![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Other talk page banners |
NATO Propaganda
The article praised the Ukrainian state and the government of Volodymyr Zelensky. It dismissed the presence of far-right and fascistic forces in the Ukrainian state apparatus and the army as nothing more than a “myth”. Ukraine demanded in practice that US/NATO engage in direct military confrontation with Russia, likely provoke a nuclear war. It would be nice if the Wiki were independent and less biased. We should stop believing that just because the American intelligence service and all the mainstream media declare that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is true. Dr. LooTalk to me 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which text are you specifically referring to? Zelensky is mentioned TWO times in the text and neither one "praises" him. There is no text here "praising" the Ukrainian state. There's no text which "dismisses the presence of far-right and fascistic forces"/
- If you're gonna come to an article in order to push a particular POV it helps if you actually bother reading it first, otherwise the WP:ADVOCACY and the WP:NOTHERE are kind of obvious. Volunteer Marek 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- The very tiny presence of far-right forces in the Ukrainian military is not significant.
- Relying on Russian state-controlled media for information about Ukraine is a real mistake.
- The extreme-Marxist Left in Europe makes this mistake quite often.
- Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth 02:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is an English language Wikipedia, so not 'OTAN' but 'NATO'.
- Does 'praised' mean that it does not any more?
- Ukraine fights so it demands. NATO countries decide what to do.
- Russia also demanded and demands, an example "The demands include a ban on Ukraine entering Nato and a limit to the deployment of troops and weapons to Nato's eastern flank" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato
- Russia terrorizes the world with nuclear weapons.
- Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
- The Russian state is authoritarian, close to totalitarian. Russian state ideology is far-right and fascist. President Zelenskyy has Jewish roots, is a Russian speaker from Eastern Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you believe that The Guardian is pro-American? French and German media? Name them.Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article is so biased that the description in the first photo has been twisted to make Russia mean. Anyone can follow the image link and find that the "true" description of the image is: Video published by the National News Agency of Ukraine reportedly showing Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers. The Wikipedia editor here decided to describe as: "Bodies of civilians shot by Russian soldiers, lie on a street in Bucha. The hands of one of them are tied behind their back. 3 April 2022". Ridiculous! Not even the National News Agency of Ukraine had had the courage to be such a yes-man for Ukrainian propaganda and biased the this article is. Shame! Dr. LooTalk to me 02:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- You have not answered any of my points. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss the Bucha massacre, please do it there. The words you quote were written in April. There are many documents supporting Russian responsibility. This discussion reminds me Holocaust denial, perhaps Denial of Russian crimes in Ukraine should be written?. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- OH! I got it! You mean to said that if the misleading "words quoted were written in April", in June they are no longer misleading! Wikipeadia is a place that giving the wrong idea or impression is OK after 3 months. Ridiculous. It, in my opinion be corrected now. Dr. LooTalk to me 17:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- A Rusian Professor Sergei Medvedev (writer) https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/etwas-archaisch-boeses-russland-und-seine-gewaltkultur-ld.1688815 "In der russischen Armee existieren keinerlei Schutzmechanismen gegen ungerechtfertigte, willkürliche Gewalt." No mechanisms against unjistified violence in Russian army. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- So what? Medvedev said that! But the other Medvedev, Dmitry Medvedev claims that the images released in Bucha are “fakes” of “false propaganda” from Western Ukraine. I would wait for an International Criminal Court's inquiry into potential war crimes, but Wikipedia editors know better looking into propaganda and crystal balls. Article like this one destroy Wikipedia's credibility. Dr. LooTalk to me 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Carl Bildt, 419 executions have been documented. https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1539532331261861890 Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting! You should go to NATO's article DP and inform them that publishing NATO or OTAN as North Atlantic Treaty Organization abbreviation is a mistake. Tell them that "This is an English language Wikipedia, so not 'OTAN' but 'NATO'." In time, also inform that we, Americans will not accept this kind of abbreviation! USA does not like it! American for the Americans! Dr. LooTalk to me 18:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article is so biased that the description in the first photo has been twisted to make Russia mean. Anyone can follow the image link and find that the "true" description of the image is: Video published by the National News Agency of Ukraine reportedly showing Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers. The Wikipedia editor here decided to describe as: "Bodies of civilians shot by Russian soldiers, lie on a street in Bucha. The hands of one of them are tied behind their back. 3 April 2022". Ridiculous! Not even the National News Agency of Ukraine had had the courage to be such a yes-man for Ukrainian propaganda and biased the this article is. Shame! Dr. LooTalk to me 02:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/1 , and: “… likely provoke nuclear war…”, in your words no difference with conspirology because you need to argue that Vyacheslav1921 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Targeting of nuclear power plants
Based on the criterion "we need a RS qualifying the incident as a war crime" (otherwise it's WP:OR), this section must be dropped (unfortunately: I would like to keep it). In fact, the incident has been discussed extensively (even at the Security Council) and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv had tweeted "It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant", but the only reliable and independent source discussing the legal point (this) concludes that "It is less likely that the operation satisfied the threshold for the associated war crime, as articulated in article 85(3)(c). Given that there was in fact no radioactive leak and that there seems to have been relatively little collateral damage, it does not appear that those who engaged in the attack would have known at the time that excessive civilian loss would arise from it". So we need a reliable sources (not the US Embassy) claiming that that was a war crime, because the only RS we have on the point says that it wasn't actually. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, here is RS that say it [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, this is an in passing reference that doesn't outbalance a scholarly article, written by a legal expert, entirely devoted to the topic of the legitimacy of targeting nuclear plants: that article said it doesn't amount to war crime, so unless you find an equally reliable source, this is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and most importantly doesn't count as reliable source as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please see my reply above [2]. RS provided. Your source is not particularly assertive ("it is less likely"), and it also discusses it as a possible/alleged war crime. Here is a citation from your RS: The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv tweeted, “It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant.” So whatever these different RS have to say on the subject of shelling the nuclear plant being a possible war crime need to be summarized and included to this page. Given the huge coverage and significance of this incident in RS, that absolutely must be included. This is not a video of doubtful origin. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't get it - are you claiming that a tweet from the US Embassy in Kyiv is a reliable source? Because here, once we've adopted your strict notion of verifiable war crime, we need reliable sources, not tweets by ambassadors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, I am saying that your source [3] is an RS. That is where the info about the Embassy appears, and it does not matter how the Embassy (or whoever) communicated their claim. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion of the incident as a possible "war crime" is notable and appears in multiple RS (e.g. [4]), which justifies its inclusion to the page as a possible "war crime" during this war. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't get it - are you claiming that a tweet from the US Embassy in Kyiv is a reliable source? Because here, once we've adopted your strict notion of verifiable war crime, we need reliable sources, not tweets by ambassadors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please see my reply above [2]. RS provided. Your source is not particularly assertive ("it is less likely"), and it also discusses it as a possible/alleged war crime. Here is a citation from your RS: The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv tweeted, “It is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant.” So whatever these different RS have to say on the subject of shelling the nuclear plant being a possible war crime need to be summarized and included to this page. Given the huge coverage and significance of this incident in RS, that absolutely must be included. This is not a video of doubtful origin. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, this is an in passing reference that doesn't outbalance a scholarly article, written by a legal expert, entirely devoted to the topic of the legitimacy of targeting nuclear plants: that article said it doesn't amount to war crime, so unless you find an equally reliable source, this is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and most importantly doesn't count as reliable source as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, here is RS that say it [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is a crystal clear case that must be included to the page per coverage in RS. These RS (including one in the beginning of the thread [5], PBS, CBS and others) extensively and explicitly discuss if the incident was (or could be) a "war crime". Hence belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is the first source you mention the one that explicitly rules out that the attack was a war crime? how can we build upon that basis an argument for inclusion? I didn't check PBS, but CBS merely reports the tweet by US Embassy in Kyiv; apart the tweet of the US Embassy, no one called this a war crime, not even the "Lieber Institute for Law & Land Warfare at West Point", which explicitly excluded that. So I think we need to find a criterion for inclusion different from "RS labelling as a war crime". But maybe in the thread "On the object of this article" IP 187.39 has just had an idea for solving the issue. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm... You just said this content should be included in your opinion [6], and now you argue it should not? My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- It should be included based on my preferred criterion - war crimes lato sensu; it should be excluded based on the criterion you'd like us to follow - war crimes stricto sensu. As that criterion of yours succeeded in blocking new sections on Russian supporters and migrants, I reluctantly embraced it, as NPOV dictates, and therefore I'm now arguing that valuable contents that qualify only as war crime lato sensu, such as this one (a mere violation of IHL), need to go. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Calling the takeover of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant a war crime is a stretch. Yes the Kiev US embassy called it a war crime, however this was retracted by the US State Department and the analysis by Lieber Institute West Point said it as probably not a war crime.
However I would support keeping it in this article as there is a lot of miss information still being reported.We could reduce the size of this section with some of the details transferred to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant article and amend the current "See also" link (now going to "Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast"?) to point directly to this updated section. Happy to do this if we have consensus Ilenart626 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)- There's also Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants. I mean, if the stricto sensu approach prevails, then NPOV demands that it is consistently applied throughout the article, and we need to find a proper venue for the undoubtedly notable and good-quality contents of the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did not see that one, yes that could be expanded with this info Ilenart626 (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- As per my comment above in "On the subject of this article, and ill-treatment of pro-Russian supporters and other individuals" now support removing this section from this article and tranfer to another article, probably expand Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did not see that one, yes that could be expanded with this info Ilenart626 (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's also Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on nuclear power plants. I mean, if the stricto sensu approach prevails, then NPOV demands that it is consistently applied throughout the article, and we need to find a proper venue for the undoubtedly notable and good-quality contents of the section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Calling the takeover of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant a war crime is a stretch. Yes the Kiev US embassy called it a war crime, however this was retracted by the US State Department and the analysis by Lieber Institute West Point said it as probably not a war crime.
- It should be included based on my preferred criterion - war crimes lato sensu; it should be excluded based on the criterion you'd like us to follow - war crimes stricto sensu. As that criterion of yours succeeded in blocking new sections on Russian supporters and migrants, I reluctantly embraced it, as NPOV dictates, and therefore I'm now arguing that valuable contents that qualify only as war crime lato sensu, such as this one (a mere violation of IHL), need to go. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm... You just said this content should be included in your opinion [6], and now you argue it should not? My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I see a couple of edits have now been done. Note that the facts of what happened has now been established by the NPR Video Analysis report, which means some of the uncertainties in the international scholars' reports have been cleared up. For example, Russia's allegations that Ukrainian forces initiated the action by firing anti tank missiles has been confirmed, as per this quote from the NPR report:
- "Just before 11:30 p.m. local time, someone began livestreaming the plant's security footage on its YouTube channel. The livestream rolled on as Russian forces began a slow and methodical advance on the plant. The column of armored vehicles, led by the tanks, used spotlights to cautiously approach the plant from the southeast along the main service road to the facility. Around an hour and 20 minutes later, one of the two tanks that led the column was struck by a missile from Ukrainian forces and was disabled. That marked the beginning of a fierce firefight that lasted for roughly two hours at the plant." Ilenart626 (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- But then this needs to be stated clearly. Either we quote that source immediately after "Had the Ukrainian forces initiated the action ...", or we drop the "as alleged by the Russian army" and write "As the Ukrainian forces initiated the action ... that might have breached...". As the second option might be questionable because of WP:SYNTH, I'd go for the first one and I'm now modifying the article accordingly. If anybody doesn't agree, I'd suggest we restore the original formulation ("Ukrainian forces initiating the action by firing anti tank missiles may have breached the Passive Precautions section of Article 56, paragraph 5") which is perhaps more simple, short and entirely correct. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that the discussions we've had (not only here above but also elsewhere in the talk) came to a somewhat paradoxical "nonconclusion". On the one hand, most of the editors (including @Volunteer Marek, possibly with the sole exception of @My very best wishes) agree that we don't have enough reliable sources qualifying what happened as a war crime. We could even say it openly: the attack to the nuclear plants was not a war crime. On the other hand other editors - including myself and perhaps including @AdrianHObradors and @Ilenart626 - feel that it would be a pity to drop the whole section: we think (or at least, I think) that this is the kind of information that someone interested in "War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion" could be eager to know. So what do we do? I see three options.
- 1) Rigorist approach: we stick to our "stricto sensu" and "strict verifiability" approach. The section goes away, no matter what.
- 2) Cherry picking/ad hoc approach: who gives a damn? let's WP:IGNORE our criteria and the section stays as we want it to stay; this is just an ad hoc exception to otherwise undefeatable criteria for inclusion.
- 3) Adjust the criteria for inclusion so as to get to a reflective equilibrium between the criteria and the contents we feel should remain. E.g.: not only "stricto sensu" (legally determined) war crimes but also any serious violation of international humanitarian law and/or serious violation of human rights connected to the war (my preferred solution); or "loose verifiability" (a not independent, non reliable source alleging that something might "possibly" be a war crime suffices for inclusion - this might be the stance taken by MVBW in the above discussion). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Gitz, I couldn't have expressed it better. I am with you on that regard. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would also support what Gitz is saying, so would would include in this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- For some reasons which I don't fully understand (possibly because they were never explained) this edit by My very best wishes [7] (which later became this edit by Volunteer Marek [8] and then this edit by Shadybabs [9]) removed some contents from the section on targeting of nuclear power plants. Instead of restoring the text, as I was about to do [10], I think that maybe we should drop the whole section. As the discussion we've had clearly shows, here there are no allegations of war crime: the attack was a violation of IHL that doesn't amount to a war crime, according to the RS we quote. Therefore I'm inclined to remove the whole section. Any opinion on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kidnapping of Ukrainian children
Re this, as already explained (although not in a separate section), the first paragraph of that section provides context for the section. The sources which state this is a war crime are there. Not every sentence or piece of info needs to be sources to a source which explicitly use the term "war crime". That seems like either WP:POINT or WP:GAME.
As far as the numbers, these have actually been confirmed by... Russian authorities, and have been widely reported in reliable sources, so pretending that this is just Denisova is misleading to say the least. Same phrasing has been used by the US embassy [11], the UK foreign ministry and it's ambassador to UN.
Sources here use the phrasing "kidnapped" or "abducted". Not "deportations", which is kind of ... let's call it "insulting". At most they might call it "forcible deportations". Volunteer Marek 21:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- All the sources use the term deportation, while the term "kidnapping" always appears in "scare quotes" and is attributed. While it is fine to say that the U.S. calls this kidnapping, we don't have a reliable source for the term. Deportation is listed by the U.N. as a war crime, while kidnapping is not.[12] That's what the perpetrators would be accused of if they are put on trial for war crimes. TFD (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is simply not true. This source does not use scare quotes on the word kidnapping, nor does it use the term "deportation" (yes it attributes the info). This source does not use scare quotes on the word kidnapping, although it also used the phrase "deported AGAINST THEIR WILL". This source uses the word kidnapping, without scare quotes, to refer to the abduction of children specifically and saves the word "deportation" for the broader phenomenon of Russia abducting Ukrainian citizens. This source uses the word kidnap and abduct, without scare quotes, and compares the practice to the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany and the abduction of Native American children by the US government in 20th and 19th centuries. This source uses the word kidnap, without scare quotes, and does NOT use the word "deport".
- I could keep going. But this is more than enough to show that your claim that, quote, "All the source ue the term deportation, while the term "kidnapping" always appear in scare quotes" is just completely false. Volunteer Marek 06:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't want to go one by one, but most of the sources you posted don't say "Ukrainian children are being kidnapped". They say that Ukraine or the US Embassy is accusing Russia of that. I'll go one by one if you want me to. And also, see WP:CHERRYPICKING. I think TFD is right, I don't know why you insist in using the word kidnap. If deportation is a war crime and Russia is deporting children, that is what we should put on the article and not complicate or editorialize the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- We can - and should - definitely attribute statements which are relayed by reliable sources. However, these sources do use the term "kidnapping" (without scare quotes). Volunteer Marek 09:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't want to go one by one, but most of the sources you posted don't say "Ukrainian children are being kidnapped". They say that Ukraine or the US Embassy is accusing Russia of that. I'll go one by one if you want me to. And also, see WP:CHERRYPICKING. I think TFD is right, I don't know why you insist in using the word kidnap. If deportation is a war crime and Russia is deporting children, that is what we should put on the article and not complicate or editorialize the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Kidnapping" and "deportation" obviously describe exactly same events, which we all seem to agree are war crimes. But we must make an attribution: "according to Ukrainian authorities", and they call it "kidnapping". Hence kidnapping. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should avoid giving any attribution to the Ukrainian authorities, as they are clearly not neutral, and just focus on actual research by neutral reliable sources. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, allow me to quote from the first source you mention: "Russia is kidnapping children in Ukraine, says US embassy":
- The mayor of the besieged city of Mariupol compared the ‘kidnappings’ to the actions of the Nazis during World War II
- The US embassy accused Russia of “kidnapping” thousands of Ukrainian children as local officials alleged Russian troops are forcing deportations of civilians as they bombard eastern cities.
- This is not assistance. It is kidnapping,” they said.
- Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boichenko also compared the “kidnappings” to the work of the Nazis during World War II.
So yes, "kidnapping" is always in "square quotes" or attributed, while deportation is not.
Incidentally, it's worth noting the final paragraph of the article. "The reports of forced removals have not yet been independently verified, though Russian state news agency TASS claimed that millions are asking to be moved into Russia." So your statement that Russia has confirmed the number of deportations is misleading.
We should report what the sources say as fact, not the unconfirmed accusations they are reporting.
My very best wishes, I do not agree that kidnapping is a war crime. Article 135 - NY Penal Law lists kidnapping as an offense under New York State criminal law. But there is no mention of kidnapping in the UN list of war crimes. Note that when American police illegally arrest and detain people when acting in their official capacity, we don't refer to it as kidnapping. We would only use it if they were acting in their personal capacity. In this case, the term kidnap would only be appropriate if Russian soldiers acting in their personal capacity abducted people for their own personal criminal motives.
TFD (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The first source does not use scare quotes in the headline. It does use them in a sub title. It does NOT use the word "deportations" contrary to your assertion.
- Now do second source. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, it does not use scare quotes in the headline because it is directly attributing it.
Russia is kidnapping children in Ukraine, says US embassy
. Second source is a weird one. The writing is extrange, and they do say that Russia is kidnapping children. They even go ahead and put the link to the source in the middle on the text between parentheses, which is ukrinform. They end however statingThis could be qualified as kidnapping
, which is just weird. I checked the website and seems to be managed by just six people. I am not saying is a bad website, but we should find better sources for Wikipedia.
Third source does not use quotes in the title, because again they directly address that it is an accusation by the US Embassy in Ukraine:US Embassy accuses Russia of kidnapping children
. Even ends up sayingReports of the forced removals have not been independently verified
. Fourth source:Russia’s reported abduction
, then talks about how bad it would be, and ends withIf Russia is forcibly adopting Ukrainian children
. And your last source, again, says that Russia has been accused. I think this puts the subject to rest. For now (and of course this can be subjected to change in the future), and per reasons stated, by your own picked sources, I am a clear oppose against changing deported to kidnapped on the article. I am not against putting something along "Ukraine accused Russia of ...", although I don't like putting accusations, for the same reason we don't put Russian accusations in. AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, it does not use scare quotes in the headline because it is directly attributing it.
- If anything, this disproves your point. Your linked source [13] is actually South China Morning Post that is allegedly "on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad". In this citation it spins the issue by providing "..." for kidnappings in the body of the text (although not in the title of the article). If you look at the actual citation of statement by US embassy (in the same article), it says:
“According to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Russian forces have illegally removed 2,389 Ukrainian children from Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts to Russia,” the US embassy in Kyiv tweeted on Tuesday. “This is not assistance. It is kidnapping,” they said.
- There was no "..." for kidnappings. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi MVBW, I believe you got confused with what TFD is saying. It is not his linked source. It is the source that Marek chose for his argument. And the US embassy of Kyiv is not a good source. We can put in the article what they are saying, of course, but can't put their information as true without third party verification. By the way, I imagine with
"..."
you meant quotation marks? Took me a second to understand what you were saying, I was looking for ellipsis on the article. AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)- Yes, I mean scare quotes introduced as a spin by South China Morning Post in their article, while the claims by Ukrainian and US authorities do not have such scare quotes. But regardless to exact wording (kidnapping, abduction or forced deportation) that all means exactly same actions by the occupiers, which are also more or less similar to actions described on page Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany (it now belongs to the category "Nazi war crimes in Poland"). My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well of course Ukrainians and the US don't use the quotes. It is their statement. What TFD and VM are arguing is that the term "kidnapped" should not be used here in Wikipedia because the only time the reliable sources are using them is either when directly attributing the statement (no need for quotes), or with quotes, which they used to refer that it is from a statement and not their wording. That means it isn't first hand information, it is second hand information through an unreliable source. As such, that info shouldn't be added to Wikipedia (unless attributed, as the RS themselves do). AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- As was mentioned, I did not introduce the South China Morning Post as a source, VM did, and I merely mentioned what it said. And I cannot follow your logic that we should take unverified claims by the U.S. and Ukrainian governments as facts, when secondary sources do not.
- Note also that people do not but their own words in quotes, that is done by people reporting what they said. For example, I have not put these comments in quotes but, if I decide to quote your comments, I will put them in quotes.
- TFD (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you guys are suggesting here because both versions in the diff under discussion [[14] are sourced and say essentially the same. Do you suggest to replace "Kidnappings" by "Forced deportations" in the title? Well, I do not see much difference, but cited sources say "kidnapping". My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the cited sources do not say kidnapping. The choice is between following sources and writing the article from a neutral point of view or writing it from the view of the U.S. and Ukrainian governments. There are two problems with the second method that you propose: (1) There's no clear reason why to use their viewpoint rather than that of Russia. (2) Government positions are subject to change. Biden and Trump for example often had alternative facts from each other. Under your view, every time the U.S. gets a new president, Wikipedia would have to change many of the facts in articles. TFD (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources do say kidnapping. From the second source: "This could be qualified as kidnapping and requires an immediate and forceful response from the international community." and "By shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure, Russians kill parents and kidnap children on the territories in Ukraine which they have invaded and temporarily occupy. " You just completely ignored all the sources I posted and simply repeated your false claim. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping", just like we use (wilful) killing of civilians, not assassination (or murder) of peaceful citizens, and we talk about indiscriminate attacks, not about massacres of innocent people. This follows from WP:NPOV: prefer nonjudgmental language, use impartial tone. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping". It does not make any sense to me. For example, Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany does correctly belong to the category "Nazi war crimes in Poland", right? My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- yes, but... so what? this is a non sequitur. The article you mention is not "War crimes in Nazi Germany". It is about "Kidnapping", and obviously and rightfully kidnapping can be categorised under war crimes (in Poland). I really don't see the point. Nobody is claiming that "kidnapping" is a "wrong" word or that it doesn't mean (in certain contexts) "forced deportation"; we are claiming that in this article NPOV suggest we use a less impactful, more restrained and more precise terminology. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, you do agree that kidnapping of children (this is not adoption!) can be a war crime? Great! Well, that is exactly what the cited sources say, and they are not Facebook. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I agree with this! Forced deportations of civilian is a serious war crime. I myself added this a few days ago as well as the sections "Deportations" and "Arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of civilians" almost in their entireties. I object to 1) using the word "kidnapping" and 2) providing sketchy, unilateral and not pertinent information about adoption. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, you do agree that kidnapping of children (this is not adoption!) can be a war crime? Great! Well, that is exactly what the cited sources say, and they are not Facebook. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- yes, but... so what? this is a non sequitur. The article you mention is not "War crimes in Nazi Germany". It is about "Kidnapping", and obviously and rightfully kidnapping can be categorised under war crimes (in Poland). I really don't see the point. Nobody is claiming that "kidnapping" is a "wrong" word or that it doesn't mean (in certain contexts) "forced deportation"; we are claiming that in this article NPOV suggest we use a less impactful, more restrained and more precise terminology. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping". It does not make any sense to me. For example, Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany does correctly belong to the category "Nazi war crimes in Poland", right? My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Besides, there's another issue: drafting a law on adoption is not a war crime. Does anyone know who drafted the law, did they approve it, what did it establish? So far we only have the "not so reliable" allegations on Facebook by former-ombudswoman Denisova, duly reported without fact-checking by some news outlets. To be clear: I don't think that this decree is an act of generosity by the Russian state - not at all. But we cannot even depict it as a war crime - if that's what we're speaking about in the article - can we? There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. We cannot just say that it is "background and context" to an alleged war crime (forced deportation) and report it without any scrutiny directly from the Facebook account of Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gitz6666, your comment is strange. Are you denying that the Duma "drafted a law which would formalize the kidnappings by allowing Russians to "adopt" these children"? Are you saying this is false info from Denisova? The source being used in the article is not Denisova nor does it attribute this claim to her.
- And sorry, we don't have articles on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Aodoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, probably because ... to start articles like that would be fucking sick and disgusting. Volunteer Marek 22:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why sick and disgusting? No, don't answer: I'd rather not know. These are notable topics and there's no reason to politicise everything, to see everything in terms of "us against them": that's the contrary of writing an Encyclopedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is something that should be obvious. Calling a duck a duck is not "politicising" anything. Weaseling information to the point where you're whitewashing war crimes against childten is "contrary of writing an Encyclopedia". Maybe info on Bucha massacre belongs in an article on Unfortunate deaths during the invasion of Ukraine but not here, ey? Volunteer Marek 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why sick and disgusting? No, don't answer: I'd rather not know. These are notable topics and there's no reason to politicise everything, to see everything in terms of "us against them": that's the contrary of writing an Encyclopedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, we should update the info because such a law was not only drafted but actually passed [15]. Volunteer Marek 22:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- (honestly, I can't get over the proposal above. Should someone start an article on Adoption of poor orphaned Polish children by magnanimous Nazi German families during World War Two as well?) Volunteer Marek 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeh, I think that calling a probable act of genocide [16] an "adoption" is a very peculiar POV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh god, I missed this the first time. This is fucked up too:
the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child)
Apparently the interests of Ukraine children is to have their parents murdered by Russian soldiers so that some super awesome benevolent Russian family can adopt them instead. Of course they'll be better off with a *Russian* family than with their backward, probably nationalist, Azov azov azov, not-denatzified Ukrainian birth family!!!!! (/s). - Jfc, you're really tipping your hand here Gitz6666. Volunteer Marek 22:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- And of course these kids will rarely be adopted, but rather go to a Russian orphanage, which is really a hell (frequently a death sentence) as described by Rubén Gallego in his "White on Black". This is not to say that Ukrainan orphanages are great. That kind of things was highly controversial even when done by Elizaveta Glinka, but it looks a lot worse in context of this invasion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a Wikipedia article on war crimes, thus we use "deportation" (or force displacement), we don't use "kidnapping", just like we use (wilful) killing of civilians, not assassination (or murder) of peaceful citizens, and we talk about indiscriminate attacks, not about massacres of innocent people. This follows from WP:NPOV: prefer nonjudgmental language, use impartial tone. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources do say kidnapping. From the second source: "This could be qualified as kidnapping and requires an immediate and forceful response from the international community." and "By shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure, Russians kill parents and kidnap children on the territories in Ukraine which they have invaded and temporarily occupy. " You just completely ignored all the sources I posted and simply repeated your false claim. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the cited sources do not say kidnapping. The choice is between following sources and writing the article from a neutral point of view or writing it from the view of the U.S. and Ukrainian governments. There are two problems with the second method that you propose: (1) There's no clear reason why to use their viewpoint rather than that of Russia. (2) Government positions are subject to change. Biden and Trump for example often had alternative facts from each other. Under your view, every time the U.S. gets a new president, Wikipedia would have to change many of the facts in articles. TFD (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you guys are suggesting here because both versions in the diff under discussion [[14] are sourced and say essentially the same. Do you suggest to replace "Kidnappings" by "Forced deportations" in the title? Well, I do not see much difference, but cited sources say "kidnapping". My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I mean scare quotes introduced as a spin by South China Morning Post in their article, while the claims by Ukrainian and US authorities do not have such scare quotes. But regardless to exact wording (kidnapping, abduction or forced deportation) that all means exactly same actions by the occupiers, which are also more or less similar to actions described on page Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany (it now belongs to the category "Nazi war crimes in Poland"). My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi MVBW, I believe you got confused with what TFD is saying. It is not his linked source. It is the source that Marek chose for his argument. And the US embassy of Kyiv is not a good source. We can put in the article what they are saying, of course, but can't put their information as true without third party verification. By the way, I imagine with
- Did anyone notice that the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany was not considered a war crime but a crime against humanity? TFD (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Really, this is taking it too far. There are far reaching Ukrainian claims. They are just claims. All that may have happened is a draft law and some Russian speaking kids crossing with their families as well as some Russian speaking orphans crossing the border to Russia from a warzone. Civilians die in Donetsk and Lugansk, in the Russian controlled parts, from Ukrainian shelling regularly like here. They flee the warzone.BaderBad (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- And your source is? Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- 'Forced Deportation' is not 'Naturalisation'. This is propaganda language. Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is not just [voluntarily] crossing the border. The people, including children are detained by Russian forces or occupation authorities and then deported to Russia, instead of allowing their evacuation to Ukrainian territory. Usually their Ukrainian passports are confiscated in the process. That is what (and more) cited sources, e.g. [17], say. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your link says, "Some sources claim." There is a different between proven facts and unverified claims. Here's an interesting 2002 editorial in the Christian Science Monitor about the false Nayirah testimony, "When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators." If you remember, the U.S. government successfully promoted an obviously false story that Iraqi troops have killed babies in incubators. It seems unlikely that with a surplus of orphans, Russia would want to acquire more. TFD (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- What in the world does Nayirah or US have to do with any of this? Also - "It seems unlikely that with a surplus of orphans, Russia would want to acquire more." - this is pure original research on your part. We follow sources. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the numbers of deported children provided by Ukrainian and Russian authorities are the same/similar: "Nebenzia, the U.N. official, stated that 190,000 Ukrainian children had been transported to Russia." [18]. This is not "fake". Now, according to this [19], "International humanitarian law classifies the forced mass deportation of people during a conflict as a war crime. "Forcibly transfering children" in particular qualifies as genocide, the most serious of war crimes, under the 1948 Genocide Convention that outlawed the intent to destroy - in whole or in part - a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. And yeh, that exactly what they do. According to "Lilia Gumerova, education committee chair in Russia’s senate, said last month she was appalled that Ukrainian children brought from the “liberated territories in Ukraine” did not speak Russian. She promised they would attend summer school to learn Russian and “liberate their tongues.”" [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- She did not say it. I suggest you watch the video and check the official transcript here. She said (I'm quoting a Ukrainian source that Polygraph quotes) "Many children don't speak Russian at the level required to master our school curriculum" ("Многие ребята с освобождаемых территорий не владеют русским языком в достаточной степени для освоения нашей общеобразовательной программы") and nothing about liberating their tongues. Alaexis¿question? 18:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your link says, "Some sources claim." There is a different between proven facts and unverified claims. Here's an interesting 2002 editorial in the Christian Science Monitor about the false Nayirah testimony, "When contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators." If you remember, the U.S. government successfully promoted an obviously false story that Iraqi troops have killed babies in incubators. It seems unlikely that with a surplus of orphans, Russia would want to acquire more. TFD (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Really, this is taking it too far. There are far reaching Ukrainian claims. They are just claims. All that may have happened is a draft law and some Russian speaking kids crossing with their families as well as some Russian speaking orphans crossing the border to Russia from a warzone. Civilians die in Donetsk and Lugansk, in the Russian controlled parts, from Ukrainian shelling regularly like here. They flee the warzone.BaderBad (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is a dispute about whether the children were deported or evacuated. Neither version has been independently verified. And the Reuters story is wrong. Genocide is considered separate from war crimes. That's why it has a separate convention. I suggest you consult the information posted on the UN website.[21] TFD (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is NO such dispute in the sources. Stop inventing absurd original research. If you think that "Reuters story is wrong" well, kudos to you, but we go with Reuters not the personal opinion of some Wikipedia editor. This is pretty much a straight up admission that you are conducting WP:OR here and not following our policies. Volunteer Marek 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, obviously the Russians didn't admit they have "deported" 200.000 children. As they've been accused of forced deportations, we can report this and we can report the source of the accusations which, for the time being, is Ukrainian authorities only; as far as I know, Save the Children, HRW, Amnesty, the HRMMU, etc., have not yet taken a stance on these allegations.
With regard towe go with Reuters not the personal opinion of some Wikipedia editor
, I disagree. The point is quite simple, really: genocide is not a war crime. This is beyond doubt, a quick search on the web proves it abundantly, and we have loads of authoritative sources that overshadow Reuters. Do you want one more? This one, accessible through the Wikipedia Library, is entirely dedicated to the distinction between war crimes and genocide ("both categories of crime cover essentially different protected interests", "Both categories of crimes ... contain a number of elements which are not required by the other", "The facts of a particular situation may be such that both genocidal crimes and war crimes might have been committed in the course of a particular conflict and it will be appropriate to recognize these as distinct criminal events" - therefore cumulative convictions are possible). So if two journalists of Reuters write "genocide, the most serious of war crimes", they are simply wrong. Genocide is the subject of a different article, Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and is not the subject of an article on war crimes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)- Frankly, I find it strange that you continue saying: genocide is not a war crime. This is beyond doubt.... A genocide can be also a war crime. The cited source say [22]: "International humanitarian law classifies the forced mass deportation of people during a conflict as a war crime. "Forcibly transfering children" in particular qualifies as genocide, the most serious of war crimes, under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Do you have any sources saying that forcibly transferring children during this war does not qualify as a war crime and potentially as a genocide? For example, your link above does NOT say that genocide can not be also a war crime. Sure, the representatives of Russia say otherwise, just as a lot of other things (e.g. that they are not engaged in the war with Ukraine, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Genocide and war crime are different points of view. The same fact may be both or one or none. Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- this is entirely correct. "The same fact may be both or one or none". War crimes and genocide are two different crimes/concepts/descriptions. Just like, say, "white" and "heavy", or "crime" and "sin". Now, if we have an article on white, we don't want a section on heavy (although heavy items can be white). If we have an article on "crime in the state of New York", we don't want a section there on "Sin in New York" (although certain crimes are also sinful, blasphemous, etc.). But you're arguing that in an article on war crimes in Ukraine we must have a section on genocide (althoughwe already have a dedicated article on the subject). Why? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Right so let's recap. According to Gitz6666:
- 1. Genocide during war committed by the aggressor is not a "war crime"
- 2. Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians
- 3. A law which legalizes and facilitates this practice internally within Russia is not important context for this because no one called the law itself "war crime".
- I think that sums it up. Now, go ahead and proceed with more WP:WIKILAWYERing. Volunteer Marek 21:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your n. 1 is a correct summary of my arguments; n. 3 is a tendentious summary, because of the "legalizes and facilitates this practice" (which practice?); n. 2 is entirely false: where did you get this from? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek, could you please answer my question: where did you get your number 2 from? Please remember Wikiquette and strike through your comment, which is a gross misrepresentation of what I've been arguing for in this thread. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your n. 1 is a correct summary of my arguments; n. 3 is a tendentious summary, because of the "legalizes and facilitates this practice" (which practice?); n. 2 is entirely false: where did you get this from? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- this is entirely correct. "The same fact may be both or one or none". War crimes and genocide are two different crimes/concepts/descriptions. Just like, say, "white" and "heavy", or "crime" and "sin". Now, if we have an article on white, we don't want a section on heavy (although heavy items can be white). If we have an article on "crime in the state of New York", we don't want a section there on "Sin in New York" (although certain crimes are also sinful, blasphemous, etc.). But you're arguing that in an article on war crimes in Ukraine we must have a section on genocide (althoughwe already have a dedicated article on the subject). Why? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, obviously the Russians didn't admit they have "deported" 200.000 children. As they've been accused of forced deportations, we can report this and we can report the source of the accusations which, for the time being, is Ukrainian authorities only; as far as I know, Save the Children, HRW, Amnesty, the HRMMU, etc., have not yet taken a stance on these allegations.
Not Vishegirskaya, not Podgurskaya
https://www.instagram.com/gixie_beauty/ Марианна Вышемирская Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do we need the whole paragraph about the unencyclopedic person? Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian prisoners of war
"Ukrainian prisoners of war" section is, as Volunteer Marek would put it, an attempt at "bothsideism". Please read it carefully.
- It starts with the HRMMU expressing "worries" about their treatment. Indeed the HRMMU wrote about "a large number of videos with intimidation and insults of Ukrainian POWs following their capture". Based on the discussions we've recently had and standards we applied to similar videos with Russian POWs (very detailed and well-sourced section "Humiliation of captured Russian soldiers", now removed), this doesn't qualify as a war crime (RS doesn’t' qualify it as such).
- Then we have Denisova reporting that "Ukrainian prisoners of war had launched complaints about their mistreatment by Russian authorities". Again, for the same reasons and based on the same standards, this needs to go: no allegation of war crime.
- Then we have subsection "Executions of surrendering Ukrainian soldiers", where a US ambassador says they have "evidence". That was in April, since then that evidence has not been released, AFAIK, so the whole subsections lacks notability (if its subject is "US ambassadors says") or verifiability (if its subject is "Russian army killed Ukr. POWs").
- Then we have the news by CNN (also others) on a POW confirmed dead. suspicious but we know too little, and RS make no allegation of war crime.
- Finally we have "Intercepted conversation about killing". Same as before: no allegation of war crime, RS saus "unverified".
Given the criteria for inclusion we have decided to follow (war crimes stricto sensu and strict verifiability) the whole section needs to go, unless we come up with better contents and sources - I've done a quick research without success. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that executions of POWs qualify as a war crime, no matter what side. I would say that an official statement by Beth Van Schaack, a US ambassador-at-large for global criminal justice to the UN Security Council carries a lot of weight. Was she found previously to promote an obvious misinformation and nonsense, such as some of her Russian counterparts? Not to my knowledge (same can be said about Denisova). Something like a couple of videos with disputable content about the alleged abuse of Russian POW is more questionable. Therefore,I would suggest to keep both parts (i.e. about Ukrainian and Russian POWs), but make them very short and approximately of the same length. Both are only/mostly allegations at this point, but clearly allegations of war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do agree there is no 100% reliable documentation/proof about all such cases in section War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Treatment_of_prisoners_of_war. So it might be reasonable to remove this whole section if we want to keep the bar very high. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- This way of arguing undermines any attempt at using the talk as a means of cooperation among editors. The sections "Kneecapping of Russian soldiers" and "Execution of captured Russian soldiers" are well-sourced, with independent and reliable news outlets and human rights organisations making explicit allegations of "stricto sensu" war crimes - the test that you yourself proposed. Why do you bring those sections up? You were told that that test of yours was inevitably going to have major consequences on the whole article.
- Points 1 and 2 above don't pass the "stricto sensu" test and need to go. Points 3 has a serious issue with verifiability: you said we needed RS alleging war crimes, and now you claim that an ambassador saying "we have evidence" and not disclosing evidence is enough. Point 4 and 5: no RS claims that a war crime was committed. The POW died, there's a suspicion of ill-treatment or killing but nothing more; an intercepted conversation circulated but RS says "not verified" and we don't know if that conversation was followed by deeds.
- So I think that if we want to keep the section on we must find different contents. For example, this article (on Bucha) is relevant: those men were Ukrainian defence volunteers who had surrendered, surely they qualified as POWs. We need to report stuff like this, not "intimidations and insults", war talk by ambassadors, and suggestive photos and recordings with no actual allegation of war crimes based on them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- This whole section is sourced. But all of that: (a) alleged isolated/anecdotal incidents/cases as opposed to systematic violations/crimes described in other sections, and (b) we can not be 100% sure that the alleged incidents even had place and what exactly had happen (there is no such concerns about most other incidents described on this page). Therefore, one could argue this whole section should be removed. As about NYT ref, does it say these people were POWs? I think they were just civilians or at least not acting/active members of the Ukrainian forces when arrested/captured. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- NY Times says "They were husbands and fathers, grocery store and factory workers who lived ordinary civilian lives before the war. But with restrictions on men leaving the country, coupled with a resolve to protect their communities, most of the men joined various defense forces in the days before they were killed. " That means (even if the RS doesn't say so explicitly) that they qualified as POWs under IHL (see article 4(2) Geneva Convention III). I would have no objection to having this (and other similarly well-sourced contents) in the section on "Ukrainian prisoners of war". This is the kind of contents we should report.
- Note that the section on Russian POWs is equally well-sourced. The distinction between isolated/anecdotal and systematic has been proposed by some editor for the lead section. It proved to be untenable (is Bucha isolated or systematic? how to distinguish btw individual and collective case?) and in any case it wouldn't make any sense outside the lead section (e.g. Mariupol theatre airstrike would fall short of this test, which is absurd). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, this can/should be included.My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- This whole section is sourced. But all of that: (a) alleged isolated/anecdotal incidents/cases as opposed to systematic violations/crimes described in other sections, and (b) we can not be 100% sure that the alleged incidents even had place and what exactly had happen (there is no such concerns about most other incidents described on this page). Therefore, one could argue this whole section should be removed. As about NYT ref, does it say these people were POWs? I think they were just civilians or at least not acting/active members of the Ukrainian forces when arrested/captured. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Mariupol hospital airstrike
Let's remove the second and third paragraph. Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. If I'm not wrong (my memory is bad) I myself wrote those two paragraphs. At the time they were (or at least they looked to me) highly notable; now, in the midst of the catastrophe, what happened to those two pregnant women is no longer notable enough. Besides, there might be some WP:BLP concerns here - am I wrong? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, it was me: [23] - not that it's important in anyway, but still... what d'we do? I agree with Xx236 and would remove the paragraphs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- You may want to replace the whole section with the lead from Mariupol hospital airstrike, that reads pretty well. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, it was me: [23] - not that it's important in anyway, but still... what d'we do? I agree with Xx236 and would remove the paragraphs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian POWs 2nd discussion
In the grand scheme of things, with mass murder and mass rapes in the background, perhaps this isn't really that significant but sources are calling the death sentence to two British-Ukrainian and one Moroccan-Ukrainian POWs a war crime [24] so perhaps this should be included. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why not? The original source we should quote is this one, however - "Welsh Online" is just republishing from "The Conversation" - and in reporting the info we should make it clear that the alleged war crime does not result from sentencing POW to death when they are proven guilty of committing a war crime, but rather in the questionable fairness of the trial and impartiality of the court. Also this article could be used for providing some context and analysis: this might be a retaliation for the trials to Russian POWs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- a bunch of sources could be copied from the Aiden Aslin article. pretty much every british media has covered it since aslin (aka cossackgundi) was quite well known on social media in britain Cononsense (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- another article by polygraph.io (voice of america's fact checking website);
- https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-russia-claims-humane-treatment-of-ukrainian-pows-but-this-evidence-casts-doubt/31879063.html
- two cases - one by The Media Initiative for Human Rights, an ngo who interviewed some pows after they were involved in a prisoner swap, and another by Franceinfo.fr.
- not sure if they pass the litmus test of this page or not. Cononsense (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
A tweet released today by news organization Visegrad 24 shows a Russian Colonel identified only as V. Gorshenin discussing the torture of Ukrainian POWs on state TV. The original untranslated video can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.158.163.51 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- war crime does not result from sentencing POW to death when they are proven guilty of committing a war crime (said Gitz above). Yes, sure, but these 3 foreign citizens were not convicted or accuses of committing any war crimes. They were sentenced merely for being foreign citizens in Ukrainian Army. Therefore, yes, include. Also, that "polygraph"-sourced content can be included. This is a tricky subject though. For example, Ukrainian laws consider foreign citizens to be members of their own Ukrainian army, after signing a contract (hence they are definitely POWs). However, Russian law officially forbids any participation of foreign citizens in Russian Army (please correct if I am mistaken). Therefore, a citizen of Belarus, for example, who fight in Russian Army could be considered an illegal combatant rather than a POW. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes You have misunderstood my edit here. Please read the text carefully before delating it, because it is a rendering of what this reliable source says and it's fully compatible with the point you make in your edit summary. If there's a problem with my English, please correct. The points we need to express are the following ones:
- Foreign POWs were not charged of war crimes; they were charged only of joining the armed forces of Ukraine and fighting with them, which does not constitute a war crime;
- Russia and the prosecuting authorities in the self-proclaimed republic of Donetsk failed to recognise their POW status;
- Therefore Russia and the prosecuting authorities violated the rights of the POWs under IHL.
- I restore the text because I don't see any substantial disagreement. If you want to improve the quality of my English, please modify the text as you think best. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes You have misunderstood my edit here. Please read the text carefully before delating it, because it is a rendering of what this reliable source says and it's fully compatible with the point you make in your edit summary. If there's a problem with my English, please correct. The points we need to express are the following ones:
- Yes, this is all correct, but as written, your phrase incorrectly implies they we charged of war crimes (but not guilty of that). Moreover, this is very long and convoluted phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
one missile falls on Donetsk
One missile falls on Donetsk, which *may* (it's disputed) have been launched by Ukrainians and we make an article about it and put it in this article as, supposedly, a "war crime".
Meanwhile, Russia fires literally tens of thousands of missiles on Ukrainian cities which kill literally thousands of civilians and which literally erase some of these cities from the face of the earth.
But we absolutely must have an article and text in this article about THAT ONE maybe-Ukrainian missile!!!!!! Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!").
So why is that stuff REALLY here? Simple, because it was a big propaganda push on pro-Russian social media so someone scraped together some borderline sourcing and crammed it in here. There have been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article - and Wikipedia as a whole - into some kind of pro-Russian social media fork / OSINT aggregator. Even putting the inherent POV in this endeavor, that's simply not what an encyclopedia is.
I'm removing this info as it's very obviously very UNDUE. If we were being honest here we'd have text on every single one of those tens of thousands missiles fired on civilian targets by Russia. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
One missile falls on Donetsk ... and we make an article about it"
No, it was not "we" editors of Wikipedia who made the article, it was first The Guardian (here) plus other news outlets that also qualify as WP:RS. Then some fellow editor(not me)took their time and effort to write down a few contents probably because they thought the incident (alleged indiscriminate attack with more than 20 civilian casualties) was verifiable and notable enough to be included in the article: I agree with them.- There's no point in saying that they
scraped together some borderline sourcing and crammed it in here
- the sources look good to me, much better than other pieces of war propaganda that are constantly pushed into this article. Because "balance" or some shit. I'm sorry but that kind of approach is just sick. And it's the quintessence of violating WP:UNDUE to push a POV ("both sides do it!!!!") ... There have been constant and repeated attempts to turn this article ... If we were being honest here ...
This way of attributing mean intentions to fellow users is annoying - we have policies and guidelines (WP:CIV, WP:GF) that protect us from this.- On the merit: are these contents WP:undue? We have almost 20 subsections dealing with indiscriminate attacks, some of them with relatively small casualties (Mariupol hospital, 4; Irpin, 8; Odessa, 8). Now you select one bombing that killed 23 people and say that it needs to go because the Ukrainian army might have done it... I'm not persuaded. This incident received good media coverage, and I don't think you can strike the balance based on the kind of arguments you provided.
- I've restored the section until a consensus for removal is reached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't get it, Volunteer Marek, are you saying that Ukrainian war crimes don't count because Russia did more? War crimes are war crimes, Marek. I doubt the people affected by the missile will be ok with it if you tell them that it was only one missile and that Russia is launching more. AdrianHObradors (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying a Russian false flag attack isn't a "Ukrainian war crime". I'm saying that cherry picking a single incident when there's literally tens of thousands of ones like it is UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- This event has been covered by RS such as The Guardian and HRW so it clearly satisfies the notability criteria.
- However, it was hardly the first attack on Donetsk in which civilians were killed, if anything they appear to have intensified recently. We should have a section about all of them here. Naturally the sourcing is complicated as the Western media are not present in Donetsk whereas the Russian media have their own bias and reliability issues. But this should not make us ignore what is happening there - in addition to just being plain wrong it would also be a violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis¿question? 09:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Russian media have their own bias and reliability issues" . . . as in they have zero reliability. Question -- does the sourcing include a reliable source which characterizes this as a war crime? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you are talking about the specific incident in March, then are two versions of what happened: a strike by a Ukrainian missile or a Russian false flag attack (either a missile or some kind of IED). However, both sides call it a war crime: Russia, Ukraine. Alaexis¿question? 13:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- A single missile striking the city centre is more clearly a war crime than a coordinated and prolonged bombing: in fact, it's very difficult to come up with a military reason that could justify it. Anyway, sources rule on this, so there's no need to speculate about it.
Re "false flag attack", however, I'm not at all sure about the source. Both the Guardian and Reuters say "Ukrainian military spokesman Leonid Matyukhin"; Ukrainska Pravda speaks about "Analysis of the founder of the Conflict Intelligence Team Ruslan Leviev", and indeed on youtube there's this video, which we quote. But I couldn't find any written and well-documented analysis on this, nothing on their website, nothing that looks even remotely as a reliable source: just an interview to Ruslan Leviev on youtube. Is he reliable? is he independent? I remember @Volunteer Marek making this point very convincingly in a discussion about Kramatorsk railway station attack: we need "MULTIPLE serious reliable sources", they cried, before publishing something so ludicrous as an army voluntarily bombing its own territory. I agree with them and I think we should drop altogether the reference to "An analyst from the Conflict Intelligence Team, an independent investigative organization". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)- The claim is not WP:EXTRAORDINARY when the country involved is Russia. See Russian apartment bombings, in particular the sentence "Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- A single missile striking the city centre is more clearly a war crime than a coordinated and prolonged bombing: in fact, it's very difficult to come up with a military reason that could justify it. Anyway, sources rule on this, so there's no need to speculate about it.
- If you are talking about the specific incident in March, then are two versions of what happened: a strike by a Ukrainian missile or a Russian false flag attack (either a missile or some kind of IED). However, both sides call it a war crime: Russia, Ukraine. Alaexis¿question? 13:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Russian media have their own bias and reliability issues" . . . as in they have zero reliability. Question -- does the sourcing include a reliable source which characterizes this as a war crime? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I took a look at the Guardian Source here. In the first four paragraphs, it makes it very clear that it's disputed as to who did this. This discussion could do with a link to the disputed section. IF it is to be included, it needs to be contextualized in terms of each side accused the other, Russia has a history of making false flag attacks on its "own" people, and so on. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, speaking of contextualisation, Ukraine has a history of shelling Donetsk as well. I'm a bit surprised by this approach - I mean clearly Russia is responsible for the lion's share of the crimes but it would be a very unusual war if one side never committed any crimes. Alaexis¿question? 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was responding to the assertion above by Gitz that the idea of an army voluntarily bombing its own territory is ludicrous. With most armies, I would agree. But Russia has a history of doing exactly that. Therefore, in their case, the claim is not ludicrous, or WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Obviously, in a war, an attack on either side's territory might have come from the other side. As a general matter, that's not unusual. What is unusual is a country that has a history of indiscriminate bombings against its own people. That's why the contextualization is needed here. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a big crime no matter who fired the missile. Cluster munitions hit civilians and killed more than twenty.Just Prancing (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- And here we go with barely-ten-edits WP:SPA accounts showing up again to pretend there's "consensus" for one version (which happens to be the highly POV one). Volunteer Marek 21:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a big crime no matter who fired the missile. Cluster munitions hit civilians and killed more than twenty.Just Prancing (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was responding to the assertion above by Gitz that the idea of an army voluntarily bombing its own territory is ludicrous. With most armies, I would agree. But Russia has a history of doing exactly that. Therefore, in their case, the claim is not ludicrous, or WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Obviously, in a war, an attack on either side's territory might have come from the other side. As a general matter, that's not unusual. What is unusual is a country that has a history of indiscriminate bombings against its own people. That's why the contextualization is needed here. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, speaking of contextualisation, Ukraine has a history of shelling Donetsk as well. I'm a bit surprised by this approach - I mean clearly Russia is responsible for the lion's share of the crimes but it would be a very unusual war if one side never committed any crimes. Alaexis¿question? 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying a Russian false flag attack isn't a "Ukrainian war crime". I'm saying that cherry picking a single incident when there's literally tens of thousands of ones like it is UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are two problems here: (a) we can not include every single incident to this page (and that one is not hugely notable based on coverage in RS), and (b) we do not even know for sure who was the perpetrator (most probably Russian or DNR forces, of course). Without knowing all details, we can not even say what it actually was, and if it was a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes (a) We have 17 incidents that likely qualify as indiscriminate attack in this article: see section War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Areas_hit_by_indiscriminate_attacks. As you'll see, most of them are "single incidents" and some of them had much smaller casualties than this one. Besides, the fact that this was "just" one single missile makes it even more clearly a war crime from the viewpoint of IHL: it's very difficult to come up with any military object or military reason that in principle could justify this attack with civilian casualties. Finally, in terms of coverage we have Reuters and The Guardian, as you know, but there's also Euronews, Il fatto quotidiano, La Repubblica, Le figaro, Le Perisien, and others.
(b) The fact that we don't know who the perpetrators are obviously doesn't imply that this is not a war crime. You sayWithout knowing all details, we can not even say what it actually was, and if it was a war crime
, but that's not correct: we don't know anything, we just report what reliable sources say, and RS say that this might qualify as a war crime (which by the way is pretty obvious and not controversial under the circumstances). Note that international agencies, human rights organisations and independent journalists have reported that separatist-controlled Donetsk has repeatedly been the object of indiscriminate attacks since 2014 (e.g., 2014 Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine). So when you saymost probably Russian or DNR forces, of course
, that's just baseless bias. I think that our discussion would be more transparent and honest if you and Volunteer Marek were to openly acknowledge that the reason you want this section removed is that the attack was most likely carried out by Ukrainian forces. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- Changing my stance on this from undecided to Delete per a combination of reasons. First, there is WP:ONUS. There is discussion of a "consensus to remove" in the edit history, but that's not how it works. We would need a consensus to include. Editors ought to know that. Second, the sources mentioned by User:Gitz6666 do not say who fired the missile. Many of them do report on what Russia-backed people say. But that doesn't tell us anything about what actually happened. Lastly, I agree that this was, in the scheme of things, a minor event. The sources mentioned by Gitz above are decent sources, but they are not first-class sources, and the coverage simply isn't that broad. So we are left with an event with moderate sourcing that does not actually tell us who fired the missile. "It happened in wartime, and it's disputed" is not exactly Earth-shattering information. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- After only one hour since the page protection was removed, @Adoring nanny removed the section that's been one of the causes of the recent edit war. In terms of arguments and reasons, we've all expressed our views (although I don't see how the argument "sources do not say who fired the missile" is relevant here: whoever the perpetrators are, this is a war crime, and sources say so). In terms of consensus, I see that @Volunteer Marek, @My very best wishes and Adoring Nanny argued for removing the section, while @Alaexis, @AdrianHObradors and myself argued for inclusion. The section has been here since 23 March; in the last three months, it has been edited by multiple fellow users. So it's not clear to me where consensus lies. I ping @Alex Bakharev who might help us to see more clearly on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also pinging other editors who have expressed views on the recent edit war: @Ilenart626, @GizzyCatBella, @Boud, @The Four Deuces, @Xx236. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:ONUS those who wish to INCLUDE need to get consensus. In other controversial areas, such as American Politics, there's a restriction that if controversial material has been challenged through removal it cannot be restored without consensus. And in this particular case no one on the "include" side has really managed to offer a decent reason for why this isn't UNDUE. All we get is "there's some sources about it" (yes, but that's a MINIMUM requirement) or "we have to include some Ukrainian war crimes" (it's not even clear who shot the missile, and actually that's not how it works).
- I think it's time you either establish consensus for inclusion (perhaps start an RfC) or stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- After only one hour since the page protection was removed, @Adoring nanny removed the section that's been one of the causes of the recent edit war. In terms of arguments and reasons, we've all expressed our views (although I don't see how the argument "sources do not say who fired the missile" is relevant here: whoever the perpetrators are, this is a war crime, and sources say so). In terms of consensus, I see that @Volunteer Marek, @My very best wishes and Adoring Nanny argued for removing the section, while @Alaexis, @AdrianHObradors and myself argued for inclusion. The section has been here since 23 March; in the last three months, it has been edited by multiple fellow users. So it's not clear to me where consensus lies. I ping @Alex Bakharev who might help us to see more clearly on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Changing my stance on this from undecided to Delete per a combination of reasons. First, there is WP:ONUS. There is discussion of a "consensus to remove" in the edit history, but that's not how it works. We would need a consensus to include. Editors ought to know that. Second, the sources mentioned by User:Gitz6666 do not say who fired the missile. Many of them do report on what Russia-backed people say. But that doesn't tell us anything about what actually happened. Lastly, I agree that this was, in the scheme of things, a minor event. The sources mentioned by Gitz above are decent sources, but they are not first-class sources, and the coverage simply isn't that broad. So we are left with an event with moderate sourcing that does not actually tell us who fired the missile. "It happened in wartime, and it's disputed" is not exactly Earth-shattering information. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes (a) We have 17 incidents that likely qualify as indiscriminate attack in this article: see section War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Areas_hit_by_indiscriminate_attacks. As you'll see, most of them are "single incidents" and some of them had much smaller casualties than this one. Besides, the fact that this was "just" one single missile makes it even more clearly a war crime from the viewpoint of IHL: it's very difficult to come up with any military object or military reason that in principle could justify this attack with civilian casualties. Finally, in terms of coverage we have Reuters and The Guardian, as you know, but there's also Euronews, Il fatto quotidiano, La Repubblica, Le figaro, Le Perisien, and others.
- There are two problems here: (a) we can not include every single incident to this page (and that one is not hugely notable based on coverage in RS), and (b) we do not even know for sure who was the perpetrator (most probably Russian or DNR forces, of course). Without knowing all details, we can not even say what it actually was, and if it was a war crime. My very best wishes (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Le Figaro shows a photo that is apparently undisputed as a photo of a missile that landed in Donetsk; it says that according to both the RU and UA sides the event occurred, killing civilians in a densely populated urban zone with no obvious military targets; the only dispute is which side fired the missile. Other sources appear to agree: it's a war crime, probably by RU, but possibly by UA, and the evidence of which side did it needs NPOVing. It's still a war crime if RU did it. It should be included. Boud (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Re the latest removal, WP:ONUS does require consensus but consensus doesn't mean that some editors can simply veto any changes they don't like. This strike has been reported by multiple high-quality sources like the Guardian, Reuters and Le Figaro. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are following the developments. HRW include it in the list of attacks using cluster munitions - alongside the strikes on Chernihiv, Mykolaiv and Kharkiv which are (justly) mentioned in this article. Alaexis¿question? 20:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- On 25 June Adoring nanny removed the section [25] and explained
deleting per WP:ONUS. See talk for a fuller explanation
. In this thread, also Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes argued for removing the section. However, AdrianHObradors, Alaexis, Boud, Just Prancing and myself argued for retaining the section.
The section has been in the article since late March, and I'm not sure if WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content") applies here or rather WP:NOCON ("In discussions of proposals to ... remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit").
Any views on this point? Should we open a RfC or should we rather restore the text and leave it to those who want to remove the section to open a RfC, if they are so inclined? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)- That was good removal discussed on this page; there is little coverage at this point. If more will be published on this incident, it might be included in a future. My very best wishes (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's do an RfC. Do you want to draft one? I could do it a bit later. Alaexis¿question? 11:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Denisova's dismissal
On 16 June I made an edit (diff. not available) adding the following text: On 31 May, the Ukrainian Parliament removed Denisova from office after a vote of no-confidence accusing her, among other things, of making insensitive and unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes, particularly those involving children and minors
(Wall Street Journal and Deutsche Welle). Today @My very best wishes removed it explaining this page is about war crimes, not about dismission of officials
.
I agree with MVBW that this article is about war crimes, obviously, but it's not only about "deeds", it's also about "Legal proceeding" and "International reactions" (we have two dedicated sections on this) and it's about political reactions as well - we report what Boris Johnson, Joe Biden and other political leaders said about war crimes. Therefore I believe that Denisova's removal belongs to this article as an important event in the political discourse on war crimes in Ukraine.
Moreover, the way Denisova reported on war crimes was mentioned among the reasons for her dismissal. Her allegations have been a major source of information for us: we quote Denisova by name at least 5 times in the article, and we quote her by office ("ombuds-") at least 5 more times. So her dismissal is obviously relevant here.
If for some reason my fellow editors don't want to maintain my edit on Denisova, I feel that we should remove the text the precedes that edit: In April 2022, Ukrainian ombudswoman Lyudmyla Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant. On 19 May, after Russian forces were pushed out of north of Kharkiv, she reported multiple rapes of children, some very young. The existence of credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops was also reported by the British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward on 13 May
. Given that Denisova was removed from office because the information on sexual crimes she provided were deemed not verifiable enough, it's quite likely that these information are pieces of (bad) war propaganda we'd better get rid of. AFIK they haven't been verified or documented by reliable sources, which always say "Denisova declared". But she cannot be taken as a reliable source anymore (if she ever could). Also reference to undisclosed evidence by a British ambassador is not verifiable enough and should be removed.
Finally, a slightly off topic comment: her dismissal shows that it is not at all clear that overemphasising war crimes committed against the Ukrainian people is always in the best interest of Ukraine and her military effort - think about this; accuracy is much more important. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is very simple: we follow WP:RS. Consider Veracity of statements by Donald Trump as an example. If any specific claim or a number by Denisova was described in RS as incorrect, we must reflect this on the page, either by labeling the specific claim by Denisova as disputed, or by replacing it with new data. But I do not see anything specific of this nature. For example, she said there were at least 25 victims of rapes in Bucha. Did any RS disputed this number? If not (and other sources say the same in this case), we should keep it. What exactly was "not verifiable enough"? We do not know. And again, it is common that the information has not been independently verified, for example by journalists. But we can use it if it was reliably published. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- When Denisova got the sack, Ukrainian politicians explicitly mentioned the fact that she had released unverified claims about infants being subjected to rape. So if they think that this is unverified, it's quite likely that the info doesn't pass our WP:V threshold. If we want to do reliable editorial work here we should simply drop any claim about infants being raped by Russian troops, unless a reliable source publishes an article on this.
We can avoid publishing contents about Denisova dismissal, but then I suggest we immediately dropOn 19 May, after Russian forces were pushed out of north of Kharkiv, she reported multiple rapes of children, some very young
.
Moreover, I think we should also dropIn April 2022, Ukrainian ombudswoman Lyudmyla Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant
because no other source, apart from Denisova, made that allegation, as far as I know, and I don't think Denisova is reliable enough.
Finally, I think we should dropThe existence of credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops was also reported by the British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward on 13 May
. The British ambassador is not a reliable source, and evidence of sexual violence on children has not yet been released. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- Yes, some sources say "unverified claims". Meaning claims that have not been independently verified by journalists, members of Rada (who say it), etc. I assume they indeed can not be independently verified because these cases are under investigation and because there is an existential war in the country. There are also privacy concerns, especially with regard to such crimes. But it does not mean that the claims were false or even unreliable. Every claim of such nature just needs an explicit attribution to the source. Yes, some of these claims are not covered in other sources. That is because she had a unique position in the government and had a unique information. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand you are using the word "assumption" ("I assume they indeed can not be independently verified because these cases are under investigation") in the sense of "a thing that is accepted as true or certain without proof". What you're basically saying is "I trust Denisova". While I don't have a personal opinion on that, I also think it's irrelevant. We don't publish what we believe it's true without proof and investigation. We have a policy: WP:V. Are you suggesting we should set it aside and, if so, could you explain why? I think we shouldn't publish unverified claims even if investigations were under way. But if and when the outcomes of the investigation will be released, I think we will publish them. Would you and our fellow editors agree on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I do not trust Denisova. I do not trust anyone, myself including. I simply refer to our policy like WP:NPOV, according to which a reliably published official statements/info by a Ukrainian Ombundsman must be included to relevant pages, with appropriate attribution. It does not matter if she/he is currently in charge if her previous statements were made in her official capacity. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- What you mean is "made when she was in office": those statement were not made "in her official capacity", they were interviews and posts on Facebook and Telegram. But even if they were made "in her official capacity", as you say, they still wouldn't belong to this article. The subject of this article is not Denisova, it is "war crimes"; which means that information about war crimes needs to come from a reliable source. And Denisova is not a reliable source. Analogously, we have dozen of statements about war crimes made by the Russian political and military authorities "in their official capacity", duly reported by TASS, which we don't publish because they don't qualify as reliable source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no, these interviews and posts are her official statements as a state government official. The only problem they are WP:PRIMARY. However, when discussed by independent secondary RS, they deserve inclusion with a reference to the secondary RS. Speaking about statements by Russian military and politicians, we do provide them on many pages, with attribution! As about TASS, this is a different matter, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. My very best wishes (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- First, I wouldn't call them "official statements" but rather "statements by an official" - an official who was dismissed for having made unverified statements. They were not reports published by a government agency AFIK but interviews and posts on Facebook and Telegram. Secondly, they were not "discussed by RS" but simply reported by them: "according to Denisova, A B C happened". Thirdly, Denisova is not a reliable source [26] [27] [28]. So we need to get rid of that stuff. Honestly I don't understand why you are resisting to this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the secondary RS did not just "report" her claims. They provided some degree of verification. For example an article in Politico [29]:
. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Documents provided by Denisova to POLITICO that she said were obtained by Ukraine’s intelligence services purport to show that Russia had plans in place for filtration camps and resettlement areas weeks before the invasion. One document shows the deadline for bringing temporary holding centers across Russia to 100% readiness was Feb. 21. Another document dated Feb. 26, two days after Russian forces entered Ukraine, shows that 36 locations across Russian territory were prepared to hold at least 33,146 Ukrainians in 377 temporary shelters. ... POLITICO could not independently verify the authenticity of Denisova’s documents, but their contents align with intelligence from the U.S. and other Western governments about Moscow’s intentions, as well as reports from internationally recognized human rights groups — even Russia’s own government figures.- I wouldn't remove that source, there's nothing wrong with that, and I also would leave Denisova's allegations about 402,000 Ukrainians forcefully taken to Russia. "Cases of Russian soldiers using Ukrainian children as human shields" can also stay, I believe, as an unverified allegation, because it comes also from witnesses and from the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine's Ministry of Defense. But we should drop the contents I highlighted above, all about rape against young women and children. Also the undisclosed evidence by a British Ambassador is not worth mentioning because of WP:V concerns. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just commenting on 3 sources you gave above. First one is a letter in Ukrainian, and it does not say she lied. Second source is an incorrect and grossly incomplete translation of 3rd source from Ukrainian. Third source is an article by Sonya Lukashova (no one knows about) posted in Ukrainian Pravda. I am not sure how reliable it might be and would prefer better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see that you are very picky with sources MVBW! good, it's good to be picky, otherwise one could get lots of filth in our articles. But note the following: the first source is an appeal signed by over one hundred journalists and human rights activists asking her to "disclose only information for which there is sufficient evidence; check the facts before publication". So I guess she doesn't pass the threshold of verifiability. Do you really want to go to RSN and argue in front of everybody that she is a reliable source? Couldn't we just end it here and get rid of all her statements concerning sex crimes involving minors? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- And the request to publicly disclose information about rape victims in cases under investigation is plainly ridiculous. Further, after reading these sources, I have an impression that no any criminal cases were even open for many victims. This could be private information received by Denisova through her "hot line" and during on-site visits (a common situation for rape cases). I also think you misunderstand the policy, namely what is the source. The source is an article in Politico, for example, (i.e. place of publication (Politico), the author and the article itself in Politico. And we simply summarize what this source say about Denisova and everything else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, we shouldn't simply summarize what the source says because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE: if we report what the source says Denisova said, it's because we believe that what Denisova said has some bearing on the subject of this article, which is war crimes, and not Denisova herself. So you can put it in terms of WP:V - what Denisova says about sexual crimes involving minors in not verifiable, she is not a reliable source on that - or you can put it in terms of WP:E and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - what Denisova says about sexual crimes involving minors in not worthy of notice. The result is the same: we are an encyclopedia and we need to inform, not disinform, the public about verifiable and notable contents. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "not verifiable"? Please check WP:Verifiability: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Such as Politico, BBC, NYT, and so on. That is what we do here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's wait for other editors to comment on whether to include this fully verifiable and highly notable contents. Unless there's a clear consensus for inclusion, as per WP:ONUS I'll remove all the info I've mentioned, which honestly I think are just garbage. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- This information was already in the page for months. You need WP:CONSENSUS to exclude. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's wait for other editors to comment on whether to include this fully verifiable and highly notable contents. Unless there's a clear consensus for inclusion, as per WP:ONUS I'll remove all the info I've mentioned, which honestly I think are just garbage. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- "not verifiable"? Please check WP:Verifiability: "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Such as Politico, BBC, NYT, and so on. That is what we do here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, we shouldn't simply summarize what the source says because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE: if we report what the source says Denisova said, it's because we believe that what Denisova said has some bearing on the subject of this article, which is war crimes, and not Denisova herself. So you can put it in terms of WP:V - what Denisova says about sexual crimes involving minors in not verifiable, she is not a reliable source on that - or you can put it in terms of WP:E and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - what Denisova says about sexual crimes involving minors in not worthy of notice. The result is the same: we are an encyclopedia and we need to inform, not disinform, the public about verifiable and notable contents. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- And the request to publicly disclose information about rape victims in cases under investigation is plainly ridiculous. Further, after reading these sources, I have an impression that no any criminal cases were even open for many victims. This could be private information received by Denisova through her "hot line" and during on-site visits (a common situation for rape cases). I also think you misunderstand the policy, namely what is the source. The source is an article in Politico, for example, (i.e. place of publication (Politico), the author and the article itself in Politico. And we simply summarize what this source say about Denisova and everything else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see that you are very picky with sources MVBW! good, it's good to be picky, otherwise one could get lots of filth in our articles. But note the following: the first source is an appeal signed by over one hundred journalists and human rights activists asking her to "disclose only information for which there is sufficient evidence; check the facts before publication". So I guess she doesn't pass the threshold of verifiability. Do you really want to go to RSN and argue in front of everybody that she is a reliable source? Couldn't we just end it here and get rid of all her statements concerning sex crimes involving minors? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just commenting on 3 sources you gave above. First one is a letter in Ukrainian, and it does not say she lied. Second source is an incorrect and grossly incomplete translation of 3rd source from Ukrainian. Third source is an article by Sonya Lukashova (no one knows about) posted in Ukrainian Pravda. I am not sure how reliable it might be and would prefer better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't remove that source, there's nothing wrong with that, and I also would leave Denisova's allegations about 402,000 Ukrainians forcefully taken to Russia. "Cases of Russian soldiers using Ukrainian children as human shields" can also stay, I believe, as an unverified allegation, because it comes also from witnesses and from the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine's Ministry of Defense. But we should drop the contents I highlighted above, all about rape against young women and children. Also the undisclosed evidence by a British Ambassador is not worth mentioning because of WP:V concerns. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- First, I wouldn't call them "official statements" but rather "statements by an official" - an official who was dismissed for having made unverified statements. They were not reports published by a government agency AFIK but interviews and posts on Facebook and Telegram. Secondly, they were not "discussed by RS" but simply reported by them: "according to Denisova, A B C happened". Thirdly, Denisova is not a reliable source [26] [27] [28]. So we need to get rid of that stuff. Honestly I don't understand why you are resisting to this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no, these interviews and posts are her official statements as a state government official. The only problem they are WP:PRIMARY. However, when discussed by independent secondary RS, they deserve inclusion with a reference to the secondary RS. Speaking about statements by Russian military and politicians, we do provide them on many pages, with attribution! As about TASS, this is a different matter, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. My very best wishes (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- What you mean is "made when she was in office": those statement were not made "in her official capacity", they were interviews and posts on Facebook and Telegram. But even if they were made "in her official capacity", as you say, they still wouldn't belong to this article. The subject of this article is not Denisova, it is "war crimes"; which means that information about war crimes needs to come from a reliable source. And Denisova is not a reliable source. Analogously, we have dozen of statements about war crimes made by the Russian political and military authorities "in their official capacity", duly reported by TASS, which we don't publish because they don't qualify as reliable source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I do not trust Denisova. I do not trust anyone, myself including. I simply refer to our policy like WP:NPOV, according to which a reliably published official statements/info by a Ukrainian Ombundsman must be included to relevant pages, with appropriate attribution. It does not matter if she/he is currently in charge if her previous statements were made in her official capacity. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand you are using the word "assumption" ("I assume they indeed can not be independently verified because these cases are under investigation") in the sense of "a thing that is accepted as true or certain without proof". What you're basically saying is "I trust Denisova". While I don't have a personal opinion on that, I also think it's irrelevant. We don't publish what we believe it's true without proof and investigation. We have a policy: WP:V. Are you suggesting we should set it aside and, if so, could you explain why? I think we shouldn't publish unverified claims even if investigations were under way. But if and when the outcomes of the investigation will be released, I think we will publish them. Would you and our fellow editors agree on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, some sources say "unverified claims". Meaning claims that have not been independently verified by journalists, members of Rada (who say it), etc. I assume they indeed can not be independently verified because these cases are under investigation and because there is an existential war in the country. There are also privacy concerns, especially with regard to such crimes. But it does not mean that the claims were false or even unreliable. Every claim of such nature just needs an explicit attribution to the source. Yes, some of these claims are not covered in other sources. That is because she had a unique position in the government and had a unique information. My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- When Denisova got the sack, Ukrainian politicians explicitly mentioned the fact that she had released unverified claims about infants being subjected to rape. So if they think that this is unverified, it's quite likely that the info doesn't pass our WP:V threshold. If we want to do reliable editorial work here we should simply drop any claim about infants being raped by Russian troops, unless a reliable source publishes an article on this.
All Russian war crimes are only "alleged"
User:Gitz666 can you stop trying to sprinkle in the word "alleged" in front of every Russian crime described in this article? See WP:ALLEGED. Also please cut it out with pretending that these crimes have not been documented. This is especially problematic in light of your previous comments in which you claimed that kidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime. Volunteer Marek 20:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:ALLEGED says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." A further issue is WP:BLP crime, we cannot state as a fact that someone committed a crime, including genocide, unless they have been convicted. It doesn't matter how certain we are, because it is not up to Wikipedia editors to weight evidence and determine facts, per NOR. TFD (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for quoting WP:ALLEGED, Volunteer Marek, which is precisely the guideline we needed, as TFD demonstrated. Just two points:
- I'm not "sprinkling" the article with the word "alleged"; if one were to read what you write without knowing the article, one could even believe you. I'm actually restoring the word "alleged", which for some reason you've decided to massively remove from the article;
- I have already asked you before to stop attributing to me false ideas that I've never supported and that I find hateful. You alleged that according to me
Kidnapping of children after murdering their parent and forcibly Russyfying them is not a "war crime" but benevolent adoption by loving Russians
. This is false, I asked you to strike through your comment and you didn't comply. Now you are repeating again that according to mekidnapping Ukraine children should be described as "adoption" and "naturalization" and that carrying out murders as part of a genocide aren't a war crime
. Now please, either you strike through that false comment of yours and apologise, or you provide a diff here or in my talk page showing where I'd made these ludicrous comments. Providing a diff shouldn't be too difficult. For example, if I were to claim that you argued that shooting Russian POWs in the legs doesn't amount to torture, I could easily provide this. I'm sure you could try to do the same - and utterly fail, because I've never said what you apparently understood. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- In your #1 you admit that you are "sprinkling" the word "alleged" in front of everything and then proceed to argue semantics. Stop restoring it where it doesn't belong.
- Re your #2, this comment speaks for itself:
There are many different interests at stake here, and the interest of Ukraine in avoiding Russian naturalisations is only one (and relatively minor compared to the interests of the child). So this kind of content belongs to an article on Naturalisation during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine or Adoption during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
This is you proposing to refer to the kidnapping of Ukrainian children (after their parents were murdered by Russian soldiers) as "Naturalisation" and "Adoption". In the same comment your wording actually manages to imply that it was in the interest of the (Ukrainian) child to have their parents killed and then be adopted by some Russians. You said it. It's right fucking there. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC) - Russia is able to solve the doubts, but it distinguishes soldiers accused of crimes instead to investigate the crimes.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for quoting WP:ALLEGED, Volunteer Marek, which is precisely the guideline we needed, as TFD demonstrated. Just two points:
- Some of that can be alleged, but most of the war crimes committed by Russian forces (like ones in Bucha) are just that, war crimes, and they are described as such in RS. There is no really a dispute about it. Therefore, I agree with VM. My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I notified to WP:ANI the conversation here above with @Volunteer Marek, plus various other comments and edits of VM which I think are contrary to our guidelines and policies. The discussion is here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is not what the talk page is for. You're basically WP:CANVASSing. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek and @My very best wishes have been repeatedly trying to make two edits (now merged into one): removal of the attack to Donetsk and removal of cautious language ("accused", "alleged"). They are trying very tenaciously to have these contents removed: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. Please, note the following:
- At least 6 editors have reverted and/or criticised in the talk page these edits: if I'm not wrong, Ilenart626, Alaexis, TFD, Just Prancing, AdrianHObradors, and myself. See this thread and the thread "one missile falls on Donetsk". Apart from VM and MVBW, their edits might enjoy the support of Adoring Nanny and perhaps Shadybabs. For the time being, six against four is no WP:CONS for removing contents that have always been here (see e.g. this old revision of end-March [45]). So WP:NOCON applies and we should restore the status quo pending discussions.
- Instead of edit warring, which is frankly quite boring and childish, we should discuss the merit of the proposed edits. Let me add one more argument on the cautious language point. Status quo version says in the lead:
The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions"
; the new proposed version saysThe Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions
. This is likely a mistake. Let's set aside for the moment the issue of the "alleged" (which I think it's due in case of crimes as per WP:ALLEGED, and particularly due here given the fog of war and that these are all very recent events). The new formulation confuses "indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks" with "direct or deliberate attacks on civilian", and that's a mistake. No doubt the Russians were also accused of direct attack on civilians (e.g. Irpin shelling if I'm not wrong, "Shooting on passing civilian vehicles", Bucha, etc.) but when they use cluster munition it is always, as far as I know, a case of indiscriminate attack: they don't know (and possibly are not interested) if they're going to strike a military objects or a civilian object. It's "indiscriminate" (and disproportionate) not direct. So the new formulation is pejorative also for this reason. - The main reasons why the new formulation is pejorative, however, can be read here above in this thread and in the thread "one missile falls on Donetsk". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Guy, you're claiming that because you have support of some barely-ten-edit WP:SPA that has exclusively showed up here to edit war you have "consensus". I'm also not sure if you're accurately representing the views of some of the editors you mention. You also fail to mention two others users, Adoring nanny and Xx236 who also seem to be opposed to inclusion. Finally, consensus is not determined by bean counting but by the extent to which the argument rely on established policy (and that's where you REALLY come up short). Per WP:REDFLAG and WP:ONUS the responsibility for getting consensus is on those who wish to include such material. You can start an RfC. There's obviously been multiple objections to this material and restoring it repeatedly is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- And one big issue that you're skirting around is your continued attempts to change "have committed" war crimes to "have been accused of committing war crimes". The former is what the sources say since by now it's pretty well established. "Have been accused" is an obvious attempt to downplay and WEASEL the fact of war crimes here. Volunteer Marek 22:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "Have been accused of committing" issue has been addressed here above by TFD (quoting WP:ALLEGED). We should be aware of the risks of WP:RECENT and avoid stating accusations as facts with Wikivoice until they are proven out through time. Re WP:CON, you are wrong: I mentioned and counted Adoring Nanny. I even counted Shadybabs, although they didn't joined the discussion but just removed some contents. I didn't mention Xx236 because they didn't express their views on neither of the two edits. So even if we were to ignore the editor you claim is a WP:SPA, we would still be five against four - and a majority is not a consensus, let alone a minority! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek and @My very best wishes have been repeatedly trying to make two edits (now merged into one): removal of the attack to Donetsk and removal of cautious language ("accused", "alleged"). They are trying very tenaciously to have these contents removed: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. Please, note the following:
- This is not what the talk page is for. You're basically WP:CANVASSing. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Do we need a 1RR on this page? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @EvergreenFir, could you please read my point number 1 here above and let me know if I can restore the wrong version? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't have the time to assess the whole situation here. I just see that there's an edit war occurring. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Same here, i dont really want to do anything, but, please, stop edit warring over the missile attack on donetsk. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gitz6666, you're up to 3 reverts in less than four hours and you have the audacity to tell others to "stop edit warring"? Seriously? And you keep claiming false consensus for restoration of controversial material that you simply don't have and you keep ignoring the points raised here. Volunteer Marek 01:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't have the time to assess the whole situation here. I just see that there's an edit war occurring. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, can you please provide sources that say Russians have committed war crimes. I checked the first source for the first change you made. It says, "There have been urgent calls for investigations into allegations of war crimes in previously Russian-held areas of Ukraine after shocking footage of murdered civilians. But there are wider questions over whether widespread Russian attacks on civilian targets amount to war crimes." (BBC 10 April 2022)[46] TFD (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is the lede, which summarizes the article, which is chock full of sources which state exactly that. I'm sure you can find some among those already in the article. Volunteer Marek 23:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do in-line references currently used on this page say "alleged" about specific claims? If yes, then OK. If not, then things like that qualify as POV-pushing I think. Let's consider 1st example on this page. It says:
The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions
. Do the in-line references say this is all "alleged"? Apparently not? Besides, this is simply ridiculous. What is "alleged" here, exactly? The use of cluster munitions? No, this is simply a matter of fact. The civilians dying from such munitions? Also a matter of fact. Overall, this is an incredible example of editorializing, and indeed expressing a doubt when there is no any doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now, let's go further. Second use of "alleged" on this page is fully justified. But third use is not. It says: "...one man and two or three naked women under a blanket whose bodies were allegedly burned by Russian soldiers on the side of a road before they fled". No, because the cited source [47] does not say or imply "alleged", it says very definitely that these people were killed by Russian soldiers. My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- In many instances, the only doubt cast over events is the Russian doubt. Presenting the lone counter-claims of an aggressor in denial of their own military actions (not a war, a 'special military operation') is not providing balance. Atrocities well-documented in reliable sources are atrocities, and the weasely use of the word 'alleged' for well-documented events is basically lawyering on behalf of Russia. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the "alleged-by-alleged" methods you're following in discussing these all-encompassing edits [48] and this edit. I'll add my two cents, and I'll leave a separate comment on each proposed change.
- 1) Changing
The Russian military allegedly exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm by using cluster munitions
withThe Russian military attacked the civilian population using cluster munitions
- Do you want to the get rid of the "alleged"? Drop it, I don't mind, although I think we'd better maintain a more cautious and detached language, be mindful of the risks of WP:RECENT, wait for the fog of war to disperse, wait for independent rulings by courts of law and reports by international agencies, and in any case refrain from weaponizing the discourse on war crime. But if you really think that that "alleged" is intolerable, then drop it, but don't change the sentence because your altering the meaning and you're making a false/unsupported claim! RS don't say that the Russian army "attacked the civilian population using cluster munition". When you use cluster munition what you might be doing is carrying out an indiscriminate and/or disproportionate attack (e.g. when this happens in a highly populated area); it would be quite extraordinary if the direct object of your attack were the civilians. Occasionally this might have happened in Ukraine but we need sources.
The sources we are quoting there are all speaking about indiscriminate attacks: Amnesty International ("The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been marked by indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas", "The Russian military has shown a blatant disregard for civilian lives by using ballistic missiles"); Human Rights Watch ("In Kharkiv, Russian military forces showed disregard for civilian lives through repeated apparent indiscriminate attacks in populated areas"); OHCHR ("The extent of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian objects strongly suggests that the principles of distinction, of proportionality, the rule on feasible precautions and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks have been violated").
I'm right now working in my sandbox on an article on Indiscriminate attack which might help people understand a very basic distinction of IHL: [49] Everybody's help would be much appreciated. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- You say: "you're making a false/unsupported claim! RS don't say that the Russian army "attacked the civilian population using cluster munition". ... it would be quite extraordinary if the direct object of your attack were the civilians." Let me ask you this question: are you at all familiar with this subject? Yes, of course they directly attack civilians by destroying houses with civilians, by destroying whole cities with civilians, like in Mariupol where they killed at least 20,000 civilians. This is the entire point: by attacking civilians/terrorizing the civilian population they achieve their goal, i.e the destruction of the Ukrainian nation and statehood. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the "alleged-by-alleged" methods you're following in discussing these all-encompassing edits [48] and this edit. I'll add my two cents, and I'll leave a separate comment on each proposed change.
- To sum up: I don't agree with dropping the "allegedly" and using Wikivoice here, but I'm also relatively indifferent to the point. What I strongly oppose is replacing "exposed the civilian population to unnecessary and disproportionate harm" with "attacked the civilian population".Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- 2) Changing
the plants' safety systems had not been affected and there had been no release of radioactive materials
with
the plants' safety systems had not been effected and there had been no release of radioactive materials
English is not my mother language but I think you are adding an English mistake to the sentence. "Affected" is the right word. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- 3) With regard to this edit,
changing
two or three naked women under a blanket whose bodies were allegedly burned by Russian soldiers
with
two or three naked women under a blanket whose bodies were burned by Russian soldiers
- I don't agree with this. Even the source we quote (Kyiv Independent) says "The photos appear to prove that the Russian forces carried out targeted, organized killings" (emphasis added). Indeed a photo as such doesn't prove much about the identity of the perpetrators. Moreover, as far as I read it's quite likely that they were not "Russian soldiers" but rather "Russian paramilitary groups" (Wagner Group and a paramilitary riot-control force known as OMON), so it's possible that you are inserting a factual mistake there. But there's no need to rush to conclusions: cautionary language is preferable here. Using "alleged" here is just a sign of reliability and professionalism on our part, and it's also closer to the language used by quality press and truly reliable sources such as NYT, BBC and the like. Why should we lower the standard? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- 4) Changing
the mayor and deputy mayor of the town of Skadovsk being allegedly abducted by armed men
withthe mayor and deputy mayor of the town of Skadovsk abducted by armed men.
Source Radio Free Europe reports this as a fact, and it's also quite likely they were armed, so in principle I agree on dropping the "allegedly". However, "Radio Free Europe" is a controversial source [50] and consensus is that "particularly in geopolitically-charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate." So I suggest we find a second source to cross-reference this and only then we drop the "allegedly". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- 5) Changing
"rapes, shootings and a senseless execution" had been alleged to have occurred in the village of Berestyanka near Kyiv
- with
"rapes, shootings and a senseless execution" have occurred in the village of Berestyanka near Kyiv
- In this case, the source itself uses the "alleged" terminology: "The ABC has gathered accounts of potential war crimes against civilians in the village — rapes, shootings and a senseless execution — allegedly carried out by Russian forces (...) The alleged atrocities add to mounting evidence of widespread war crimes in the Kyiv area". I'm wondering why MVBW and VM think they know better than the source they are quoting; or maybe they didn't read the source and they just happen to know that rapes took place and were done by the Russian? In any case I would retain the "alleged" here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- 6) Changing
On 25 March Reporters Without Borders alleged that Russian forces had threatened
with "stated", and dropping the "alleged" inFrench President Emmanuel Macron described the alleged killings in the Ukrainian town of Bucha
. I agree with these two changes: RWB said what they said, and in Bucha killings were not only alleged but independently documented and verified. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)- One final remark. My fellow editors occasionally complain about my walls of text: they are right, sorry about that. But it's transparent here that it is not me who is WASTING lots of editors' time: removing an "alleged" here and there, occasionally misrepresenting sources and altering the meaning of the text, making false claims - this is poor editorial work and it takes an amount of time that could be spent more productively elsewhere. Our POV-pushers here are basically blocking the editorial work, and that's happening for no reason at all - NOTHING here is "the Voice of Russia", we're just summarising our usual reliable sources. So I urge interested editors and admins to please take care of the delicate editorial work being repeatedly disrupted in this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- To put it simple, there is nothing "alleged" about war crimes committed in Bucha and many other places. Based on the coverage in most recent RS, there are no doubts that Russian military forces were responsible. And even looking at this relatively old (April 6) ABC publication [51], it is titled "The world was shocked by Russian atrocities in Bucha.". It says Russian atrocities in Bucha. Please do not misrepresent these crimes as "alleged". That is not how RS describe them.My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- One final remark. My fellow editors occasionally complain about my walls of text: they are right, sorry about that. But it's transparent here that it is not me who is WASTING lots of editors' time: removing an "alleged" here and there, occasionally misrepresenting sources and altering the meaning of the text, making false claims - this is poor editorial work and it takes an amount of time that could be spent more productively elsewhere. Our POV-pushers here are basically blocking the editorial work, and that's happening for no reason at all - NOTHING here is "the Voice of Russia", we're just summarising our usual reliable sources. So I urge interested editors and admins to please take care of the delicate editorial work being repeatedly disrupted in this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- 6) Changing
- 3) With regard to this edit,
The whole line of argument that "we have to say 'alleged' unless there's a court verdict" is bad faithed bunk. Many of these instances never make it to trial, not because there's no evidence, but because international law is actually really weak. Look at the First Chechen War. Officially 80,000 (some estimates go much higher) civilians were murdered or killed in indiscriminate shelling. 10,000 of those actually children. Russia set up torture camps through which 1/5 of total Chechen population went through. Nobody absolutely nobody in their good faith doubts that there were massive war crimes committed there. So... where were the trials? A couple servicemen, some finger wagging from EU and some unenforceable verdicts with no consequences. What do you think's gonna happen here? We're an encyclopedia not a court. If reliable sources don't say "alleged" then we don't say "alleged". If reliable sources say Russia did it we say they did it instead of this weaselly "have been accused" nonsense. Volunteer Marek 00:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. The perpetrators of war crimes are rarely punished. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, we don't need a court verdict. A report by an international agency, a well-documented historical research by an authoritative scholar, multiple reliable sources concurring on a given point of fact would be enough for stating that point in Wikivoice. The problem here is that most of the RS we quote do say "alleged": see e.g. my point 5 here above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- This simply isn’t true. Do you really believe that the Bucha massacre was only “allegedly” committed by Russian forces? Are you seriously arguing that most reliable sources weasel their reporting on Bucha by saying “allegedly”? Maybe they did when the news first broke, but still insisting on casting doubt on culpability at this point in time is pretty messed up. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe that. Please, I ask you for the umpteenth time: don't put in my mouth words and concepts that I've never used. The Bucha massacre was committed by Russian forces, there's plenty of reliable sources on that. We should use Wikivoice as we're already doing both in the dedicated article and here:
there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces of Ukrainian civilians
. I myself added some contents on Bucha recently and I used Wikivoice: [52]. So please don't misrepresent and trivialize my argument. The point here is whether we know (i.e. multiple reliable sources report) that the naked women's bodies found near a highway 20 km outside of Kyiv and photographed by Mikhail Palinchak were killed by Russian soldiers. Simply put, the answer is "No", we don't know it for sure, and we need to use the "alleged" terminology here. For the time being we just have a photo, no eyewitness, nothing about the nationality and position of the perpetrators. Reliable sources say that in the area also mercenaries and paramilitary groups were active, such as the Wagner group [53] and the Chechen troops from the Special Rapid Response Force and another paramilitary riot-control force known as OMON, which is not under the direct control of the Russian army [54]. So "naked women under a blanket whose bodies were allegedly burned by Russian soldiers" is entirely appropriate here and it is also closer to the source ("Kyiv Independent") which says "According to the photographer Mikhail Palinchak, who took the photo on April 2, under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down" and "The photos appear to prove". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)- Ok, so if you do think that Bucha massacre, a war crime, was committed by Russian troops, and if sources say the same, why do you keep changing "committed" to "accused of"?
- And regarding the naked women under the blanket whose body was burned, the source says: "under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down at the side of the road 20 kilometers away from Kyiv". There's no "alleged" there. There won't be any "alleged" here. Volunteer Marek 23:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek, the discussion on the "alleged" and "accused of" terminology has been going on for sometime now, and there's no clear consensus neither for removing the alleged/accused from the lead nor for retaining them. Your edit summary here mentions the discussion at AN/I, but it seems to me that the only comment on the point there was contrary to using Wikivoice (User:Masem said that
we should be careful on stating certain events as facts on Wikivoice until proven out through time
). So maybe the only way forward is to create a RfC. Do you agree on this? We should concentrate on the lead section only and link both to RS that use direct language ("the Russians have carried out an indiscriminate attack") and to RS that use a more cautious, indirect language. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- @User:Gitz6666 Your edit summary, in your revert where you continue edit warring (last time you made 3 reverts within 4 hours) The indication we got from ANI on this was to retain the "alleged" terminology is completely false. Here are relevant comments from ANI:
- "I will not be suprised if this report ends up in a WP:BOOMERANG (against Gitz6666)" User:GizzyCatBella
- "I'm definitely concerned by Gitz's clear attempt to slide in content with weasel word caveats while sliding out reliably sourced content in Wikivoice" User:Iskandar323
- "while they (Volunteer Marek) might be forthright in their opinions, their contributions could not be considered exceptional wrt civility or POV. I have found them to be generally acceptive of broader consensus." User:Cinderella157
- "Yeh, Gitz666 has a POV here." User:My very best wishes
- "I am of the general opinion that that Gitz6666 is POV-pushing problematically here " User:Black Kite
- "Gitz purpose (in this area) is to edit in and promote Russian propaganda and excuse/deny war crimes, that is clear from their editing. Just broadly topic ban them from the Russian invasion of Ukraine" User:Only in death
- " it was *back* on Gitz6666’s extremely consistent advocacy of a Russian narrative on every single detail, minimization of sexual misconduct, and attempts to include vague Russian allegations of Ukrainian misconduct. Gitz is aware that he does this and discussed on his used page with another editor how uncritically he felt that the Ukrainian narrative was being accepted" User:Elinruby
- So. That's seven editors right there telling you're in the wrong here.
- You picked out ONE comment, by User:Masem, who's not even agreeing with you but making an entirely different point!!! (not including every detail and observing WP:NOTNEWS
- You. Are. Simply. Not. Listening.
- Yet. You. Continue. Edit. Warring.
- This couldn't be any clearer/
- Volunteer Marek 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- With the exception of Iskandar323, none of the comments you shared deals with the "alleged vs Wikivoice" issue. Masem on the contrary was dealing with that: the issue we're presently discussing here, which is not about me or you being pov-pushers. I'm sure you understand this and you could stay on topic if you so wish. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are all commenting on your edits here generally. You know what WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is usually coupled with? WP:WIKILAWYER. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- With the exception of Iskandar323, none of the comments you shared deals with the "alleged vs Wikivoice" issue. Masem on the contrary was dealing with that: the issue we're presently discussing here, which is not about me or you being pov-pushers. I'm sure you understand this and you could stay on topic if you so wish. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek, the discussion on the "alleged" and "accused of" terminology has been going on for sometime now, and there's no clear consensus neither for removing the alleged/accused from the lead nor for retaining them. Your edit summary here mentions the discussion at AN/I, but it seems to me that the only comment on the point there was contrary to using Wikivoice (User:Masem said that
- No, I don't believe that. Please, I ask you for the umpteenth time: don't put in my mouth words and concepts that I've never used. The Bucha massacre was committed by Russian forces, there's plenty of reliable sources on that. We should use Wikivoice as we're already doing both in the dedicated article and here:
- This simply isn’t true. Do you really believe that the Bucha massacre was only “allegedly” committed by Russian forces? Are you seriously arguing that most reliable sources weasel their reporting on Bucha by saying “allegedly”? Maybe they did when the news first broke, but still insisting on casting doubt on culpability at this point in time is pretty messed up. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, we don't need a court verdict. A report by an international agency, a well-documented historical research by an authoritative scholar, multiple reliable sources concurring on a given point of fact would be enough for stating that point in Wikivoice. The problem here is that most of the RS we quote do say "alleged": see e.g. my point 5 here above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Edit warring
Guys, I have protected the article for two days so you have an ability to have a compromise rather than edit war that will just make you all banned. Protecting a particular version of course do not mean it is by anyway the correct one Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
As an editor whose opinion does not weight more than anybody's (probably less) Can we reduce the number of "alleged" in the article? The cases probably would not be processed by ordinary criminal courts and the risk of influencing the future juries is minimal. Regarding the section on Donetsk attack I agree that it looks disproportional - it is only one missile of an unknown origin while we are talking about hundreds of missile attacks in other sections. On the other hand maybe for NPOV sake keep it? Can we have a survey or something? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, what’s up with that "alleged" word being repeatedly submitted into the article? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia and Western media when deal with crimes by living people not sentenced by courts tend to use the word "alleged". The reason is presumption of innocence - a person is innocent until found guilty be a court. Russian and Ukrainian sources tend to be direct in this regard. This case differ as most of the perpetuators might avoid courts. I propose the following criteria:
- If a Western source do not use the word "alleged" we do not use it either
- If an International or Ukrainian court sentenced perpetuator when we do not use the word "alleged"
- There are a lot of evidence that courts in Russia and the separatist quasi-states are biased so we use the word "alleged" even if there is a sentence by such court
- Otherwise we use the word "alleged"
- Another issue is with the cluster munition sentence. Using cluster munition is not a crime, many countries do it, both Russia and Ukraine have done it. It does not need the word "alleged". Using cluster munition in a manner that endanger civilian population beyond expected is a war crime. We need to either satisfy criteria above or put the word "alleged" Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we want to "compromise rather than edit war", as @Alex Bakharev suggests we do, we'd better unpack the various contents of VM's proposed edit (this one). I suggest we continue discussing the Donetsk missile issue in the dedicated thread "one missile falls on Donetsk"; I've just added (at 09:03, 23 June 2022) my comments on that in replying to MVBW. Please have a look and add your comments there.
- Re cautious language ("alleged"), we can continue the discussion in the dedicated thread All Russian war crimes are only "alleged". I will add my comments on that there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- If we want to "compromise rather than edit war", as @Alex Bakharev suggests we do, we'd better unpack the various contents of VM's proposed edit (this one). I suggest we continue discussing the Donetsk missile issue in the dedicated thread "one missile falls on Donetsk"; I've just added (at 09:03, 23 June 2022) my comments on that in replying to MVBW. Please have a look and add your comments there.
- Well, Wikipedia and Western media when deal with crimes by living people not sentenced by courts tend to use the word "alleged". The reason is presumption of innocence - a person is innocent until found guilty be a court. Russian and Ukrainian sources tend to be direct in this regard. This case differ as most of the perpetuators might avoid courts. I propose the following criteria:
- This is an art, not a science. When something is alleged, we must be clear it is. However, an excessive use of qualifiers such as alleged can cast doubt on the claims, which is also a bias. We want to convey that these are credible accusations that have yet to be proved.
- Also, we should not ourselves determine which courts are credible, we leave that to reliable sources reporting the cases.
- Finally, I agree that we should use the degree of certainty in Western media sources, such as U.S. cable news, and U.S. and UK broadsheets.
- TFD (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- We should definitely not limit ourselves to Western mainstream media sources; we should primarily use WP:RS, whether they are Western, East European, or any others if they appear to be reliable for the topic. No need for westsplaining. There are plenty of Ukrainian and Russian reliable sources on the invasion and the war crimes, especially:
- Boud (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not say we should limit ourselves to Western mainstream media sources, I said, "we should use the degree of certainty in Western media sources." TFD (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The degree of certainty in The Kyiv Independent, The Moscow Times, and Meduza is more reliable than that of US cable news on this topic; Amnesty International (headed by non-Westerners for much of the past few decades, so only somewhat "Western") and the International Criminal Court are also a lot more reliable than US cable news. Some sources are more reliable than others; we won't completely avoid WP:BIAS, but we can still make a reasonable effort and try to avoid westsplaining. Boud (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not say we should limit ourselves to Western mainstream media sources, I said, "we should use the degree of certainty in Western media sources." TFD (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Russian authorities and armed forces have been accused of committing war crimes
I do not accept such biased language. Some day it will be "Russian authorities and armed forces have been accused of committing alleged war crimes in alleged Ukraine".Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Then take your complaint to the policy pages. Articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do the RS say "Russian authorities and armed forces have been accused" and never "Russian authorities and armed forces have committed crimes"? Creative quoting of RS is manipulation. We have RS about Geocentric model, eg. Plato and Aristotle, but we reject the model. The problem is the timing. The same phrase may be acceptable in 2021, controversial in February 202 and dumb today.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I think now that the article has received more attention, it’s pretty clear that this POV over-the-top over usage of “alleged” when referring to Russian war crimes has absolutely no consensus. Volunteer Marek 00:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I've proven that the two proposed edits have factual and editorial mistakes, and also grammar mistakes (here above, thread All Russian war crimes are only "alleged"). IMHO the only two "alleged" we should remove are "Reporters Without Borders alleged that Russian forces had threatened" and "French President Emmanuel Macron described the alleged killings in the Ukrainian town of Bucha" (here above N. 6). Perhaps we might also drop the first "alleged" in the lead ("allegedly exposed the civilian population") but frankly I don't think that would be an improvement: ascertaining if an attack is indiscriminate and/or disproportionate requires an assessment of military necessities that neither AI nor HRW are in the position to make; what AI and HRW do is to allege, claim, declare, denounce, etc., that something is an indiscriminate attack. Anyway, even if we were to drop that "allegedly" in the lead we should refrain from rephrasing the sentence in the way you proposed as that would introduce a factual mistake (here above N. 1). All the other proposed changes (Donetsk missile included) are pejorative, POV, and not supported by sources nor consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think we're in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Volunteer Marek 23:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, sure, I agree with Xx236. As our page "War crimes" correctly tells (and this is referenced to a scholarly RS), A war crime is a violation of the laws of war ... such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, the conscription of children in the military, committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender.... Almost everything currently described on the page are very real war crimes as a matter of fact. They are not just "accusations", and few of them have been "alleged". My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Edit request fully-protected
In the Killing and torture in Makariv section, change the last clause "killing elderly couple inside" to "killing an elderly couple inside". Also, in the Genocide section, remove the stray space between the refs in the last sentence. Wretchskull (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 raped in Bucha, held captive in a basement, nine became pregnant
We're now reporting this info twice: Lyudmyla Denisova, outlined the case of a group of women and girls who were locked in a basement for almost a month, and reported that nine of them had become pregnant
(source NYT) and Denisova stated that about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were raped in Bucha, and nine became pregnant
(source BBC). Digging a bit deeper one also finds that Denisova said that "a telephone helpline offering support had received at least 25 reports of rape of women and girls" (BBC).
AFIK the info has not been independently verified so far, and Denisova was recently dismissed because, among other things, she was criticised for have made unverified claims about sexual violence against minors. So I think that these contents do not pass the threshold of WP:V and I suggest we remove them entirely until an independent reliable source verifies them. Reporting unverified and possibly false claims might risk to undermine the credibility of well-documented and highly notable information, and possibly that's the reason why some Ukrainian politicians thought that Denisova's communication approach was a liability to their cause. Anyway we shouldn't publish unverified claims. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- That was discussed already (see above [55]). What you refer to (i.e. woment in the basement and 25 reports) are different things/claims that both should be included to the page. NYT and BBC are excellent RS, and of course we can used them, with an attribution to the source. A lot of statements by public officials were not independently verified by journalists or others. That does not mean much. Of course if a specific claim (e.g. the incident with a group of women being raped during many days in the basement) was explicitly disproved in some RS (saying there was no in fact such incident), that would be a different matter.My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ukrainska Pravda published major new details-
- in russian;
- https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/articles/2022/06/27/7354838/
- meduza's english lang summary-
- https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/06/28/we-work-on-the-information-front
- i would be skeptical of anything she said in april, i think Cononsense (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I saw this article but have concerns. First, the translation to English is grossly incorrect even for the title. Speaking about the Ukrainian language source, who is the author? I did not find anything about her. However, if it qualifies as RS, it does cast doubt on certain claims, especially about the infant rapes (it does not specifically mention the case in the title of this thread). But it is just that: casting a serious doubt, without providing a single example of any statement that was proven to be wrong. Things like that are typical for "yellow journalism". I wound not use this source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- yeah, Ukrayinska Pravda ended up changing the title and adding other text after a media firestorm
- some criticisms here:
- https://detector.media/community/article/200585/2022-06-30-ukrainska-pravda-vs-lyudmyla-denisova-shcho-krashche-rozyatryty-ranu-chy-zamesty-smittya-pid-kylymok/
- i think the prosecutor general's office is likely to comment, so I would wait for that Cononsense (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I see. Apparently, some claims came from the anonymous calling hotline established by Denisova; no criminal cases was opened. If so, then even the prosecutor general's office can verify little. But the claims were so widely published in many highest quality RS, so in my view, they should be included unless explicitly disproved or retracted (this is not the case). Looking at other most reliable and more recent sources about rapes [56], they say "The Ukrainian prosecutor’s office has not released its own case counts. Officials say they have only a partial picture of sexual assault in the conflict and don’t want to underplay the issue... The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has been working to corroborate accounts. Of the 124 allegations of conflict-related sexual violence it has received, it was able to confirm 24 — 12 involving Russian armed forces or affiliated groups, five involving Ukrainian armed forces and seven involving unidentified individuals in territory controlled by Ukraine. The United Nations determined that another 44 were impossible to verify and that eight were false or highly unlikely. It continues to investigate another 48 allegations. Pramila Patten, the U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, called that only the “tip of the iceberg” of “the most constantly and massively underreported allegation.”. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- But these numbers are misleading. Basically, there are no meaningful statistical data. The best one can say is like Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said: “There have been multiple reports from survivors of Russia’s soldiers breaking down doors to basements where women were sheltering and raping them … done in front of their children” and “filmed by Russian soldiers,” (from article above). My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I see. Apparently, some claims came from the anonymous calling hotline established by Denisova; no criminal cases was opened. If so, then even the prosecutor general's office can verify little. But the claims were so widely published in many highest quality RS, so in my view, they should be included unless explicitly disproved or retracted (this is not the case). Looking at other most reliable and more recent sources about rapes [56], they say "The Ukrainian prosecutor’s office has not released its own case counts. Officials say they have only a partial picture of sexual assault in the conflict and don’t want to underplay the issue... The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has been working to corroborate accounts. Of the 124 allegations of conflict-related sexual violence it has received, it was able to confirm 24 — 12 involving Russian armed forces or affiliated groups, five involving Ukrainian armed forces and seven involving unidentified individuals in territory controlled by Ukraine. The United Nations determined that another 44 were impossible to verify and that eight were false or highly unlikely. It continues to investigate another 48 allegations. Pramila Patten, the U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, called that only the “tip of the iceberg” of “the most constantly and massively underreported allegation.”. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I saw this article but have concerns. First, the translation to English is grossly incorrect even for the title. Speaking about the Ukrainian language source, who is the author? I did not find anything about her. However, if it qualifies as RS, it does cast doubt on certain claims, especially about the infant rapes (it does not specifically mention the case in the title of this thread). But it is just that: casting a serious doubt, without providing a single example of any statement that was proven to be wrong. Things like that are typical for "yellow journalism". I wound not use this source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- in March and April quality press outlets were relying extensively on her statements and often reported them (usually with attribution to the source) without verifying them. Denisova should not be taken as reliable source; what she says doesn't pass the threshold of WP:V unless it has been independently verified. We should identify contents exclusively supported by Denisova's statements and remove them from this article and elsewhere. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- With regard to this revert [58] @My very best wishes I don't know if you can claim consensus. All the editors who took part to the discussions on this have expressed the view that Denisova cannot be considered as a reliable source on sexual crimes in Ukraine during the invasion. Although in April her statements were still reported by reliable sources, it then emerged that they were not verified enough: it's quite likely that she was just repeating what had been said to a telephone helpline without applying any check whatsoever. There's no reason why we should retain in this article this kind of allegations as we are committed to "strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources" WP:5P2. Are you sure you want to go down this road? No other editor (as far as I know) agrees with your assessment on the reliability of this kind of statements by Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- No one disputed that BBC and NYT are reliable sources, and we simply include what these sources say. The specific claims reported in these and other RS (as appears on the page) were not retracted or disproved in other RS. Hence they should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. Publishing a statement without verifying its accuracy is just like publishing an interview, and interviews are a secondary source on the facts that are stated in the interview (and a primary source on those facts related to the views, feelings and experiences the interviewee). As any secondary source they need to be reliable to be published here. If NYT were to publish a declaration by Trump about the Confederacy having won the American civil war, that information would be verifiable enough for the article on Trump, but not verifiable enough for the article on the American civil war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No one disputed that BBC and NYT are reliable sources, and we simply include what these sources say. The specific claims reported in these and other RS (as appears on the page) were not retracted or disproved in other RS. Hence they should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- With regard to this revert [58] @My very best wishes I don't know if you can claim consensus. All the editors who took part to the discussions on this have expressed the view that Denisova cannot be considered as a reliable source on sexual crimes in Ukraine during the invasion. Although in April her statements were still reported by reliable sources, it then emerged that they were not verified enough: it's quite likely that she was just repeating what had been said to a telephone helpline without applying any check whatsoever. There's no reason why we should retain in this article this kind of allegations as we are committed to "strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources" WP:5P2. Are you sure you want to go down this road? No other editor (as far as I know) agrees with your assessment on the reliability of this kind of statements by Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- in March and April quality press outlets were relying extensively on her statements and often reported them (usually with attribution to the source) without verifying them. Denisova should not be taken as reliable source; what she says doesn't pass the threshold of WP:V unless it has been independently verified. We should identify contents exclusively supported by Denisova's statements and remove them from this article and elsewhere. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Article scope
Can we change this article to something like "Alleged Russian War crimes in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine"? At present, there is little or no literature that discusses war crimes by both sides, hence there is a notability issue. That would not preclude us from having an article about Ukrainian war crimes, provided it was a notable topic, which at present it is not.
Also, per WP:BLPCRIME, we are not supposed to determine whether living persons have committed crimes, but should leave that to the courts. As soon as reliable sources determine that at least some of the allegations have been proved, we can remove alleged.
TFD (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- We could change it to "Russian War crimes in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine". No freakin' way we're sticking "alleged" in the title. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant here. This policy is about a specific person (like "Petrov") who is not a public figure. If RS say that Russian forces committed war crime X, so should we.My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's a novel argument: only armies can commit war crimes, not individuals. That defense was not accepted at Nuremburg, but if you have any evidence it has been overturned, I would like to see it. TFD (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Responsibility for war crimes is individual, not collective. Jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court, under the Rome Statute, is related to national citizenship of the suspect(s) and the victim(s), and the place of the event. But for criminal responsibility, see War crime:
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by the combatants, such as ...
(bold added). If the responsibility can be proved to go high enough up the chain of command to commander X, then that individual commander X is charged with a war crime, not the military unit that s/he is responsible for as a whole.As for the proposal itself, I see no point in excluding war crimes by Ukrainians. So far there are very few reports on these, so there's no need for a WP:SPLIT based on the suspected perpetrators. (Other ideas for splits might be needed soon.) The fact that the overwhelming majority are by Russian forces does not mean that we need to insert that into the title: it's unnecessary and would give the impression of introducing POV by limiting the scope of the article. Boud (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)- The reason to exclude them is that most if not all the literature so far is about Russian war crimes: "Ukraine opens more investigations into possible Russian war crimes" (Thomson Reuters), "What is a war crime and could Putin be prosecuted over Ukraine?" (BBC), "Ukraine reports 15,000 suspected war crimes" "Ukraine: Apparent War Crimes in Russia-Controlled Areas" (Human Rights Watch).
- That btw is the approach reliable sources take on WW2 crimes. Sources don't write about Allied and Axis war crimes together. If you do that, there is an implicit comparison. That's fine, but only so long as the comparison is explicitly related. Imagine for example a book called Nazi and American war crimes in WWII.
- There are several potential reasons there are more reported Russian war crimes than Ukrainian and a neutral article would explain the reasons and their degree of support in reliable sources, otherwise it POV.
- TFD (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- i think it would be kind of strange to put "*ALLEGED RUSSIAN* war crimes", especially because some war crimes arent alleged, and, not all of them were commited by the russian army. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- All Russian war crimes are committed by Russian soldiers or their superiors by definition. "Alleged" means not proved. In most countries guilt is determined by courts after which, provided it was fair, reliable sources accept it as proved. So for example a recent Thomson-Reuters article says, "Ukraine opens more investigations into possible Russian war crimes." That's just the way that accusations of crimes are reported in respected sources that maintain at least a neutral tone. Once the cases have been concluded to the satisfaction of mainstream sources, they will be described as actual war crimes. TFD (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've raised a WP:MOS talk page discussion about the distinction between 'alleged' and 'accused' in MOS:ALLEGED, which I think bungles the linguistic distinction. But if you look at the Oxford dictionary definitions for these, a key distinction is that 'alleged' carries the aspersion of their being no proof, unlike accused, which merely reflects accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's helpful. As a non-native English speaker, I'm not aware of the nuances. What about "reportedly"? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good question. I imagine that by Wikipedia standards, 'reportedly' could be viewed as falling into the same slightly weasel-y way, but in general usage it can be used to assert that information has been reported, without any particular presumption of veracity or falsehood - in that sense it is fairly neutral. Best if supported by reliable sources though. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- The reason why I'm now thinking about having a RfC on this is that we have both RS using direct/observational language ("The Russians did that") and RS using indirect or cautious language ("it's likely/apparently/allegedly" etc.). If we were to maintain the latter we would need an adverb that doesn't cast any shade of doubt on the allegation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Absent consensus, quite possibly necessary. Such cases exemplify why a wider review of the MOS:ALLEGED guidelines might be good. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- What about something like "Human rights organisations and international agencies reported that the Russian army..."? Do you think that that, while avoiding the use of Wikivoice, also prevents any implications of falsehood or lack of evidence? If so, I may use this formulation either for a RfC or for an edit which hopefully might encounter consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Absent consensus, quite possibly necessary. Such cases exemplify why a wider review of the MOS:ALLEGED guidelines might be good. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- The reason why I'm now thinking about having a RfC on this is that we have both RS using direct/observational language ("The Russians did that") and RS using indirect or cautious language ("it's likely/apparently/allegedly" etc.). If we were to maintain the latter we would need an adverb that doesn't cast any shade of doubt on the allegation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good question. I imagine that by Wikipedia standards, 'reportedly' could be viewed as falling into the same slightly weasel-y way, but in general usage it can be used to assert that information has been reported, without any particular presumption of veracity or falsehood - in that sense it is fairly neutral. Best if supported by reliable sources though. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's helpful. As a non-native English speaker, I'm not aware of the nuances. What about "reportedly"? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've raised a WP:MOS talk page discussion about the distinction between 'alleged' and 'accused' in MOS:ALLEGED, which I think bungles the linguistic distinction. But if you look at the Oxford dictionary definitions for these, a key distinction is that 'alleged' carries the aspersion of their being no proof, unlike accused, which merely reflects accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- All Russian war crimes are committed by Russian soldiers or their superiors by definition. "Alleged" means not proved. In most countries guilt is determined by courts after which, provided it was fair, reliable sources accept it as proved. So for example a recent Thomson-Reuters article says, "Ukraine opens more investigations into possible Russian war crimes." That's just the way that accusations of crimes are reported in respected sources that maintain at least a neutral tone. Once the cases have been concluded to the satisfaction of mainstream sources, they will be described as actual war crimes. TFD (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- i think it would be kind of strange to put "*ALLEGED RUSSIAN* war crimes", especially because some war crimes arent alleged, and, not all of them were commited by the russian army. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Responsibility for war crimes is individual, not collective. Jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court, under the Rome Statute, is related to national citizenship of the suspect(s) and the victim(s), and the place of the event. But for criminal responsibility, see War crime:
- That's a novel argument: only armies can commit war crimes, not individuals. That defense was not accepted at Nuremburg, but if you have any evidence it has been overturned, I would like to see it. TFD (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- On this page we mostly just describe the war crimes themselves that had happen, and mass murder of civilians and rapes by military forces are obviously war crimes. However, in almost all cases the exact pepetrators (like Ivanov, Petrov, etc.) are simply unknown. I think what we did here so far is a reasonable approach. The WP:BLPCRIME is only relevant for cases when there are specific perpetrators, accused or convicted (Ivanov, Petrov, etc.) There are few such cases here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with MVBW here above. Even if we cannot pinpoint the perpetrators, there are lots of war crimes we can describe in a verifiable way (by the way, amongst them there's also the missile in Donetsk: the perpetrators are unknown, but still we have plenty of reliable sources saying that that has happened, civilians were killed, and it amounts to a war crime). So there's no need of adding an "alleged" to the title of this article. When reliable sources say or imply that it is doubtful, albeit possible, that something amounts to a war crime, we can signal it using the "alleged" terminology.
- Re scope of this article, I would change its title to "International crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". That title would justify having a section on genocide. Moreover, we could have a section on the crime of aggression. However, if we decide to keep the existing title, then IMHO the section on genocide is not justifiable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The first sentence of war crime currently gives genocide as an example of a war crime. While genocide can occur in a non-war situation (such as the ongoing Uyghur genocide), the current case is clearly in the context of a war situation, in which case the war crimes component of genocide is a significant part of the genocide. This has come up earlier on this talk page, with Buidhe's comment here:
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.
In any case, we only have one short section+paragraph on genocide, so I don't see why that section+paragraph and would have to be removed with the current title. Boud (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The first sentence of war crime currently gives genocide as an example of a war crime. While genocide can occur in a non-war situation (such as the ongoing Uyghur genocide), the current case is clearly in the context of a war situation, in which case the war crimes component of genocide is a significant part of the genocide. This has come up earlier on this talk page, with Buidhe's comment here:
- I agree with MVBW here above. Even if we cannot pinpoint the perpetrators, there are lots of war crimes we can describe in a verifiable way (by the way, amongst them there's also the missile in Donetsk: the perpetrators are unknown, but still we have plenty of reliable sources saying that that has happened, civilians were killed, and it amounts to a war crime). So there's no need of adding an "alleged" to the title of this article. When reliable sources say or imply that it is doubtful, albeit possible, that something amounts to a war crime, we can signal it using the "alleged" terminology.
Can we use reportedly?
We shouldn't site news agencies as sources. If we want to stay neutral, we must use "reportedly" before any claim. Nothing is confirmed until the fog of war clears up. Can we practice neutrality like the Good old days? 103.58.74.214 (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Indiscriminate attacks on Donetsk People's Republic
@My very best wishes you removed not only the section on the missile in Donetsk [59] but also the new section on the Maisky Market attack [60]. With regard to the former, the section has been here since end-March so (unless I'm mistaken) it is you who should get a consensus for removing it from the article as per WP:NOCON. Many editors asked you not to remove the section. With regard to the second section, the one on Maisky Market, there WP:ONUS applies and I'm the one who needs to find consensus for inclusion. Could you tell me why you think that that is not a notable attack
? I'm afraid that the removal of all the indiscriminate attacks on DPR is politically motivated and incompatible with WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- First one was debated already on this page [61]. I do not see consensus. You included the section about Maisky Market attack a day ago: [62]. It is not even clear if this attack had happen at all; this is just a single claim by DNR rebels. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- As about the missile attack in Donetsk, I could agree with you if (a) you provide a couple of RS saying that was a war crime, and (b) these RS say assertively who was the perpetrator. To my knowledge, the most recent strong RS [63] describe this as a propaganda stunt and a probable false flag attack. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- At least another editor has already pointed to you that it's not at all clear why the information on the identity of the perpetrators is necessary in order to publish. By the way, the information you're actually asking for is not about who the perpetrators are (we never know), it's about their nationality and/or the party they are fighting for. Which proves that your approach to war crimes is entirely political: it's a matter of distributing scores between fighting parties. But that can't be the approach of a Wikipedia article: we're interested in what happened (a war crime?) to whom (are there any victims?) and the information on who did it, while valuable, is not indispensable. Finally, the notion that we need "a couple" of RS is another fabrication of yours with no grounding in WP policy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am just saying that too little was published about this incident and too little is known about it to be included on this already very long page. Or, in other words, according to the article in WaPo (linked above), this is just a minor episode in Russian war of propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree on using WoPo, but we shouldn't rephrase or interpret what they say. They say: "Ruslan Leviev, founder of a Russian analytical group that uses open-source data to track military activities, said photos from the incident suggest the missile flew from Russian-controlled territory and was not intercepted." That's it. They don't say he was right, they don't say he was wrong. With regard to the responsibility for the attack, all they say is what we were saying in the section you removed: "Russia and its separatist proxies blamed the attack on a Ukrainian Tochka-U missile they said was intercepted, but Ukraine said it was a Russian missile." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am just saying that too little was published about this incident and too little is known about it to be included on this already very long page. Or, in other words, according to the article in WaPo (linked above), this is just a minor episode in Russian war of propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- May I ask what is your approach to the war? If you speculate on Mvbw one, please declare yours. Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- At least another editor has already pointed to you that it's not at all clear why the information on the identity of the perpetrators is necessary in order to publish. By the way, the information you're actually asking for is not about who the perpetrators are (we never know), it's about their nationality and/or the party they are fighting for. Which proves that your approach to war crimes is entirely political: it's a matter of distributing scores between fighting parties. But that can't be the approach of a Wikipedia article: we're interested in what happened (a war crime?) to whom (are there any victims?) and the information on who did it, while valuable, is not indispensable. Finally, the notion that we need "a couple" of RS is another fabrication of yours with no grounding in WP policy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- "As consequence of the conflict, large swathes of the Donbas region, on both sides of the "contact line", have become contaminated with landmines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW)[1]. According to the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine, in 2020 Ukraine was of one of the most mine-affected countries in the world, with nearly 1,200 mine/ERW casualties since the beginning of the conflict in 2014.[2] A report by UNICEF released in December 2019 said that 172 children had been injured or killed due to landmines and other explosives, over 750 educational facilities had been damaged or destroyed, and 430,000 children lived with psychological traumas associated with war.[3][4]"
- A very good text describing Russian responsibility. The numbers are obviously obsolete. Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you @Xx236. Did you know that it was actually me who wrote that piece on landmines or did you pick it up randomly? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Et voilà [64]. It's a bit off topic, but thank you anyway for the appreciation Xx236. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know, I copy your accusations to better understand your pro-Russian motivation. It was Russia who totally destroied Donbas, expelled , murdered or imprisoned local people. The pre-2014 tensions look like eden to the contemporary vicitms. Russia attacked Ukraine using many false-flag operations, Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War), FSB and other formations officers. Russia refused to cooperate during Minsk format talks. Russia invided in 2022 without any rational reason, making the NATO stronger, suspending NS2. Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- i've no pro-Russian motivation and I've always edited here and elsewhere without paying the slightest attention to the Russian/Ukrainian divide. Honestly this is not my war, otherwise I wouldn't be editing here. But if you think differently and want to discuss my motivations and allegiances, the right place is the thread now open at WP:AN/I. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- So you are not aware of pro-Russian tone of your opinions and you provoke people inadevertendly? Will this Wikipedia be better without VM? It will be more biased, yes. Xx236 (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know, I copy your accusations to better understand your pro-Russian motivation. It was Russia who totally destroied Donbas, expelled , murdered or imprisoned local people. The pre-2014 tensions look like eden to the contemporary vicitms. Russia attacked Ukraine using many false-flag operations, Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War), FSB and other formations officers. Russia refused to cooperate during Minsk format talks. Russia invided in 2022 without any rational reason, making the NATO stronger, suspending NS2. Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Et voilà [64]. It's a bit off topic, but thank you anyway for the appreciation Xx236. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- In regard to Maisky Market, it seems to me we are far from having sufficient sourcing. What we have is some sourcing saying that pro-Russian officials said that an attack took place. That's not the same thing. For example, the headline "Maisky market attack" is misleading. What we have is a claim by pro-Russian officials that there was an attack. Not only that, the sourcing of the pro-Russian claim is itself only moderately good. Hence this material is far from sufficient for inclusion. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that Newsweek, Euronews and Reuters (plus video) are good enough sources. Admittedly there are many "unknowns", but DPR authorities called the incident a war crime ("terrorist attack"), which is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim given that a market is a civilian object, there are civilian casualties and no discernible military target - so this looks either as a deliberate attack on civilians or as an indiscriminate attack. A few lines on the incident should be included in a newly created section "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks">"Donetsk People's Republic" (now removed). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Multiple problems here. First of all, those are mid-level sources. Conspicuously absent from your list are NYT, BBC, Al Jazeera, or similar. But secondly, you cannot change "DNR officials said X" into "X". They are different statements. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect there are a handful of Western journalists, if any, in DPR now, which means that what happens there necessarily gets a scarce coverage from our WP:RS here. But that's not a reason for sweeping under the carpet the small coverage that we get. Based on the sources we have, we can write with verifiable accuracy that
On 13 June 2022, an artillery attack reportedly hit a marketplace in Donetsk, capital of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic. The attack happened at the Maisky Market in the central part of the city, starting a large fire. The pro-Russian Donetsk News Agency claimed the munitions used were "155-mm-calibre NATO-standard artillery munitions." Five civilians were killed, including a child, and at least 22 were left injured
. - As far as I know allegations of war crimes, as opposed to independently verified and documented war crimes, have always sufficed for the purposes of inclusion in this article. Remember that (for some reason that I cannot understand) we are still reporting the unverifiable and highly dubious allegations of sex crimes involving children by former ombudsperson Denisova. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the sourcing of that one is a lot better. NYT and BBC and lots of others versus Newsweek and EuroNews. This is not a close question. Also note the appropriate way in which we follow the sources. We say "the prosecutor said X." That's exactly what the sources say. We do not, as your previous section did, change hearsay of X into a claim of X itself. Lastly, even if you disagree with the inclusion of the prosecutor's statement, the answer is not to go pushing some considerably-worse-sourced allegation from the other side. Doing it with a misleading title makes it that much worse. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect there are a handful of Western journalists, if any, in DPR now, which means that what happens there necessarily gets a scarce coverage from our WP:RS here. But that's not a reason for sweeping under the carpet the small coverage that we get. Based on the sources we have, we can write with verifiable accuracy that
- Thank you @Xx236. Did you know that it was actually me who wrote that piece on landmines or did you pick it up randomly? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Legal proceedings reorganised
I took the liberty of reorganising the 'legal proceedings' section, especially as I'm the person mainly responsible for having created a lot of the content there. It could probably still be improved further. The main thing I see in organising the material is that
- there are three components to actual war crimes investigations+trials:
- ICC
- Ukraine + supporting international teams (including US lawyers even though the US has not ratified the Rome Statute - the US reserves its citizens' "right" to carry out war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide)
- universal jurisdiction;
- then there is the ICJ whose authority is often more moral than practical (the US refused to cooperate with the ICJ in the 1980s);
- there could hypothetically be created a court for the crime of aggression for cases excluded from the ICC, or even for the Russian invasion alone, but then that would like highly un-neutral (why exclude US crimes of aggression during the XXIst century?)
- investigations/enquiries by well-respected bodies that cannot conduct prosecutions
- UNHRC International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine
- HRMMU
- OSCE ODIHR report
Maybe someone has a better idea than the current structure. A meaningful structure is better than a long list. Boud (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
RfC on Missile attacks on Donetsk People's Republic
Should we include a subsection "Donetsk People's Republic" in the section "Areas hit by indiscriminate attacks"? See diff. In that section, should we include contents on the March 2022 Donetsk attack? See diff. And should we include contents on the Maisky Market attack? See diff.
The whole section and subsections can be read in this sandbox. For background discussions see section #one missile falls on Donetsk and section #Indiscriminate attacks on Donetsk People's Republic above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- ^ "Ukraine's desperate attempt to defuse landmines – as more are planted". the Guardian. 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2022-02-02.
- ^ "Landmines Still Pose a Threat to Two Million Ukrainians". United Nations Ukraine. 5 April 2021. Retrieved 2 February 2022.
- ^ "430,000 children continue to bear the brunt of eastern Ukraine conflict". www.unicef.org. Retrieved 2022-02-02.
- ^ "Children endure deadly legacy of landmines in eastern Ukraine". www.unicef.org. Retrieved 2022-02-02.