RS are classifying this as a war of aggression, we can just put that in Wikivoice. That there hasn't been a court finding (yet) is not really relevant unless there are specific WP:BLP considerations, which doesn't apply when you are talking about the general actions of an entire country. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A crime of aggression according to the Rome Statute is "the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, *by a person* in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations." Living persons are to be "presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law" on Wikipedia, so it would follow simply that allegations of that crime need to be attributed. The synthesis issue remains regardless so I've tagged that section. Letcord (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What are war crimes?

I've done a bit of cleaning up in terms of re-organising sections, though it may not be perfect.

Please read:

and

to familiarise yourself with the generally accepted international legal terminology. You don't have to become a lawyer, but making a reasonable effort to learn the information that we already have organised in Wikipedia will help to sustain the quality of this article. Also scroll up through the discussions that have earlier taken place on this page. Thanks. Boud (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki and A1: Please read the above Wikipedia links: this article is only about war crimes, in the broad informal legal sense that also covers crimes against humanity, genocide and to some degree the crime of aggression, but not killings in the war in general. In the current state of international law, the mass murder of military personnel is legal if it has a justified military aim (whether it should be legal or not is off-topic for this Wikipedia article). If we have content that is not clearly a war crime, then some Wikipedians will worry about WP:SYNTHESIS (see the section below). Boud (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The section of the article that I have been doing the most editing on speaks to mass murder of civilians, not military personnel. There is a standard (example) of describing mass murder of civilians not close to any legitimate military targets as war crime. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I only meant this to be a general comment, not trying to blame any particular editor. I'm just commenting that this needs to be in the sources and our Wikipedia text, and giving the main links. The good thing about a wiki is that our complementary knowledge, summarising skills and editing can work together to fix bugs. Boud (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Additions and sourcing

reverts like this or additions of content where the source does not explicitly say that there was a violation of international law should not be done. It can't be the judgement of a wikipedia editor that the events constitute a war crime in the absense of a source that says so; see WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's incorrect. An attack on civilians during wartime is ALMOST ALWAYS considered a war crime. If it's unintentional, then it's considered manslaughter (criminal negligence), if it's intentional, its murder. Either way it's a crime, by international law.
This is how the news media ALWAYS handles such allegations.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Vacuum (thermobaric) bomb launchers now confirmed by the US government to be in Ukraine

These possibly illegal bombs (their use is claimed to be barred under the Geneva Convention) can cause severe mass casualties.

The presence of VB launchers in Ukraine (in the possession of Russian forces only) has now been well-confirmed (mainstream news sources now confirm this).

Their actual use in Ukraine has not been independently confirmed— although the Ukrainian government has made one accusation of a VB attack in the Battle of Okhtyrka#Vacuum bomb. The mainstream German news website, Deutsche Well (DW), is also reporting this accusation (English version site).

Russia is confirmed to have used these bombs in the Second Chechen War.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the Thermobaric section with the legal situation, including better wording and references. They are not illegal if used on military targets, whilst the situation with civlian targets is uncertain. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The original text did already note that TBWs (nickname "vacuum bombs") were not illegal-- and it already noted that they nevertheless COULD be used to commit war crimes if used too close to civilian areas.
Thanks for updates and writing improvements, however.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary part of caption

Do we really need to specify that there's an empty baby carriage in the foreground of the infobox picture? It seems like an entirely unnecessary part of the caption, and people using screen readers can get the general idea of the picture without the addition of the part about the baby carriage. I'd remove it myself, but I'd like to get a consensus before I do it. RteeeeKed (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just gonna WP:EDITCON. RteeeeKed (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Using the New York Post in references / citations

IMPORTANT NOTE: The New York Post is ONLY considered "less reliable" by Wikipedia for coverage of local politics in NYC and coverage of police related stories. It is considered RELIABLE for coverage of other topics

Someone keeps flagging NYP citations whenever they see them, without making distinctions.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The NYPost is not considered reliable for "other topics". See WP:NYPOST: generally unreliable. There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department. 2020 RfC: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#RFC: New York Post (nypost.com) Boud (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


Assessment for quality and importance

I note this article has been assessed as being of C-class for article quality. Given that this is a current event and any allegations of war crimes have not been investigated and the perpetrators have not been brought to justice, yet, I find it difficult to say the coverage is complete or accurate at this stage. Consequently, question B2 in the B-class checklist needs to be answered "no" at this time, as a result I think considering this article to be of C-class quality is being very generous. Until allegations are investigated and any perpetrators are brought to justice, I find it hard to believe this article could attain even B-class quality, no matter how well written. At this time, I am leaving the article with a C-class assessment in the hope that this will encourage editors to improve it. However, I have assessed the article as having a "Low" importance rating because the allegations have not been investigated yet and there is no indication that any perpetrators have been identified nor judicial proceedings commenced. This assessment may change once investigations get underway. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding the words "alleged" or "allegations" faithfully throughout the article would solve most of the problem.
Other than that, the above assessment is itself administrative overreach.
Consider:
1) Killing of civilians during wartime is ALMOST ALWAYS considered a war crime. If it's unintentional, then it's considered manslaughter (criminal negligence), if it's intentional, its murder. Either way it's a crime, by international law.
So there is no need to wait for a years-long investigation and trial-- in order to report on it. **This is how the news media ALWAYS handles it.
2) Allegations by notable sources are notable. So long as they are noted to be allegations and are properly referenced.
So trashing the articles "Importance ratings" was unwarranted, lacked due discussion ahead of time, and so is an administrative usurpation rather than the result of a proper review process.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are WikiProject grading assessments limited to people with WP:ADMIN rights alone? I haven't checked the rules, but that sounds surprising to me. (I've never given these grades myself.) Given that we have 6 WikiProjects listed above, I would assume that it's up to the people active in those 6 projects to independently consense on their gradings within their project. And I don't see why admins would have any special rights to decide on WikiProject gradings. Currently I see 5 projects giving this a C grading (I haven't checked who edited or when.) @Cameron Dewe and Chesapeake77: Couldn't you two choose which WikiProject you're talking about right now and go over to that project's page and have your debate over there? A high or low grading is not going to affect the current editorial debates (maybe "comments" is more accurate than "debates") about what should or should not go into this article or either the generic issues about war crimes versus legal military actions, and sourcing, or specific issues on specific content. Boud (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I can't imagine how this discussion is about any other article than this one.
Please clarify.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
There are 6 different WikiProjects interested in this page - each WikiProject group of people (possibly overlapping groups) can decide their current rating of the article separately. Those people interested can debate it and I don't see any need for admin intervention. If you really want to debate it here, then go ahead, but maybe at least say which WikiProject you're talking about. Boud (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Boud and Chesapeake77: In general, any editor can assess any article and most editors do this unconsciously every time they edit an article to improve it. But few think to record what they think of an article and recording that assessment is what the WikiProject banners are for.
For quality, there is a set of exemplars and a general description of what an article of a given quality should look like. This assessment standard appears to be consistent across all WikiProjects, so a "C-class" article should be a "C-class" article across all of the WikiProjects it is assigned to. The fact it is currently rated "Start-class" for the Military History WikiProject is because that project ties its assessment to the answers to B-class assessment questions and in that project's eyes the article is currently Start-class because two questions are answered "No". Fix the citation issues and answer "yes" to question "B1" and it becomes "C-class". When I assessed the article I saw that it was already rated "C-class"; a somewhat higher rating than I would have given it. But quality ratings are somewhat subjective and I am willing to accept a "C-class" rating if that is a consensus decision. Unfortunately, I think it is too soon to be giving this article the proper coverage it deserves. Yes, allegations have been made and appropriate authorities have been notified but no investigations have been initiated and nobody is on trial yet, so I cannot see how this article can be the complete story on the subject title until that happens. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not the news and not a crystal ball, and while an article can keep up to date with current events, it cannot get ahead of them and speculate. So until some progress is made investigating the allegations already made I think it is difficult to assess this article as more than "C-class" because it will remain unstable until the judicial process is complete, perhaps some years into the future.
For importance, which I assessed as "Low", one need to consider that earlier assessors had not made any assessment of this article's importance to Wikipedia. I assessed it as "Low" primarily because it is still a current and ongoing event and, because of that status, a definitive and complete article cannot be written. In many respects, this article is currently documenting routine war news coverage of alleged war crimes and, like many crimes that happen around the world, they have a brief amount of news coverage and then the news media moves on to the next big story. It is here that we run up against Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as we currently do not know which specific war crimes are going to be considered notable in the future. This is an evolving story and until there is a clearer picture about how important this article really is, I have given it a "Low" rating as I don't think it is significantly more important than editing any other Wikipedia article and keeping up to date with developments. This is going to be a long slow process, so I don't think people should be devoting all their time to editing this article alone, as there are plenty of others to be edited too. This article may become more important in the future and my assessment is merely a starting point. So if anyone thinks I have under-estimated this article's importance to Wikipedia please reassess it and give it a higher rating. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
If it is "too soon" as you say, to rank the articles importance, then it should have been left un-ranked.
I would disagree, though. The article ALREADY abundantly establishes that massive targeting of civilians has been underway in Ukraine since Feb 24th, 2022. The sheer number of allegations and also-- numerous confirmed reports by professional news media make this an undeniable fact.
The article, in its totality already proves that mass-murder and atrocities against civilians in Ukraine have occurred during the invasion and are still underway.
Therefore this article qualifies for "High importance" status already (**as soon as the word "alleged" is properly distributed through the article).
On a human note, witnessing the magnitude of all of this, even if just on television, may be traumatizing. Perhaps we are all in shock now, from witnessing such a mass Nazi-like event, played out day after day. Round the clock. I strongly encourage all Wikipedia editors to take care of themselves and strive to maintain objectivity when editing such material. Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chesapeake77: If you read what I said, I think it is too soon to write an encyclopedic article that deals with all aspects of the subject. By all means follow the news and document what is happening. This is an important NEWS story, but not an important Wikipedia story, yet. When you are buried in around the clock television coverage on multiple channels of traumatizing events, it can be hard to remain objective and see the long term goal of Wikipedia. All I am saying is that if you are being exposed to this coverage for what seems like 25 hours a day and 8 days a week, that doesn't mean you need to continuously edit this article on Wikipedia to keep up. You can't! Even Nazi Germany took six years to murder an estimated six million people and the war crime investigations and prosecutions went on for decades afterwards. I don't see that what is happening in Ukraine is that much worse than what has happened in other wars during the last century or so, it is just we now have the technology to live-stream everything from multiple angles. As a result the fog of war is dispersed. My "Low" rating is a signal to editors that they should not become addicted to editing this article and Wikipedia has lots of other articles that also deserve attention. Yes these events are important to observe and note, but we cannot write the definitive Wikipedia article until the war is over and we know the full extent of what has happened and the investigators have picked over the remains. If history is anything to go by "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet", what you are seeing now is merely a forerunner of the atrocities that are yet to come! A "Low" setting gives us some room to maneuver should those possibilities come to pass. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles about all wars “in progress”, it does not wait for them to be over before it approves such articles.
Wikipedia has many articles about / or including notable allegations of war crimes. It does not wait years for the “final determination” to allow articles to include such allegations.
Yes what we know so far is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chesapeake77: By all means Wikipedia editors should keep up to date with notable allegations of war crimes, but until there is a "final determination," this Wikipedia article cannot be considered "complete" and "definitive". While I don't expect this to take almost the two centuries it took for the New Zealand government to accept its role in Moriori genocide, this process could take some time. Imagine trying to write the article about the Nuremberg trials in 1939. We are in the same situation, with an unknown future before us. We are not there yet; I suspect we are not even near "The End of the Beginning" of getting there. At this stage this article is mostly about information gathering to document war crime allegations, which is a good thing. But until those allegations are investigated and any perpetrators brought to justice, it will be hard to finish this article in line with its rather ambitious title. I suspect this article will remain a work-in-progress for the duration of the invasion and then for several more years to come. Meanwhile, I agree that Wikipedians should document what they can because there is a whole iceberg out there that will melt away before they, or anybody else, can do so. Though I suggest one should avoid dying in a ditch to make this happen. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Template on section about IRHC announcing Humanitarian Catastrophe In Mariupol Lacks Required Discussion

WP:WTRMT states that a template can be removed if there was no discussion regarding it.

Removed. A discussion / voting template will be placed here on the subject.

Adding the template prior to discussion and vote will be treated as vandalism and offenders may be blocked.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:WTRMT states When an article talkpage discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it) (bold added). This template says that the relevance is unclear and does not require a talk page discussion. Of course, having a talk page discussion is justified in the case of difficulty in reaching consensus.
You should also read WP:WNTRMT, which states When not to remove ... 2. The issue has not yet been resolved; 4. The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;. Both 2 and 4 apply: the issue has not yet been resolved; and it is plainly and umambiguously the case that material has to be relevant to an article. There is plenty of discussion above warning about concerns of what can be described as war crimes in Wikipedia article text versus other human rights violations that are not justified as being included here as war crimes, under Wikipedia policies and guidelines requiring sourcing or at least unambiguous meanings that obtain consensus on terminology.
The purpose of the template is to alert readers and editors. I will restore it, since the template is not vandalism. Boud (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
For convenient checking: removals of the {{relevance}} template:
Boud (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Remove or Keep section entitled “ICRC announces major “humanitarian catastrophe” in Mariupol”

information Needs discussion  Comment. Chesapeake77 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC) …


There has been a question raised about wether to Remove or Keep the section entitled “ICRC announces major “humanitarian catastrophe” in Mariupol”

Please post the following—

  • Support

OR

  • Oppose

Followed by your reasons for your conclusion. Thanks! Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Merge into a relevant (complementary) article Human rights violations in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Humanitarian situation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This article only covers war crimes; a siege could count as a war crime but this case is not obvious - reliable sources classifying this as a likely war crime would be needed to justify inclusion in *this* article. If nobody makes the effort to create Human rights violations in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Humanitarian situation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, then the material should be Removed from this article. The siege of Mariupol is a highly relevant topic, but off-topic (so far, at least) to this article. Earthquakes and tsunamis lead to "humanitarian catastrophes", but they are not war crimes. The human-induced global warming emergency is an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe, but it's not legally classifiable as a war crime. We can't mix all bad things that happen into a single topic. Boud (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    I suggest creating a new "move" article discussion ("move" is how you change an article name). This really requires a new and separate discussion. Each name variation could be mentioned there and then people could vote / discuss.
    I think your ideas about changing the article name DO have merit.
    However I disagree on some of your points about the "ICRC…Humanitarian Catastrophe in Mariupol" section. **I am kind of a busy at the moment but hope to place my vote / rationale on that later (hopefully today).
    In the meantime, you, or someone, might find a "Move article (rename)" template and place it here to get that (article name change) discussion going (separately). **I think you have good ideas there.
    Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Has Russia been tried in the ICC?

No, they haven't. It is therefore absurd to claim that Russia is "guilty" of any crime, including the "crime of aggression. They have not been tried, nor have they been given an opportunity to defend themselves. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:146C:E5AF:87FE:8C5E (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion in the section just above this.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The article does not currently use the word "guilty" to describe Russia in relation to the crime of aggression. Nevertheless, Russia is a state, not a person. There are several reliable sources that qualify the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a crime of agression. Boud (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Straightforward allegations vs indirect, cautious language

Maybe here we are a bit too cautious: "A number of interviews of Russian soldiers taken prisoner have been circulated on social media, often seemingly filmed under a degree of duress and used for Ukrainian propaganda purposes. These videos have raised concerns [one could even add a tag here, "who is concerned? specify"] about potential violations of the Geneva Conventions. On 7 March, Amnesty International released a statement saying that ... and saying that ... Human Rights Watch criticized the Ukrainian treatment of prisoners of war, which it described as intentional humiliation and shaming" (emphasis mine). The circumlocutory. indirect language contrasts with the bold opening statement of the article: "The invasion of Ukraine... constitutes a crime of aggression according to international criminal law" – straight to the chase. Something doesn't sound right to me: I think we should strive for a more coherent approach. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Whole beginning of the article should be reworked.
"According to many specialists" -- What specialists?
"the invasion of Ukraine, part of the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014, violated the Charter of the United Nations prohibition on aggression and constitutes a crime of aggression according to international criminal law" -- Source is needed here, if it even belongs. A crime of aggression is a different thing from war crimes. Perhaps should be mentioned somewhere else? But not so sure it belongs at the beginning of the article.
Also, Wikipedia must remain neutral WP:NPOV and all war crimes from both parties should be recorded. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the lead so as to make clear that the article deals also with alleged crimes committed by the Ukrainian army (explicit reference to exploiting Russian PoW for propaganda purposes). Plus, I've strengthened and qualified the statement on the crime of aggression by providing more sources and by adding "According to experts and human rights organizations". The article should now be more balanced and reliable, and the lead section more informative. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Gitz agree that reads better, Also note that in the Irpin refugee column shelling Human Right Watch stated that Ukrainian forces have an obligation to avoid or minimize civilian harm, include avoiding operating where civilians are located and preventing civilians from entering areas of active hostilities. In this incident Ukraine forces were firing a mortar 200m from the intersection. Not sure if this is a potential Ukraine war crime? Ilenart626 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It might well be but we need a WP:RS to that effect. HR Watch suggests that "Russian forces violated their obligations under international humanitarian law" and doesn't blame the Uk. army. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
What could help could be a broader article such as International humanitarian law in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, to mainly focus on suspected violations of IHL that are not clearly sourced as likely war crimes, leaving only a very brief link to this page for war crimes. Particular items could be shifted in one direction or the other depending on how the sources evolve. Boud (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, it is looking much better. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Universal jurisdiction EE+LT+DE+PL+SK+SE?

The Prosecutor General of Ukraine claims in a tweet that Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden have started universal jurisdiction war crimes cases in relation to Russian war crimes. The info is credible, but a tweet is a weak source. There should be media announcements or announcements on court websites in these various countries sooner or later, once these get to the stage of formal investigations or charges. Feel free to add good sources here, or start a Universal jurisdiction subsection in the article directly. Boud (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's because any article / website can now be translated in seconds.
Even better than "Google Translate"-- many browsers will now instantly translate foreign language websites, with only a few clicks. Use Google to find out how.
I would go to the top newspaper in each country. Did you know that you can cite a foreign language source on a Wikipedia article as long as you note the particular language in the "Language=" parameters for your citation?
Chesapeake77 (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Browsers do not work by magic, they work by software run on your local machine and on servers; see GAFAM for privacy violations and security risks of using the oligarchs' servers. Not all oligarchs are having their wealth confiscated. One of the best guides for switching from walled gardens to the free world, https://switching.software, does not currently have any recommended auto-translator. We can't just "click and believe". Boud (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think translation programs can be exploited as you suggest. The translator would have to instantly "rewrite" things to become an instrument of misinformation. There are no computers that can "write" propaganda.
Not in 2022.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes

@RteeeeKed, Buidhe, Cameron Dewe, and Chesapeake77: (people who have edited this talk page). The ICC and ICJ infoboxes do not have links to the articles on the ICC and ICJ cases, and they do not sumarise key features of war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This gives the false impression that this article is the main one covering those two cases. But it's not the main article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes explains why there is no obvious place to link to the relevant articles. It's because an infobox about an article, which "summarizes key features of the page's subject", is normally placed at the top right of the article itself, and only rarely (if ever?) placed in other related articles. Since there has been difficult reaching consensus about keeping this article on-topic (war crimes), I'll let others remove the infoboxes and/or comment here. Boud (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove, not relevant. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the ICC related Wikipedia article about investigation into war crimes in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

All I can find is an overly-general article about alleged war crimes in the "Russo-Ukrainian War".
1) On 3 March 2022, the ICC announced a specific investigation into the 2022 invasion-related alleged war crimes.
2) The 2022 invasion war crime allegations are highly notable and should not be buried in a blind rush to obscure, bookish efficiency.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
No. The ICC is not going to make a separate investigation into the 2022 invasion. Please read the ICC official information: On 2 March 2022, the Prosecutor announced he had proceeded to open an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine on the basis of the referrals received. In accordance with the overall jurisdictional parameters conferred through these referrals, and without prejudice to the focus of the investigation, the scope of the situation encompasses any past and present allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide committed on any part of the territory of Ukraine by any person from 21 November 2013 onwards. (bold added) Boud (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Then why (two days after the invasion) did the chief ICC prosecuter say that he needed a country to file a referral request re: the Russian invasion of Ukraine so he could accelerate the initiation of the investiagation of events occuring during the invasion?
And then why did 39 countries then enjoin petitions to request the ICC investigate the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?
And also why did the ICC chief prosecuter then respond to these petitions to announce the commencement of the investigation of the invasion on 3 March 2022?
Because the 2022 invasion of Ukraine has unique investigative importance, that's why.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the direct quote I gave above is sufficiently clear. You're probably trying to say that the Feb 2022 further Russian invasion of Ukraine gave extra political motivation to the ICC to advance from the preliminary examination stage to the investigation stage; in which case, yes, that's a reasonable interpretation. It doesn't override the RS'd information that we have, and it doesn't override the WP:MOS for infoboxes. There is a single ICC investigation into the Situation in Ukraine dating from 21 November 2013 onwards, concerning suspects of arbitrary nationality. Boud (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I removed the infobox. I didn't check who added it. Please see the above discussion. The infobox is about an ICC investigation that covers war crimes by all parties in Ukraine from 21 November 2013 to an open-ended future; summary information about the ICC investigation is not summary information about the war crimes of the 2022 invasion. Boud (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a page where infoboxes are made? I think I saw something like that in the last several days.
Maybe there could be a discussion about what an infobox for this page should look like / include.
This article really needs something like an infobox.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

Are there any objections to removing the {{synthesis}} tag, currently in the Distinction (law) section? If there are objections, then please explain the reasons for keeping the tag and explain which paragraphs/sentences appear to be WP:SYNTHESIS. Boud (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not add the tag, but pretty much everything is synhesis, in the whole article, except for the general background and the materials related to application to ICC. In addition, some editors do not understand the difference between killing and murder. Ideally, not every incident which some media called "war crimes" should go here, but the article must be based on reliable secondary sources covering the topic. On the other hand, I fully realize that creation of anything reliable with this title is currently impossible, and I am not interested in any way to contribute to this article at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I added and re-added the tag and it was twice removed. There is still a lot of synthesis, i.e. detailing of events for which no connections to "war crimes" are made in the sources. The shelling of the civilian merchant ships is one example. I don't have the patience to keep re-adding the tag every few days, but it should still be there. Letcord (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that we necessarily need the words "war crimes" in the sources, but we do at least need the information that is the plain English information that reasonably and uncontroversially matches the definitions, without OR or SYNTHESIS. I removed the merchant ship section just now, with a brief explanation in the edit summary. Try discussing particular paragraphs/subsections with the editors (mainly one?) who don't seem willing to come to a compromise between the limits of including anything that seems like it might be a war crime or is vaguely related to the topic, to the other extreme of requiring the specific words "war crimes" in the source. (Just for the record: it's not me who removed the tag.) Boud (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
My view is that in an article on such a serious type of crime like this one, every incident detailed should have to have been alleged to be a war crime by at least one source, even if just in a casual way by non-subject-matter experts for now, and with the allegation reported by a WP:RS (i.e. no referencing tweets). This is quite a low bar to set, but it at least prevents Wikipedians from playing lawyer to decide what "reasonably and uncontroversially matches the definitions" of crimes (this is not a slight on you, you've done good work on this article).
A perfect illustration of what can go wrong if WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:RS aren't followed in articles like this is the tank incident. Info on a "Russian tank deliberately swerv[ing] into [a civilian car]" was added early on with "no solid proof" [1] of its veracity, and it stood as a key example of a Russian war crime for over two weeks [2], i.e. over 50% of this article's lifespan, without there being a single allegation that the incident constituted a war crime made in the (very weak) sources, and even more damning, there being "no evidence to support" the story's fundamental assumption of the tank being Russian, with, on the contrary, "several indications that it [was actually] a Ukrainian tank"! [3][4]. A textbook example of online misinformation if there ever was one, and as a trusted source of information for many people, Wikipedia has a responsibility to be more careful about what it publishes, otherwise it will fall into disrepute. Letcord (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The 'tank swerving to hit a car' incident is a good example of your point - I agree. And you're probably right overall. My difficulty with this article is that if I intervene too much (such as removing content not added by me), then it risks looking very much like I think I WP:OWN it, and I risk violating formal constraints such as 3RR. A bunch of experienced editors are needed to keep an eye on the article and be willing to delete or fix weak material.
If nobody else does it, then sooner or later I might start the broader article with a name such as International humanitarian law in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the understanding that the scope is not especially the law itself (which is not modified for this case), but mainly suspected violations of the law. In that case anything that is not well enough justified as war crime by the sources, but is reasonably claimed by the sources (not WP:THESUN or WP:NYPOST...) to violate international humanitarian law, can be shifted to the broader article. Boud (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Changing this articles name to "Alleged" war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would solve a lot of these problems.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I meant "Allegations of"
Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Placement of bodies of Russian soldiers in 'Z' shape by Ukrainians

Bodies of soldiers have been placed in a 'Z' shape and recorded by Ukrainians (sorry, reddit source for the second one, I haven't been able to find it on an article yet), which would constitute a war crime (rule 113) and (rule 90) for “committing outrages upon personal dignity”. I have been unable to find a source yet that addresses this, so I haven't written it up on the article. Please let me know if you can find anything. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this would ammount to a war crime. Rule 113 refers to dead bodies being despoiled or mutilated, and Rule 90 requires that the victim of torture and degrading treatment is alive. In any case we must avoid WP:OR: as you rightly said, we need source, so thank you for not having published. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course, cases like this I won't publish without discussing it before. And about the sources, you are absolutely right.
On the other hand, Rule 90 does say it applies to dead bodies: "The Elements of Crimes further specifies that degrading treatment can apply to dead persons and that the victim need not be personally aware of the humiliation".
Unless I am mistaken, that would make it a war crime. Now, there are sources reporting the act, but I haven't found any reliable source reporting it as a war crime, and I don't think it will be easy to find. --AdrianHObradors (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there some context missing in last sentence of the lead?

Last sentence reads

The International Criminal Court is currently investigating war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the country.

and cites a 156-page PDF published in 2016. The placement and text of that sentence however seems to suggest that the crimes currently under investigation by the ICC are those alleged to have occurred in 2022 which – obviously – aren't addressed by a source published 6 years earlier. Having not read the 156-page document I was hoping somebody who has could clarify this sentence. Which war crimes and crimes against humanity are under investigation? ...or maybe there was supposed to be a different source cited there? --N8wilson 12:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that that must have been an accidental edit by someone doing some restructuring. See if the new source and wording are better. Have a look at the sources in International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine for more depth. Boud (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Very helpful. Thanks! --N8wilson 01:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject importance reassessment

I notice with this edit that Chesapeake77 changed the WikiProject Crime importance assessment from Low to High. The High assessment suggests the article subject "contributes a depth of knowledge" or is "Extremely notable" to the WikiProject Crime subject area. In a previous discussion, now archived, I explained why I gave the article a Low assessment rating and I don't recall reaching any consensus about changing that assessment or what any new assessment rating should be. Given that a couple of weeks have passed and the conflict in question is still ongoing, I do agree that this article has increased in significance and should be reassessed. However, I don't think it should be ranked as important as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which, while ranked Top for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine, is only ranked High or Mid in other WikiProjects. Using that article as an importance guide, I think this article should be ranked at least an importance step lower in the corresponding WikiProjects, or no more than Mid if there is no corresponding project. This is because the article "contributes a depth of knowledge" to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but only "fills in more minor details" concerning Crime. Any changes in the importance assessment should be discussed first with users setting forth their reasons for change. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

1) The section "Mass shelling of residential areas in Mariupol" desereves a closer look. It has quite a lot of documentation, including citations about satellite photos of mass destruction in Mariupol (taken and evaluated by a space satellite company that works for military intelligence).
2) The section on the Russian airstrike on the maternity hospital (also in Mariupo, but has it's own sectionl).
3) The pervasive details (throughout the article) on how Russian forces have blocked evacuations from Mariupol from residents who are starving or dying of dehydration. Extensive cited sentences about hundreds of thousands being trapped there (due to Russian refusal to allow evacuation), under weeks long 24 hour shelling and bombing, without food or running water.
4) References (spread through the article) on how Russian forces have blocked ALL humanitarian aid supplies from being brought into Mariupol.
5) There is much more...
Chesapeake77 (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
"The pervasive details (throughout the article) on how Russian forces have blocked evacuations from Mariupol from residents who are starving or dying of dehydration."
Even more of this can be found at the Wikipedia article Siege of Mariupol.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_1&oldid=1146077221"