Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Reversion of attack on care home edit

A recent edit I made removing the Stara Krasnianka incident from the "Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property" section was reverted.

The primary source includes only the following paragraphs pertaining to the incident.

"OHCHR is concerned that in the course of hostilities, both Russian armed forces and affiliatedarmed groups as well as Ukrainian armed forces took up positions either in residential areas ornear civilian objects, from where they launched military operations without taking measures for theprotection of civilians present, as required under IHL.16 OHCHR is further concerned by reports ofthe 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"

"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. At the beginning of March 2022, when active hostilities drew nearer to the care house, its management repeatedly requested local authorities to evacuate the residents. This was reportedly impossible as Ukrainian armed forces had allegedly mined the surrounding area and blocked roads. 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. On 9 March, soldiers from Russian affiliated armed groups, who were approaching from the opposite direction, engaged in an exchange of fire with soldiers from Ukrainian armed forces, although it remains unclear which side opened fire first. During this first exchange of fire, no staff or patients were injured."

There is no mention that the destruction of the care house was unlawful on Russia's part. Indeed, the paragraph we have in the current version of the article concedes this, saying the report "didn't find that Russia committed any war crimes." Therefore, the incident should not be included in a section entitled "unlawful destruction." There is no proof Russia did anything wrong or unlawful here in deciding to attack this place. JDiala (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That is because You have possibly mistaken "War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" as "War crimes by Russia in invasion of Ukraine" by edit descriptio: "Report says Russia didn't commit war crimes here, so why is this in this section". The alleged war crime is under investigation, therefore it is warranted to be in this article. Civilians died because of military activity. Just because in Your opinion it was not Russia's doing does not mean it should not be here, as under investigation. YBSOne (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You had absolutely no issue adding this text [[1]] under Ukrainian-war crimes even though it was debunked as false for their use as human shields, and yet when the same text was added as destruction of hospital with both points of view, You hurry to remove it. This is not NPOV. YBSOne (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

What alleged war crime is under investigation? The only alleged legal violation cited by the OHCHR in this report with respect to the incident at Stara Krasnianka is that of the Ukrainian armed forces utilizing civilian infrastructure. This has nothing to do with the unlawful destruction of property, which is the section title this is placed under.

The second part of your response isn't relevant to the current discussion and in fact there's an ongoing RfC devoted to it. JDiala (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"especially given the fact that the Commission for Ukraine has indicated that war crimes have been committed by both Russian and Ukrainian armed forces, including at the institution housing persons with disabilities in Stara Krasnianka." Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2024 YBSOne (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

it is also under investigation by Ukraine's Prosecutor General's office. YBSOne (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

For the first source, I think this is just a reading comprehension error. The author is stating that war crimes were committed by both sides, and Stara Krasnianka was one place in which war crimes took place; it doesn't mean that both sides simultaneously committed war crimes in Stara Krasnianka. You can read through the primary sources cited in the footnotes 1, 2, 3 and none of the reports state that Russian soldiers committed or may have committed war crimes in Stara Krasnianka.

In the second source, the WPost article, this is a bit better, but it is still just Ukraine accusing Russia of a war crime. I don't think that's a high-quality source. We ought to have an independent or at least semi-independent source. The prosecutor general of a belligerent state doesn't fall into that category. The independent source we do have does not accuse Russia of anything in this incident. I think if nothing else it should be reworded to indicate that this is purely a Ukrainian allegation which is not supported whatsoever by the independent third-party. JDiala (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all You are attacking a strawman. I did not state Russia commited war crimes here. I am stating that civilians were killed by fire caused by artillery strike from pro-Russian separatists. Sources do not accuse Ukrainians of war crimes, You do. You wanted this part to be included here as Ukrainian war crime, but when this does not pan out You want it hastily removed as it may cast a shadow of doubt on Russia. This is bias. YBSOne (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The question I'm asking is why this is placed underneath "unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property." No one is talking about Ukrainian war crimes here which is a separate discussion in the RfC. We're talking about the "unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property." Where is this accusation? Who made this accusation? If you cannot substantiate this from an independent source, the allegation should not be here. JDiala (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This incident is a destruction of a medical facility and therefore should be mentioned here, especially when both sides accuse each other of war crimes. After either the war end or some sort of a verdict, this section can be updated. Right now it should stay as is. YBSOne (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm again asking you a simple question. The section this is placed in is "unlawful destruction of property." Which source says that unlawful destruction of property took place here? JDiala (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

All of them. YBSOne (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC) When there is an illegal separatist military, backed by a terrorist state, there is no such thing as "lawful destruction", no matter how much You want it to be. It is beyond my comprehension that this simple fact has to be explained to grown people today... YBSOne (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think your comment is just WP:SOAPBOXING at this point (and this is not the first time). Personal views on the war cannot impact content disputes. JDiala (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Personal views on the war cannot impact content disputes". Please start with Yourself and stop riding a dead horse. WP:dead horse. YBSOne (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"There is no proof Russia did anything wrong or unlawful here in deciding to attack this place" other that invading a sovereign country and murdering civilians with artillery shells that is... YBSOne (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Anyways, it's not our judgement to make, we have to look at what RS say. JDiala (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• That was correct revert by Ybsone for a couple of reasons. First, this should be included per the previous (old) RfC. Secondly, that material is also about the new (current) RfC, and it was there when the RfC started. Please do not change it during the standing RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not engaging with the argument presented. Explain why this should be listed underneath "unlawful destruction of property" when exactly no source describes the incident as an unlawful destruction of property or anything similar to that. JDiala (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the subsection "Attacks on medical facilities" should not belong to the section on destruction of property. This must be a separate section. But this is a reason for re-titling the sections, not for removal of content on attacks on medical facilities. Also see my previous comment. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence the "attack" was the war crime which is what the section title implies. There is no evidence Russia committed any crime here in "attacking" this nursing home. Please explain what exactly the alleged war crime is and who the alleged perpetrator is. If you are unable to do this, I believe I am well within my rights to remove this material as an OR case. JDiala (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been told already that there is an allegation of war crime and therefore it stays in War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article under destruction of medical facilities, sourced under note number 114. If You remove this content I'm starting a NOTHERE report to administration against You. Enough is enough. Drop the stick. YBSOne (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Ukrainian prosecutor general, an employee of the Ukrainian state on Zelensky's payroll, a reliable source for an allegation of a war crime? They are literally a party to the conflict. They are a belligerent. They are inherently unreliable. Wartime propaganda is a thing. This incident was analyzed by a third-party, the OHCHR, which found no evidence that Russia committed a war crime. That suggests the allegation is highly dubious.

Here is what I am going to do. I won't remove it entirely for now. Rather, I am going to reduce the length of the discussion of this incident to 1-2 sentences, pending the outcome of the ongoing RfC. This is a reasonable compromise, and it is consistent with the past RfC which states that the Stara Krasnianka attack should warrant no more than 1-2 sentences. JDiala (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

How come? You just argued yourself that it was a war crime and should be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I argued it was a Ukrainian war crime (misuse of civilian infrastructure), not a Russian one (the attack). The sensible status-quo position (until the RfC is decided, which will take a long time) is to stick to the past RfC consensus which is 1-2 sentences. JDiala (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You said: There is no evidence Russia committed any crime here in "attacking" this nursing home.. Wow! Killing innocent patients together with military by invaders who had no business in Ukraine whatsoever was not a crime. But I understand what you mean here: the Ukrainian military located in the facility (and being unable to evacuate the civilians) made it a legitimate target, hence it was not a war crime. But this is not so simple. For example, Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war by Israel forces were claimed to be a war crime in a large number of RS, even though these facilities were used by Hamas as a base of their military operations, and even holding and executing the hostages (which is a lot more than Ukrainian military did in this example). My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can You provide a reliable source that Ukrainie's Prosecutor General is on "Zelensky's payroll" and therefore unreliable? If not, You are just spewing hatefull propaganda towards Ukraine without any basis. I didn't quote Prosecutor, I quoted Washington Post, and that parts stays as it is reliably sourced, no matter Your opinion on the matter. YBSOne (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

WPost attributed the claim to the prosecutor general. Editors are allowed to independently assess whether a given source is reliable, although I agree this discussion is better for WP:RSN rather than here. JDiala (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ybsone, you reverted my edit again. I reverted that even though it is admittedly a WP:BRD violation (remember that is an essay not a policy) as I really do not think you are remotely acting in good-faith. My initial position was to remove the paragraph. You reverted that. I agreed on a compromise position to shorten it. This is something in concert with the past RfC which clearly says the discussion should be no more than 1-2 sentences (it was, in your version, much longer than that). You revert that regardless indicating in your edit summary that you don't care what the past RfC says. This is all in addition to your obvious BATTLEGROUND mentality claiming I'm "pushing anti-Ukrainian and anti-West agenda" and should be topic banned merely because I started an RfC rather than acquiescing to you. Please cut this out. This is not good-faith conduct. JDiala (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

JDiala, it is clear by Your edit history, topics chosen and gaming the system attitude You are pushing particular and personal agenda contrary to neutral point of view, of which You are incapable. Wikipedia is not the place to force those views on readers. You are requesting a comment and then changing the disputed content under the umbrella of "prevvious RfC". You are gaming the system to suit Your current agenda, which is putting as much blame on Ukrainians and as little on Russians. You are not interested in improving the article, just on changing it's narrative, one section at a time. YBSOne (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

To the contrary, the edits I am proposing are intended to promote neutrality. This article is currently extremely anti-Russia. The edits myself and a few others here are proposing, using sourced reliable content, are intended to shift that balance ever-so-slightly --- still very much anti-Russia, but a bit more balanced with a few more sourced allegations against Ukraine too. In other words, something closer to neutral. Yet this attempt to promote even a slightly more balanced perspective is getting extremely aggressive reception from others. So I do find it ironic that you're accusing me of not being neutral. JDiala (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"article is currently extremely anti-Russia" no it is not, it is neutral. Not Your neutral. You are spending weeks of discussions, involving half a dozen editor's time just to redact half a paragraph? This is not productive. You have also not provided any sourced allegations other than twisting might into did or allegations into war crimes. YBSOne (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"article is currently extremely anti-Russia". Yes, of course, because it describes war crimes committed by Russian army and government. Is it wrong per WP policies? No, because that is what RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is that RS also accuse Ukraine but editors here use tendentious reasoning and technicalities to remove that. Meanwhile allegations against Russia are included even with minimal or dubious evidence, as in this case where the Ukrainian state is accusing Russia of committing a war crime when independent third-parties established that the incident was targeted at military personnel and also did not claim Russia committed a war crime. Systemic double standards abound. Anyways I don't want to debate this anymore since I have accepted your version for the time being, thanks. JDiala (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with My very best wishes here. The reverted material in question is actually exactly the topic of consideration of the current Rfc. What this means is that discussion regarding whether or not this should be included is ongoing, so we should not be having this separate discussion in the first place. We should leave as is until consensus is reached on the Rfc. This discussion could be interpreted as containing violations of WP:NPA, so it needs to stop now. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll self-revert in the interests of diplomacy and stop engaging here further. I still feel it was best to have kept the temporary stopgap version to have been in concert with that of the past RfC, until the current RfC is done. But I'll respect that I'm outnumbered here and cooperate. Let's just wait for the RfC to be decided first. JDiala (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank You for acknowledging this. YBSOne (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)