Talk:Stara Krasnianka care house attack

Category:Ukrainian war crime
Since the OHCHR said (at para. 34-35) that this incident was emblematic of its concern about the use of human shields (which is a war crime stricto sensu) and about placing military objectives near civilian objects (which is another serious violation of IHL), the "category:Ukrainian war crimes" should not be removed from the article. Reader interested in Ukrainian war crimes may be interested in finding this article. The incident is also reported in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine where, following an RfC, we have a section on "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects". Note that I don't object to having the "category:Russian war crimes here": based on RS, this may be a case of indiscriminate attack; however, this may also be a case of use of human shields and/or placement of military objectives near civilian objects, RS say. The two crimes, Ukrainian and Russian, are not mutually exclusive - the incident could be both. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which RS asserts this is a war crime by both Russian and Ukrainian forces? I did not see such. In particular, this OHCHR source does not say it. It describes this as a human rights issue, rather than as an outright war crime. As about many other sources, they criticize conclusions and framing the issue in this report. And some of them do call it a Russian war crime. Yes, as you know, this is a highly controversial issue that was mentioned at an RfC . Based on the discussion and RfC, this case was not generally described in sources as a war crime by Ukrainian forces. But we can use such categories only if there is a consensus of sources that a subject does belong there. Based on my reading of these materials, this is either a war crime committed by Russian forces (who as a matter of fact killed all these people), or not a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This incident was described as a possible Ukrainian war crime by an independent and reliable secondary source (OHCHR); a wide community discussion (RfC) concluded that the incident belongs to our article on war crimes, so what are we discussing about? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am saying that: (a) one must rely on consensus of multiple RS to assign something to a category, (b) that RfC did not conclude it was a war crime by Ukrainin forces. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 Which wide community discussion? This one --> 🧐 GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @GizzyCatBella, I was referring to the RfC we had on Stara Krasnianka and military objectives near civilian objects.
 * @My very best wishes. Your point (a) is arbitrary. Where did you read that we neen multiple RSs to assign something to a category? With regard to (b), only a court could "conclude" that it was a war crime by Ukrainian forces; however, the RfC concluded that this might be a war crime by Ukrainian forces and therefore deserved to be included in the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in the section on "Placement of military objectives near civilian objects". The category is fully justified as it is helpful. You're treating the category as if it were a conclusive moral judgment, a definitive political assessment, the Truth of the matter; it's just a tool to retrieve information: Talk:Izium_mass_graves. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 I wouldn’t call it a wide community discussion, and this fellow (of course 🤦🏻‍♀️) showing up there as ussual, plus two other brand new accounts. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (a) Yes, of course a subject should clearly belong to a category based its description in multiple RS, not just a single cherry picked source (and even your interpretation of that single source is questionable). (b) What court? That was an RfC. No, the closer did NOT say this should be treated as a war crime by Ukraine. He did not say it at all. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (a) you say "of course". A question for you: did you read somewhere, e.g. in a policy or guideline, that a subject must clearly belong to a category based on its description in multiple RSs? Or is it something that comes to you with the strength and spontaneity of an innate idea? Or is this just a case of sealioning - obstructing and exhausting by simply pretending to provide arguments? They placed a fucking machine gun in a care home in the countryside without first evacuating the elderly; they did not leave the place after having engaged in a first shooting with the enemy, but held their position: the category:Ukrainian war crimes is entirely appropriate here. (b) The closer said that the section on "placement of military objectives near civilian object" should be included into the article on war crimes, and that in that section the incident at Stara Kresniaka could be briefly mentioned in that section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly had happen is not really clear. Some (not all) sources say that the Ukrainian forces must share a blame for what had happen. Perhaps they could save these patients from the massacre by Russian forces, but this is something debatable (different sources disagree about it, as we have already discussed). There is no consensus of sources that Ukrainian forces have committed a war crime by failing to protect these people from murder by Russian forces or by intentionally putting these people in danger. Actually, it is abundantly clear from all sources that the Ukrainian forces did not want to intentionally harm their own civilians. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a tough one. OHCHR is reliable, but it's just one source. It doesn't explicity call it's a war crime, but does talk about it in the context of usage of human shields. Notheless, it does seem like a case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as using their own citizens as humnan shields is not recognized as common modus operandi for the Ukrainians. I think we need more sources for determining what most reliable soruces call this: a war crime (by whom? one side, both sides?)? All we can say now is that OHCHR did describe it as an incident involving the use of human shields by the Ukrainians. Btw, did the Ukrainian side ever addressed this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To use people as human shields the perpetrators should presume that the people can serve as a deterrent for enemy forces. Based on what we know about this war, using Ukrainian civilians as a deterrent for Russian forces  would be ridiculous simply because that would not deter Russian troops. They attacked specifically Ukrainian civilians on so many occasions. And in fact, this did not deter Russian troops in this case who just killed these civilians. That's why none of sources (and even this OHCHR source) considers this to be a case of human shields, but only a case of "undue endangerment", i.e. a failure to remove civilians from danger. That is why it appears in the undue endangerment section of the corresponding page. As about Ukrainians, yes, sure they protested even by retiring from international organizations that produced such reports, but again, even such reports were about the endangerment, not human shields by Ukrainians. My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Summary of sources
@My very best wishes, The Times of Israel says: We could also quote it verbatim although I don't particularly like long quotations. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)