Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Stara Krasnianka care house attack

This new thread continues the discussion started here above Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#human_rights_office’s_concerns_over_the_potential_use_of_“human_shields”_to_prevent_military_operations_in_certain_areas. If I'm not wrong, so far Ilenart626, SamuelRiv and myself have argued for inclusion, Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes have argued for removing the subsection, and other fellow editors who are active on this page have not yet expressed their views. VM and MVBW argue for removing the incident in Stara Krasnianka because the source literally says that the report doesn't conclude this was a war crime by either side (VM) and because UN explicitly said this case was not identified as a war crime by any side. We're talking about 50 to 60 elderly people who died in a fire following a fight between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces. The separatists had reportedly fired from a tank at the care house where the Ukrainian forces had set up a firing position. To facilitate the discussion on this, I publish here below an excerpt from sources that use "war crime" to describe the incident.

sources on Stara Krasnianka care house attack as war crime

  1. On March 20, Ukraine’s prosecutor general and human rights commissioner reported preliminary findings that matched Haidai’s account, and which were reiterated by the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. The prosecutor general’s office announced war crimes charges against Russia for the alleged attack.
    — "New images show burned bodies at ruined nursing home in Luhansk region". The Washington Post. 13 April 2022. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-07-11.


  2. 34. OHCHR is concerned that in the course of hostilities, both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups as well as Ukrainian armed forces took up positions either in residential areas or near civilian objects, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for the protection of civilians present, as required under IHL.16 OHCHR is further concerned by reports of the use of human shields, which involves seeking to use the presence or movement of the civilian population or individual civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I. 35. OHCHR does not have reliable numbers on these cases, but the case of a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) has been emblematic in this regard.
    — 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. para. 35-36. Retrieved 11 July 2022.


  3. The report by the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said the battle at the nursing home was emblematic of its concerns over the potential use of "human shields" to prevent military operations in certain areas.
    — "Ukraine partly responsible for attack on nursing home, UN says". ABC News. 2022-07-10. Retrieved 2022-07-11.


  4. The report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime. But it said the battle at the Stara Krasnyanka nursing home is emblematic of the human rights office’s concerns over the potential use of “human shields” to prevent military operations in certain areas.
    — Lardner, Richard; Dupuy, Beatrice (9 July 2022). "UN says Ukraine stationed troops in nursing home, bears some blame for March attack". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2022-07-11.
    "U.N. Says Ukraine Bears Share of Blame for Nursing Home Attack". FRONTLINE. Retrieved 2022-07-11.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, User:My very best wishes's latest comment is that thread was they digress due to not having time to evaluate the sources, rather than oppose (This is all I can say. Sorry, but I am not an expert and have limited time to look at these sources).
I found the User:SamuelRiv's comment in that thread on interpretation of the sources convincing upon reading the referenced OHCHR report. Would be interested to read User:Volunteer Marek opinion on it, as unfortunately there's no reply from VM to the SR's comment in the "human rights office's..." thread. My understanding of VM's latest comment in that thread is that weight of the Times of Israel reporting on what constitutes a war crime overrides OHCHR's one; if that's still the case, I believe we have a deadlock and no amount of back-and-forth between the involved editors would move it further.
In such case, the discussion whether the news coverage of war crimes should be given more weight than the publications by organisations such as OHCHR, HRW and IRC may need to be taken to WP:RSN as was proposed by SR and VM. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • No, that is not what I said in in section above. I said that, according to four strong secondary RS (linked above), UN/OHCHR did not identify this as a war crime by any side. Importantly, those are most recent RS on this subject (it appears that the earlier sources cited by Gitz above did not describe the whole story). I also said that I have no time to second guess sources or conduct an original research here.My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    @My very best wishes I apologise for the misunderstanding; it would've been helpful if yours (and VM's) comments would've specified how you interpret what's written in the source, and how it should be phrased in Wikipedia if included to any of the article, rather than repeating "OR" (i.e. if a source doesn't "identify this as a war crime" - what is "this" the source talks about and how would you phrase "this" for including into an unrelated article where it might be relevant).
    The referenced report has two statements in paragraph 34:
    OHCHR is concerned that in the course of hostilities, both Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups as well as Ukrainian armed forces took up positions either in residential areas or near civilian objects, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for the protection of civilians present, as required under IHL. - is the objection here that IHL violations shouldn't be part of this article, or that concluding that interpreting it as an IHL violation is SYNTH?
    OHCHR is further concerned by reports of the use of human shields, which involves seeking to use the presence or movement of the civilian population or individual civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I - do I understand correctly, that you consider that this wording is insufficient to describe next paragraph of the report (number 35, the case of a care house in the village of Stara Krasnianka (Luhansk region) has been emblematic in this regard...) as identifying a war crime? PaulT2022 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • In addition to formal reason ("That is what sources say") there are 3 informal ones to not include this material:
  1. The patients were killed by Russian forces, but this text paints the Ukrainian side as responsible for the war crime by placing it to the "human shields" section. This is wrong.
  2. None of the sources, including OHCHR report (if you read it completely instead of your selective citation), accuses the Ukrainian side of intentionally using these people as "human shields". Trying to use them as human shields would indeed be ridiculous because Russian forces could not be deterred by the presence of Ukrainian civilians (and in fact were not deterred). The report treats this specific case more like a careless placement of military objectives near civilian objects (the title is "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields"), although it does imply the use real human shields in some other non mentioned cases. Therefore (I assume) other cited RS say what they say.
  3. This OHCHR report is just one of many sources, and it can not be fully trusted, and this is a complex case. As always, one should cross-verify multiple RS, and what exactly had happen in this case needs an additional investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    @My very best wishes On 7 March, soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces entered the care house, where older persons and residents with disabilities and staff were located, as it had strategic value due to its proximity to an important road. - are you reading that this sentence doesn't mean that the forces entered care home intentionally? My understanding is that this says they ignored residents because the forces had to be there due to the strategic value - are you seeing it differently? Or do you mean that placing armed forces next to civilians doesn't amount to use of "human shields" in your views? PaulT2022 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what "human shield" means. As our page correctly say, A human shield is a non-combatant (or a group of non-combatants) who either volunteers or is forced to shield a legitimate military target in order to deter the enemy from attacking it. Key words: "in order to deter the enemy from attacking it". That clearly was not a case here. Hence the description in cited sources (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
My very best wishes, the Ukrainian army occupied a building with elderly people and made their evacuation impossible by mining the surrounding grounds. The only difference between this situation being a human shield situation or not is if they announced that there were civilians in the building to the Russian army. If they did, they would be using them as a human shield. If they didn't, they just didn't care at all about their lives and if they died, and used the situation to then denounce the Russian army for killing civilians. Either way, it is quite deplorable. That said, it seems the UN somehow doesn't consider this situation a war crime, so for now it doesn't have a place in the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said either, dear account created two months ago. Times of Israel summarizes the OHCHR report. Not “overrides” or “contradicts” it but summarizes. And in that summary it points out that the OHCHR does NOT call this incident a war crime. There’s no disagreement between the primary and secondary source here. And that’s why it shouldn’t be in here, whatever original research User:SamuelRiv cooks up. Volunteer Marek 22:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, @My very best wishes, is there a reason why you're focusing on the Times of Israel interpretation, rather than, for example, the one in AP that appoints portion of the blame to Ukrainian forces and says that Ukrainian forces made the civilian building a target?
But a new U.N. report has found that Ukraine’s armed forces bear a large, and perhaps equal, share of the blame for what happened in Stara Krasnyanka, which is about 580 kilometers (360 miles) southeast of Kyiv. A few days before the attack, Ukrainian soldiers took up positions inside the nursing home, effectively making the building a target.
This is pretty much what I see the report is saying too.
If you want to see an RS saying that this is a war crime explicitly, it has it too: David Crane, a former Defense Department official and a veteran of numerous international war crime investigations, said the Ukrainian forces may have violated the laws of armed conflict by not evacuating the nursing home’s residents and staff. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Neither of these sources say anything different than Times of Israel. "Appoints portion of the blame" is not the same as "committed a war crime". "violated the laws of armed conflict by not evacuating" is also not the same. So no, these RS are NOT calling this a "war crime explicitly". Volunteer Marek 00:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
According to a broad definition of "war crime", any violation of the laws and customs of armed conflict is a war crime. You'll find citations on this here above, On the scope of this article, again, e.g. this one. Anyway the OHCHR explicitly says that this might be a case of using human shields, which is a war crime "stricto sensu" (giving rise to individual criminal responsibility). "Emblematic of its concern for the use of human shield" means precisely that this might be a case of using human shields. Obviously we don't know for sure, trials need to be celebrated in order to ascertain criminal responsibility, so the OHCHR cannot conclude anything final in that regard - the OHCHR is no judge. Perhaps the Ukr forces had no other option available, perhaps it was impossible to evacuate the residents - there are many unknowns which could justify what happened. But that's true for almost each and every war crime described in the article (e.g., any single case of indiscriminate attack could be due to a failure of the weaponry or to a human error) and we've never used such a ridiculously high threshold for inclusion. If something might be a war crime according to RS, then we publish. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I don’t care, and neither does Wikipedia policy, whether your “broad definition” of war crime fits something or not and dressing it up in fancy phrases like “stricto senso” (because it sounds so much better with an “o” rather than an “e” or something) doesn’t change the fact that this is just your own original research. All I care about is what the source says. And no, the source DOES NOT say this was a war crime. Another source explicitly says that this source DOES NOT say this was a war crime. That’s the whole point! Volunteer Marek 08:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The OHCHR report does. Here we have the OHCHR and also the Ukrainian prosecutor, other Ukr officials and the US ambassador all saying that what happened - 60 elderly people killed in a fire, a tank firing against their care house, a machine gun placed in that house - might constitute a war crime. Arguing the contrary would be like maintaining that shooting POWs in the leg doesn't amount to torture: who could possibly say such a thing? As this might be a war crime, we should summarise what RS say about the incident. MVBW's this case needs an additional investigation can be said for everything you find in this article; you're making ad hoc arguments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it doesn’t. It says “potential” violations of Geneva conventions. And as as we already discussed (there’s a very serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem here) not all violations of Geneva conventions are war crimes (“grave” ones are). The source DOES NOT say this was a war crime. Another source explicitly notes that the OHCHR did not call this a war crime.
Ive been saying this over and over again. So no, im not making an “ad hoc argument” (do you even know what that means? Maybe lay off the spurious Latin for awhile), you’re just not listening. Volunteer Marek 09:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Textbook example of "ad hoc argument" Nr 1:
A: "UN explicitly said this case was not identified as a war crime by any side [1]. Therefore we shouldn't publish"
B: "Ehm, no, UN didn't say this. It just said that this case is emblematic of its concerns about the use of human shields"
A: "Well, if it said so, that means that what exactly had happen in this case needs an additional investigation [2]. Therefore we shouldn't publish". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Textbook example of "ad hoc argument" Nr 2:
A: "We should immediately publish this even if the video showing torture is unverified [3] [4] / Denisova's allegations are unverified [5] / the intercepted phone calls are unverified" [6].
B: "What about the care home in Stara Krasnianka?"
A: "Well, it's very unclear, we shouldn't be too hasty, this needs an additional investigation". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Sight. If you're going to try and throw accusations of logical fallacies around, perhaps you might want to look up strawman argument. The fact that you're not actually quoting any editors but "fake quoting" them (writing stuff to make it look like they said it and putting it in quotes as if it was real) kind of gives it away. Volunteer Marek 19:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Gitz6666, can you please refrain from altering your comments after I already responded to them? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 20:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not "altering" them, I'm complying with your request: I've added a few diff and template:talk quote for verbatim quotations from recent edit summaries and comments. No strawman argument here, and no fake quotations. For extra-clarity, I also added a new timestamp, here and above, so as to make it clear that diff and templates were added following VM's request Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I didn't request for you to change anything, and yes, you did alter them [7]. I'm also utterly confused as to why you're accusing ME of, ahem, "ad hoc argument" (sic), but then try to back it up providing diffs from a completely different editor. Are you confused or something? Volunteer Marek 23:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're confused VM. Please, read here above at 08:57, 31 July 2022: I was talking to MVBW. I mentioned him and I quoted him. Then you started lecturing me about how I don't grasp the meaning of "ad hoc argument". And I explained to you that MVBW was making an ad hoc example. It's very funny that you confuse MVBW with yourself and at the same time you tell me "we are completely different editors". Never mind, as you know well, it's very easy to make this mistake and confuse the two of you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Nooooo, in your comment at 8:57, you were replying to me, not MVBW. My comment you were replying to (8:27) was a reply to your reply of a previous comment, made at 7:46. That was your reply to my earlier comment made at 00:39. MVBW was not in this conversation. Your exact words, directed at me are “you are making an ad hoc argument”, with the “you” clearly referring to me. MVBW was not in that conversation. You didn’t say “they” are making an ad hoc argument, you said “you”. Nice try though. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not something upon which disagreement is possible impossibile. A verbatim quotation from my comment (this [8]):

MVBW's "this case needs an additional investigation" can be said for everything you find in this article; you're making ad hoc arguments

In the fist part of the comment I was talking to you; in the second one, I was addressing MVBW as it is made clear 1) by the fact that I write "MVBW" and 2) by the fact that I quote what MVBW had just posted ("this case needs an additional investigation"). It's not a "try", as you say, you can just re-read my comment carefully and I'm confident you will eventually understand it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Gitz6666 a good way to avoid likely confusion if you desire to modify your already answered comment is to strike your old remarks instead of removing them and then type new additions. If you only adding something just type "added at type date etc....” next to the new expansion. That always works nicely. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The confusion was created by a comment of mine which has never been edited. It's the one you find here above at 08:57, 31 July 2022. Volunteer Marek (VM) made the very understandable and easy mistake of confusing himself with My very best wishes (MVBW). Distinguishing the two may be so damn difficult. Perhaps to prevent the mistake I should have pinged MVBW, but I didn't want to bother him with a notification, or possibly I should have written his name in full instead of "MVBW". Editing my comment with the two examples of ad hoc argument, however, was not confusing and was done accurately. The final result is (I think) quite interesting. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I was just reading about this. It is hard to believe that it isn't called a war crime, seems blatantly clear. But it appears that most sources are not referring to it as war crime. Closest quote I've found is The Associated Press and the PBS series “Frontline,” drawing from a variety of sources, have independently documented hundreds of attacks across Ukraine that likely constitute war crimes. The vast majority appear to have been committed by Russia. But a handful, including the destruction of the Stara Krasnyanka care home, indicate Ukrainian fighters are also to blame.[9]. So it refers to "likely a war crime", but the report from UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime. I would think that occupying a nursing house with bedridden elders and mining the exterior making their evacuation impossible would constitute a war crime, but I'm not a High Commissioner for Human Rights after all. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
It's ironic that this incident has been reported in this article since it happened at the beginning of March. At the time we had a tweet by the US Embassy ("it's a war crime!"), a statement by the governor of Luhansk oblast ("deliberate and cynical") and a telegram post by Denisova ("a crime against humanity by racist occupation forces"). As far as RS and WP:V were concerned, at the time this was enough for us to publish. Then unfortunately the OHCHR published a report in which it said that there was a machine gun in the care home, that the Ukr forces had already had a clash with the separatists but had kept all the residents inside the house, and that this kind of warfare is emblematic of its concern about the use of human shields. The consequence of this? We remove the section from the article. Those 60 elderly people are no longer the victims of a war crime as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Does this sound right to you? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The politisation of debate in this thread is disgusting.
Several comments express a view that because reports the reports are written in literate English and use synonyms (also to blame, laws of war) instead of "X committed Y" formula the events are not war crimes.
And yet something like G7 condemnation of the Kremenchuk bombing is used to define it as a war crime in this article, even though its written exactly the same way ("Innocent victims were hurt in the attack. Indiscriminate attacks are a war crime.") As are 80% of Russian war crimes, which are nonetheless described in the article in detail, by the way.
What is happening in these examples? They use lexical cohesion to avoid repetition, as well as to avoid implying that there's a final court judgement.
Why is cohesion accepted in sources for war crimes committed by one side, and used to claim OR when other side is involved is beyond my understanding.
How could doesn’t conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime can be read as anything else but statement of "doesn't conclude who committed a war crime" and instead be re-interpreted to mean that a war crime wasn't committed?
(AdrianHObradors, apologies for posting this as a reply to your comment, it's not meant personal, have no idea how to answer on the top level.) PaulT2022 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, "or" means neither one committed a war crime. See Logical conjunction. Volunteer Marek 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course, "or" is a logical disjunction, not a conjunction. "doesn't conclude one or both committed a war crime" PaulT2022 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
PaulT2022, I think if something was declared as a war crime, and was added to this article, and then it was "undeclared" as a war crime, the most reasonable thing to do wouldn't be to remove it from the article, but to keep it and explain how it was and now isn't a war crime. And I prefer not to think that, but it seems to me that most organizations and press are a lot less eager to denounce war crimes when it is the Ukrainians doing it, which would be disgraceful. Humanitarian Laws exist for a reason. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@AdrianHObradors I'm in complete agreement with what you're saying (apart from a disagreement about "undeclaring", but I accept that the controversial statement in the source could've been worded better). Accepting imbalances in press coverage is a part of editing Wikipedia per NPOV and I have no problem with it.
My only grievance is that there's no agreement on how OR applies in this article. I've started a thread at WP:NORN#Treating lexical cohesion in sources, which may get some uninvolved input. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic I raised there. Whatever view is taken, it has to apply to coverage of war crimes committed by both sides. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm following that discussion and I agree with User:Andrevan that it is not original research to logically interpret simple meanings and group related info given baseline assumptions. If I'm not wrong, that means two things with regard to this article: 1) in order to include, we don't need RS explicitly saying "it's a war crime"; if RS say "it's torture / use of human shield / forced deportation etc." we can include without that being OR; 2) we need some baseline assumption about the notion of war crime. As I showed here above (Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#On_the_scope_of_this_article,_again) there are two plausible notions circulating (broad one: any violation of IHL; strict one: violations of IHL giving rise to individual responsibility) and we'd better choose one over the other and explain it in the lead section.
With regard to the present thread, however, all this is not strictly relevant because, apart from the OHCHR saying "it may be a case of use of human shields", we also have older Ukr. sources claiming it was a case of deliberate attack on civilians. Please @PaulT2022 and @AdrianHObradors, could you have a closer look to this text and tell us if you think it should be restored and/or how we should modify it in order to include it in the article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I support restoring with added classification from sources to reflect editors' concerns about OHCHR conclusion. Something along the lines of The Associated Press/PBS considered destruction of the care home one of the likely war crimes. OHCHR report didn't conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime.
(Supporting quote from the AP source: "The Associated Press and the PBS series “Frontline,” drawing from a variety of sources, have independently documented hundreds of attacks across Ukraine that likely constitute war crimes. The vast majority appear to have been committed by Russia. But a handful, including the destruction of the Stara Krasnyanka care home, indicate Ukrainian fighters are also to blame.")
If there are still objections, I think an RfC is needed with two questions:
1. Does the AP quote above supports a statement that AP considered this event to be one of the likely war crimes?
2. Should this article include events where sources name IHL violations, but don't state the event is a war crime directly? PaulT2022 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
the proposed text looks like a reasonable mediation and improvement to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
And I disagree per above, and I also happen to think that brand new accounts which seem to possess extensive Wikipedia policy and mark up knowledge (like using specialized tags to remove other editors’ comments) should not be making controversial changes to controversial articles. Volunteer Marek 07:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
What comment was removed by what editor? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Gitz6666, Volunteer Marek, VM called Paul "dear account created two months ago", which honestly Marek, I think it is a bit of a low blow, would be better to counter their arguments and leave their "age" out. Paul removed that (although it was reverted) using the {{RPA}} template. VM, I don't think it is that hard to find that template. Also many people edit Wikipedia for a time before deciding to make an account. If you really think it is a sockpuppet, I would advice to open a sockpuppet investigation instead of mentioning the age constantly. Yet I find his arguments reasonable and see no need for that.
Going back to the subject, I really don't think it is such a bad idea to add the content to this page. Sure, the OHCHR didn't conclude that there was a war crime. And we should let that be clear. But after all, more than 50 people died in a horrible way due to an incredibly careless act, and it was big enough to cause an investigation of whether it was or not a war crime. I think that is enough to appear on this article. I also believe, as we are all perhaps too involved on this subject, that it wouldn't be a bad time to open a Dispute Resolution Request or a Request for Comment. An opinion from experienced and less involved editors could be helpful. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@AdrianHObradors - (off topic, touching it as a response to off topic comment) Actually, the account of that particular user has been created 2 months and one week ago. What’s incorrect about saying that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella, I think discussion should focus on content. Paul's comments don't seem unreasonable, yet should we ignore what he says just because his account is young? Perhaps is only me, but I don't see what bringing his age apports to the argument. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe Glitz’s original wording and Paul’s suggestions are fine. Would also suggest this article could also be useful as a source. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Re PaulT2022, if someone suspects they are a SP, they should open an investigation at WP:SPI - am I right? In the meantime, this is a fellow user optimo iure, as Volunteer Marek (who loves Latin) would say.
With regard to this thread, I think we're building a consensus. I would suggest a very minor change: we shouldn't say (with Wikivoice) that "OHCHR report didn't conclude the Ukrainian soldiers or the Moscow-backed separatist fighters committed a war crime", we should rather say that that's AP's interpretation of OHCHR report. If you agree, the text could be the following:

According to the Associated Press, the OHCHR report said that the Ukrainian military had some blame for what happened in the nursing home, but the report did not conclude that Ukrainian forces or pro-Russian separatists committed war crimes.

(English to be improved, as always). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Based on discussion above, there is no consensus for inclusion. Please start an RfC if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    As far as I see, four editors have agreed on publishing this - @AdrianHObradors, @Ilenart626, @PaulT2022 and myself. Two editors - you and @Volunteer Marek oppose, but that's not a novelty - you have opposed each and every attempt to publish anything about Ukrainian war crimes. I'd like a third opinion about whether there is or there is not a consensus for inclusion here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I saw you making such argument on a number of occasions. This is wrong because WP:Consensus is defined by the strength of the argument and the policies, not by head count. Moreover, you count people as agreeing or disagreeing with something, but you may be wrong. One needs to properly ask the question and then have formal "yes" and "no" answers. That's why we have RfC as a mechanism that includes organized structure and closing by uninvolved admins. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't self-revert anything, and I don't think you're argument were strong at all. In fact, it's only because of WP:AGF that I take your comments to be "arguments" rather that ready-made POV-pushing. It's very difficult for me to believe that, had the soldiers inside the care home been Russians, you would now still be arguing for removing the section because "it's not a war crime!". Obviously this is a war crime, various RS say so, and we need to publish the section. So instead of removing the section and asking for self-reverts in the talk, you should make a constructive proposal as to where and how we should publish this, and try to build a consensus. Note that a section on Stara Krasnianka/Kreminna has been in this article since March, and the release of the report by OHCHR is certainly not a reason for dropping it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
this is a war crime, various RS say so One. More. Time. This is FALSE. Which RS say so? You keep making this blatantly false claim, you've been repeatedly asked to back it up, you have not done so. That is WP:TENDENTIOUSness right there. What's worse is that it's also been pointed out at least half a dozen times to you that, actually, reliable sources say that the report DOES NOT describe this as a war crime. Please stop. Volunteer Marek 00:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Your last comment shows that you didn't even bother to read the text you were removing, let alone the talk page where this has been discussed thoroughly. For this reason, I'm now reverting your last removal. You ask, "One. More. Time. This is FALSE. Which RS say so?". Oh, for the benefit of the uninformed reader:
  1. The Times: a horrific act of genocide and terrible crime against humanity
  2. Washington Post: The prosecutor general’s office announced war crimes charges against Russia for the alleged attack
  3. ABC: The High Commissioner for Human Rights said the battle at the nursing home was emblematic of its concerns over the potential use of "human shields"
  4. Associated Press/PBS: The Associated Press and FRONTLINE ... have independently documented hundreds of attacks across Ukraine that likely constitute war crimes. The vast majority appear to be committed by Russia. But a handful, including the destruction of the Stara Krasnyanka care home, indicate Ukrainian fighters are also to blame. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh my god, you're actually going to try to use sources which allege a Russian war crime and pretend that these support text about an alleged Ukrainian war crime? This goes past just plain ol' vanilla attempts to misrepresent sources Gitz2222. The Times and WaPo describe a Russian tank firing on the nursing home. Gee, I wonder why that isn't part of the text that's being disputed? Those two sources - the one that says "horrific act of genocide" and "announced war crime charges" are used to source the text "In the aftermath of the attack, Ukraine officials accused Russian forces of deliberately targeting a medical facility and forcefully deporting the survivors." Nobody is disputing that part!
The part that is under dispute is whether Ukrainians committed a war crime by defending the nursing home and/or stationing their troops nearby. THAT is what you need to provide sources for. And you haven't. Because such don't exist.
Stop trying to play games and pull wool over people's heads. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • [10] - that was cunning. Placing [unintentional] endangerment of civilians (which is typically not a war crime and therefore does not belong to this page) - to the title of one subsection, along with human shields which is typically a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Yup. That edit is pretty much an implicit admission that this wasn't a war crime, that no sources say that it was, but that Gitz wants to include it anyway so he'll subtly change the scope of that subsection (and the article itself). Volunteer Marek 01:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, many sources have declared it a war crime, genocide, and terrible crime against humanity. Until there are trials, we won't have confirmation about what is or isn't a war crime. But the event is clearly notable enough to warrant its place on this article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree, the events surrounding the Stara Krasnianka care house attack clearly should be included in this article, including Ukraine’s actions in placing troops and weapons in the care house Ilenart626 (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Guys, which sources tell that the alleged endangerment of civilians by Ukrainian forces was "a war crime, genocide, and terrible crime against humanity"? So far there are none. None of the sources quoted in this section say it. Older sources say the events in Stara Krasnianka was a war crime by Russian forces. Newer sources say these events were not identified as a war crime in the report by HCHR. I am not saying this is the last word here, but definitely none of these sources say that was "a war crime, genocide, and terrible crime against humanity" by Ukrainian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Massive removal of text - without consensus?

With regard to this edit [11] by @My very best wishes we need to have a discussion. My repeated attempts to re-insert that text into the article (VM) apparently were not a violation of policy [12] but that doesn't solve the issue. That all-encompassing edit by MVBW mixes together a few things:

  1. Stara Krasnianka. We had two extensive discussions in this talk page on 10 July-30 July and 30 July-7 August where five editors expressed the view that this needs to published and two editors oppose. The two opposing editors have opposed every attempt at publishing contents related to alleged Ukrainian war crimes, and I doubt they should be allowed to block the consensus. Besides WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable policy - we cannot sweep a war crime under the carpet only because the Ukrainian army might have some responsibility. The only meaningful alternative is: do we want to publish it in the "Human shields" section (perhaps after having renamed it "Human shields and placement of military objectives near civilian objects") or do we want to publish it in the "Indiscriminate attack" section? The latter option is questionable because we have no source alleging it was a case of indiscriminate attack, but we can have a discussion on this.
  2. Amnesty International. Discussion is ongoing and has not yet delivered a consensus on if and how to publish.
  3. Some human rights activists and international humanitarian law experts have raised concerns about the placement of heavy military equipment by Ukrainian forces in civilian areas. Sources: Washington Post and Human Rights Watch. This has been in the article since ever. The removal of this contents has never been explained, not even in the edit summary.

My view is that we'd better create a subsection on "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects" in the "Indiscriminate attack" section. There we could publish contents on the reports by Washington Post, Human Rights Watch, OHCHR and - if we agree - also Amnesty International, and we could also provide info on the criticisms that were raised against the AI report. Stara Krasnianka could also be placed there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

With regard to removal, we already had such discussions, and very long ones, on this very page. There was no obvious consensus to include these materials. There were walls of text from you. If you want to move further, please start one or two RfC. With regard to new subsections - you need to open a separate thread and justify with RS whatever you suggest. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
We had no discusion on removing WaPo and HRW: could you please share one diff on this? Otherwise this might look like disruptive editing. With regard to Stara Krasnianka we have a rough consensus: five good-faith editors want to publish, if I'm not wrong, and you and VM cannot block this any longer. It's clearly a war crime. I'd like more experienced editors to express their views on this, on the methods. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I have added more news about the subject, we can't ignore reports from UN Human Rights Office, OSCE: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, reliable media sources like Associated Press, The Washington Post, Der Spiegel, and confessions from witnesses, from both foreign journalists and civilians. William2055 (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
William has done two large edits. Only the two large edits. I am really surprised by history of his account.Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
William has quoted an OSCE report, 53 pages. Which page do you mean?Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
'Der Spiegel" where? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
"Usmanova told Der Spiegel in a video that was later taken down", so nowhere.Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
To remain neutral we will describe Russian bases (Crimea) situated among civilian population, eg. beaches, either.
We will also inform about critics of the report inside the AI. Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not the first report or article about it, let's see some previous examples:
• March 28, Washington Post, "Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv's defense tactics add to the danger" [13] ;
• April 18, The New York Times, "To Push Back Russians, Ukrainians Hit a Village With Cluster Munitions" [14]
• May 15, July 8, July 26, UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN UKRAINE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARMED ATTACK BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (A/HRC/50/CRP4)" [15] [16] [17] ;
• July 21, Human Rights Watch, "Russian, Ukrainian Bases Endangering Civilians" [18] ;
• a August 7 CBS article about the latest report, [19]
Why is this the one that has raised so much fuzz, when the previous ones from UN and HRW (and several press articles) basically say the same things? 152.207.201.16 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Great question! The endangerment of civilians always happens from the Day 1 of all wars. No one can take all precautions. So why now? From what I read (for example, [20]), this appears to be an organized campaign by Moscow to use this Amnesty report in order to justify atrocities they commit in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I´m sorry, the Atlantic Council is a very biased source in this context and they will say what they want to say. If 99% of AI's previous reports are kicking Russia's b..t, how is this now a "Russian campaign"? now they publish one, according to them, by the same research team and using the same methodology, and the cry goes to heaven. So if the AI ​​report is flawed, are the UN and HRW reports too? and the press articles? because they say almost the same thing, either with formal, investigative or journalistic language. the media spoke little of the above, almost ignored. and now? If the UN and HRW as "neutral and uninfluenced" parties said that the AI report is flawed, it could be taken into account (I think they would first have to say that all of theirs are also wrong). And come on, AI (and UNHRC, HRW and the like) have been considered trustworthy, reputable, and sometimes "tools of the West." Does their reputation and trust depend on who they reports are addressed to? 152.207.201.16 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Preparing for another split to another sub-article/overlapping article

The prose content of this article is currently about 107,000 characters or 16,000 words or 280 kb of source text, which is easily long enough to start thinking of another WP:SPLIT. A default technical limit in the number of references will also occur when this is too high. I suggest that people start thinking about sections that can be split off as individual articles, with brief summaries to be written and retained here (the lead of the new article would more or less be the summary in this article, apart from differences for context). Many sections are already split off, and their summaries can't be condensed much more.

A practical approach would be that someone willing to do the actual work of doing the split of a big section should make a proposal (though I'll suggest Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks while warning that I don't expect to do the work, and thinking up a valid title would be a challenge), and ask if there are any objections. Boud (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think some small sections can simply be excluded as undue/low significance for this page. For example, we have a section that is all about a single video of unknown origin posted on YouTube. We also have a section about an event that was explicitly described by UN as "not a war crime", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
i think we should move the "targeting of nuclear plants" and "genocide" sections to their respective articles and the "denying free passage to civilians" section to "siege of Mariupol". maybe also detention camps and abduction of Ukrainian children to their respective articles too, although we could link these articles in the see also section, some sections of the indiscriminate attacks part may also need to be looked into, still, if youre talking about the mala rohan torture case in the video thing, it was confirmed, so its probably relevant, another suggestion would be to move the reactions and proceedings section to a separate article (so we can keep only documented war crimes here), any thoughts? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose removing the Genocide section because it is already a summary of Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Splitting off a subtopic does not mean leaving the reader with no idea that that subtopic exists. Instead, we leave (or write) a brief summary and cross-link. In the Genocide case, we already have a sub-article, a summary and a cross-link. (I shifted the random sentence that someone had inserted to the Genocide talk page.
The sections that are currently under RfC or being negotiated should probably rather wait. Boud (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sure. These sections should be kept, I did not suggest removing them. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
OK - just to clarify: I was only responding to 187.39.133.201's points there. Boud (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Creating Indiscriminate attacks during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine looks like a good idea to me. I hope I'll be able to publish my article on "Indiscriminate attack" in the next few days. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Sure then, i wont oppose keeping the genocide section, i just made a suggestion, although a article separately about the indiscriminate attacks sound a good idea, i still think we should move "targeting of nuclear power plants" and "denying free passage to civilians" part to their respective articles, same with the others i proposed there, the less amount of excessive content on this page the better. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Not a good idea I think. "Indiscriminate attacks" by definition "are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. [21]. They are war crimes, and they are happening, but a lot of them during this war are not indiscriminate, but directed specifically against civilian targets and civilian infrastructure, such as shopping malls, the theater in Mariupol with children, etc. Such attacks are designed to terrorize the civilian population and rather belong to terror, terrorism or genocide. Putting them to the category of "Indiscriminate attacks" means downplaying them. My very best wishes (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
sure, although i dont know a exact word for the article name that would also include the purposefully done attacks, could maybe be "Indiscriminate and -word- attacks during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or something. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I hadn’t seem this yet when I responded below to the mention of my user name, but suggested a spit for events that are being removed as “not a war crime” but are nonetheless crimes of aggression or crimes against humanity. Therefore I am, inthe abstract, in favor of a split, but suspicious of how this might be implemented in the details. Case in point, events in Mala Rohan are not “confirmed,” although this article said so until I recently corrected it. Elinruby (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
the word that IP187 is looking for is "deliberate" or "direct attacks". That could cover e.g. the Mariupol theatre airstrike. However "Indiscriminate and deliberate etc." is a bit too long and not immediately intelligible to everyone. I suggest one of the following two:
1) "Attacks on civilians etc.". Perhaps a bit inaccurate because we won't be dealing with willful killings, etc.
2) "Indiscriminate attacks' and then in the lead we explain that some of them may be deliberate and some others may be legitimate military attacks with civilian casualties, but we choose them because they'd been described as war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Nobody objected, so in the next few hours/day I'm going to make the split here above described. Are we all in agreement on the title? Indiscriminate attacks in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Unfortunately IP187 got blocked here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#POV_pushing,_edit_warring_and_possiblesockpuppetry_on_War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No. The current title of the section is "Indiscriminate attacks and attacks [specifically] against civilian targets". They are different, but it will be very difficult to distinguish these two types of attacks based on sources (both types are war crimes). If you want to define all of them merely as "Indiscriminate" rather than intentional attacks against civilian targets, that will be a whitewashing of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't get which title would you rather have for the new article. "Deliberate and indiscriminate attacks in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a bit too long, isn't it? What about "Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm now creating Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine- Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

After the split

Following the discussion here above Preparing for another split to another sub-article/overlapping article, I've split the article and created Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It was very much needed, but it leaves this article in a suboptimal situation: vital information are missing and the section Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets must be almost entirely rewritten in order to account for the most relevant contents that the split removed from this article. In particular, I think we should provide a brief summary of the following events (and I might be forgetting something important):

  1. Siege of Mariupol and Mariupol theatre airstrike
  2. Kramatorsk railway bombing
  3. Missile strike on Chasiv Yar
  4. 3 March 2022 Chernihiv bombing and 16 March 2022 Chernihiv breadline attack
  5. Bombing of Borodianka
  6. Bombings of Kharkiv
  7. Kremenchuk shopping mall attack
  8. 2022 Vinnytsia missile attacks

Am I missing something? This work is also very much needed for the new article Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I created a temporary lead section by copying and pasting the most relevant parts of this article, but we need to provide a summary of the contents, which is now missing. So our new section "Indiscriminate attacks and attacks against civilian targets" could become the lead section of that article, and viceversa. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Now, after this split (if it stays), the content you want to post RfC about [22] should probably be included to the new page you just created, not to this page, because this content is about the attacks on civilians. Hence the RfC should be posted on the talk of newly created page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Targeting of nuclear ...

The section is obsolete. It links to Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, also obsolete. Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Xx236, changed the "see also" so it links to Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant#2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I've restored how everything was before. Something failed with the tool I'm using for comments. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Just let me see if I fixed it.. (easiest way to see is to just comment here) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Reply worked, but I got a warning because it took too long. It's a long page. One more test. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Genocide

The section does not describe genocidal declarations of Russian politicians and media. We do not have to study individual cases to prove genocidal intent. The intent has been declared. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.justsecurity.org/81789/russias-eliminationist-rhetoric-against-ukraine-a-collection/ Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want to add something, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"For the legality of the invasion itself in international law, see"

Why is the subject excluded from the lead? Please compare "The Nuremberg trials were held by the Allies against representatives of the defeated Nazi Germany, for plotting and carrying out invasions of other countries, and other crimes, in World War II." So why the main Russian crime is ignored here? Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"This article is about individual actions", so perhaps the name should be changed to "Individual war crimes", "Selected war crimes'?Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
you are right, this article is not about individual actions - that description is flowed. So instead of changing the title of the article, I changed the description in the template:About. This article is about violations of international law during or after the Russian invasion that may be war crimes is more simple and more accurate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Xx236. Yes, of course this should be briefly noted on the page, as it was in this version [23]. Someone removed it for no reason. Let's restore. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Someone removed it for no reason is not true. There has been a discussion on this: Crime of aggression ≠ war crime. I see that you took part to that discussion, MVBW, and gave your reasons. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, I see. But it seems that no one really objected in the linked discussion to at least briefly noticing "the invasion itself" as a crime and giving a link to another (sub)page. Right now we have only a link without even brief explanation. A short para with a few phrases could serve this purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

need more watchers at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

Could use more watchers at the above page. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_19&oldid=1146077244"