Talk:Bombing of Katyr-Yurt

message: More a point of clarification than anything: What do supranational European courts have to do with Russia? 194.247.229.237 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ECHR

message: BBC sure does jump at the chance to make a single persons account into a 100% accurate truth. Go figure.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: So all this from a single source with no evidence?

message: :Category:War crimes of the Second Chechen War has been removed from the article, as there is no reliable source which classifies this as a war crime. Please do not reinsert without reliable scholarly sources which classify this bombing as a war crime. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the edit summary, Russia used the vacuum bomb. That is not allowed. On top of that, they also bombed that white-flag bearing civilian vessel. Even if the official version was that the vessel (supplied by the Russians themselves) carried "terrorists", it still bore white flags, not to mention, as stated above, Russia supplying the vessel itself then bombing it makes the "terrorist" claim case a little bit amusing). That is a war crime on at least two counts. --Yalens (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the above is merely your own opinion. There is nothing within the article, backed up by scholarly sources, which state that this is or was a war crime. The inclusion of the category is merely your own editorial POV, not the POV of a reliable scholarly source, and hence it should be removed from the article. Please provide sources before re-including the category. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As no sources have been forthcoming the category has been removed. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the European court has already "held Russia responsible" for "the crime". On top of that, international law is not opinion. The use of vacuum bombs and the bombing of civilian vessels (even if the excuse of "oh, well we thought there might be terrorists" is used, may I note that everyone knows that Russia itself supplied the vessels and ordered the civilians itself to evacuate the city in them) is an international crime, regardless of what you may think. Both are clearly designated as such, and Russia has been designated by the European court as guilty. What more do you need? --Yalens (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, who makes European courts the judge and be all and end all of what does and doesn't constitute a war crime? The case may have been a case of violation of human rights, but to call it a "war crime" is a very POV thing, given that the very definition of a war crime is very hard to define. The best thing to do is to take the entire category to CfD given that it is editorial opinion without sources that is being used to add the category to articles - if there are no sources, don't add it. It's that simple. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Russians told the Chechens they would be able to leave in a convoy of buses with white flags attached. The convoy which the Russians themselves dispatched for the Chechens was then bombed by the Russians." Nothing like that was done during the Bombing of Dresden. Not a war crime? What a POV.Biophys (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Russian army supplied the vehicle itself to the Chechens and got the Chechens aboard themselves and THEN bombed their own vehicle... and on top of that, the use of internationally illegal vacuum bombs beforehand... I find the notion that this is somehow completely legal behavior absurd, laughable, and disturbing. In any case, I've added one of the triple-digit list of sources that refer to this as a "war crime" (just because its so absolutely necessary that the exact wording is there). Yes, I know the ref will not work with the category- it is there for Russavia.--Yalens (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

text: And as a side note, let me note the horrible double standards that certain category judgers have, as there is a large number of highly inappropriate categories placed for categories supposedly committed by the Chechens, but with no real proof other than the "information" (yes, there are quotes there) that comes from Russia's government. The reliability of Russia's government with regards to factual accuracy is virtually nonexistant.--Yalens (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

text: One more thing: if we ever have any doubts about highly-educated, reliable third party opinions on the Russian army's (and, if I may, its government) behavior, let me post a couple of PDFs here: http://ejp.icj.org/IMG/lokshina_submission.pdf ... http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-_bAlTDy4C8J:www.ciaonet.org/wps/hrhw/0001939/f_0001939_945.pdf+Katyr-Yurt+crime&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiEa27FJAYvEGNi8mN2JZHCQxQGMFRgJmHd5N2IqxEMa_qbcdfT9iJHtoHQioq5_fSSULLaAYV7cPY1Ucd5Wh_8Tpw9VDRvAQ-_VmhpYC4CfPUeH8E23L3ULphvgXyR-HkogwTf&sig=AHIEtbSVdRxxeZ0q-GN9LbcnC4x77snRcg (this one uses google docs) ... I could go on with an endless list of such documents. One can get a highly shortened list from the long list of references Tony Wood uses in his book as well. That Russia is guilty of war crimes is not exactly up for debate, unless, of course, you prefer to whitewash reality. --Yalens (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed category [[:Category:War crimes of the Second Chechen War|War crimes of the Second Chechen War]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bombing of Katyr-Yurt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110222152431/http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/chech-oleg.html to http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/chech-oleg.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222211935/http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Feb/ChamberjudgmentsChechencases2422005.htm to http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Feb/ChamberjudgmentsChechencases2422005.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110222152431/http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/chech-oleg.html to http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/chech-oleg.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a discrepancy between the dates in the Memorial report and Guardian article. According to the former the key events happened on February 5: the initial shelling, the opening of the safe passage and the attack on the convoy. The information was collected a few months after the events .
On the other hand, according to the Guardian article written a month after the events all of this took place on February 4.
I can't see how both can be true, so apparently one of the sources is wrong. What other sources can we use? Alaexis¿question? 11:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy