Jump to content

Talk:Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Super Dromaeosaurus (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 4 August 2022 (→‎Requested move 22 July 2022). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Finding a viable name

For this article to survive an WP:AfD, it would need a name that accurately describes the current content and that is considered notable. Problems with the current name include: the Russian invasion started in 2014, and genocide didn't start then; the name sounds like there is wide agreement among WP:RS that genocide has occurred, which is not the case; preference in style is for in the 2022 Russian invasion rather than during. Possible names that could be viable include:

  1. Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
  2. Debate about genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
  3. Claims of Ukrainian genocide in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I suggest informal search for consensus, though if that doesn't work, a more structured discussion could be used. Without a name change, there is a big risk of confusing genocide itself from politicians' claims of genocide. Boud (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more specific title is also necessary to distinguish the subject of this article from the Holodomor, which could also be called a Ukrainian genocide due to a Russian "invasion" - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all these concerns over the page title. I think Option 1 would be the best name, and my second preference would be for Option 3. Also, I see that "Ukraine genocide" has been recently created as an article, and could do with some help... QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the move. I think this at least sets a viable topic likely to survive an AfD, especially seeing the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukraine genocide. Regarding "X-ian genocide" vs "genocide of X-ians", Category:Genocides seems to favour "X-ian genocide" by number of articles, but "genocide of X-ians" in terms of the more recent events (Yazidis, Serbs). I suspect that the reason is the difference between common names that have stuck versus descriptive names that minimise ambiguity ("X-ian genocide" can be misconstrued as "genocide by X-ians", although the usage seems to always mean "genocide of X-ians"). Since this case is not (yet?) a common name (for genocide scholars or other historians), being descriptive rather than common makes sense. There is also a RM at Ukraine genocide that looks likely to reach consensus for Ukrainian genocide, not genocide of Ukrainians, which also favours the current title (though I'm going to go over there and recommend a plural name). TL;DR: I think that the current choice (1.) is fair. Boud (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall the title is pretty good, imo. I might replace "genocide of Ukrainians in" with just "genocide in" or "genocide during". That Ukrainians were/are the victims is quite clear from the rest of the title. Anyway, as RS pile up for/against the designation, the title can easily be changed (to "debate", "question", or most likely, removing "claims of" altogether). Ovinus (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about “claims”: it is about the crimes, and whether they constitute genocide or not. (And see WP:CLAIM: the term claims has connotations of doubt.) A more neutral name might use debate, allegations, question, but these still occupy a space of bothsidesism, with the assumption that the absence of guilt (of genocide) means innocence, when it does not.

A good NPOV title would say something like “the investigation of Russian crimes in Ukraine as genocide,” which acknowledges the existence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. —Michael Z. 16:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Events of genocide versus genocidal intent

The current form of the article is mostly about debate, and neglects the key question of evidence for the events of genocide versus evidence of (or claims of) genocidal intent. Even if this is an article about debate about genocide rather than genocide itself, it would still be better to show a clear separation between events and genocidal intent. Boud (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New assessments of the situation as genocide

  • Stephen Blank: "Russian war aims include the elimination of the territorial, political, economic and cultural basis of Ukrainian statehood. Putin himself has often declared that Ukrainians are really Russians (“one people”) and has argued at length that Ukraine has no right to exist as an independent and sovereign state. In other words, this is a genocidal war in line with the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention. It is being waged with the explicit intention to “completely or partially destroy a group based on its nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion." Source: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/appeasing-putin-means-enabling-genocide/
  • Yonah Diamond
  • Professor John Packer
  • Erin Farrell Rosenberg
  • Rayhan Asat
  • Adejoké Babington-Ashaye
  • Christopher Atwood
  • Santiago A. Canton
  • The Honorable Irwin Cotler
  • Professor David Crane
  • Dato Param Cumaraswamy
  • Ambassador Kelley Currie
  • Professor Tanya L. Domi
  • Dr. Tatyana Eatwell
  • Mark Ellis
  • Zoe Gladstone
  • Professor Max Hilaire
  • Mofidul Hoque
  • Professor Steven T. Katz
  • Professor Hiroaki Kuromiya
  • Professor Errol Mendes
  • Professor Norman M. Naimark
  • Dr. Melanie O’Brien
  • Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab
  • Professor Max Pensky
  • Emily Prey
  • Ambassador Allan Rock
  • Michael Scharf
  • Ambassador David J. Scheffer
  • Professor Marci Shore
  • Dr. David Simon
  • Dr. Gregory H. Stanton
  • Chief Charles Taku
  • Dr. György Tatár
  • Robert Tyler
  • Dr Azeem Ibrahim Director, Special Initiatives, New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy.
  • Honourable Irwin Cotler, International Chair, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights Montreal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russia's actions in Ukraine provide enough evidence to conclude that Moscow is inciting genocide and committing atrocities intended to destroy the Ukrainian people, according to the first independent report into allegations of genocide in that country.

The legal report, signed by more than 30 leading legal scholars and genocide experts, accuses the Russian state of violating several articles of the United Nations Genocide Convention. It warns there is a serious and imminent risk of genocide in Ukraine, backing the accusations with a long list of evidence including examples of mass killings of civilians, forced deportations and dehumanizing anti-Ukrainian rhetoric used by top Russian officials. The report was put together by New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, a US-based think tank, and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights which is based in Canada, and is set to release on Friday, with the authors sending copies to parliaments, governments and international organizations around the world".

Report: https://www.raoulwallenbergcentre.org/images/reports/An-Independent-Legal-Analysis-of-the-Russian-Federations-Breaches-of-the-Genocide-Convention-in-Ukraine-and-the-Duty-to-Prevent-2.pdf

Source:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/27/europe/russia-ukraine-genocide-warning-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark

"Putin’s genocidal policy toward Ukrainians has a clearly expressed ideological and political underpinning."

Source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/is-putin-committing-genocide-in-ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Irvin-Erickson is Assistant Professor at the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University, where he directs the Raphaël Lemkin Genocide Prevention Program.

"The genocidal intent of the war has been clear from Putin’s own statements, delivered to Russian and international audiences, before and during the war, which explicitly outline the destruction of the Ukrainian nation and ethnicity as the Russian state’s policy objectives of the war".

Source: http://opiniojuris.org/2022/04/21/is-russia-committing-genocide-in-ukraine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward B. Westermann, professor of history at Texas A&M University–San Antonio, who teaches and writes about genocide.

"Stop dithering. Ukraine is genocide"

Source:

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/05/15/stop-dithering-ukraine-is-genocide/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen J. Kennedy, executive director of World Without Genocide at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, an adjunct professor of law and the representative of World Without Genocide to the UN Department of Global Communications.

"Putin continues the Russian history of war and genocide in Ukraine"

Source:

https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2022/03/putin-continues-the-russian-history-of-war-and-genocide-in-ukraine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Hirsch, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

"Russian leaders began by calling Ukraine’s leaders “Nazis” to cover up their plan for a predatory war of aggression. Now they are calling for genocide. President Biden was right to sound the alarm about genocide. The world must act".

Source: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3267060-de-ukrainization-is-genocide-biden-was-right-to-sound-the-alarm/

Jeff Benvenuto, professor of Holocaust and Genocide Program at Gratz College

"In Ukraine, there is in fact multiple genocides."

Source: https://catholicphilly.com/2022/05/listen/genocide-in-ukraine-and-the-risk-for-more-atrocities/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 10:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Bartov, John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History and Professor of History and Professor of German Studies at Brown University

In an interview, Bartov said the RIA Novosti article a turning point on the question of intent. “This is literally a call to extinguish Ukraine and Ukrainian national existence as such, and likely conforms to the definition of genocide.”

Source: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/is-russia-committing-genocide-ukraine/

Oona Hathaway, Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University

"It is increasingly clear that Russia is committing acts of genocide in Ukraine. When President Biden initially accused Russian forces of committing genocide, he was clearly out in front of his lawyers. But the evidence is growing that he was right."

Source: https://twitter.com/oonahathaway/status/1520401264366043138 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7498:2400:A0A0:CAB8:A854:8041 (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Matthews, executive director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University

"The actions of Russian forces in Ukraine demonstrate that Russia has “genocidal intent to destroy Ukraine as a political entity, as a cultural entity, to destroy the Ukrainian people,” Matthews elaborated. “And the intent is being expressed verbally by the media and by the political elites of Russia.”

Source: https://www.thewhig.com/opinion/columnists/expert-world-leaders-suggest-russia-committing-genocide

Susan Smith-Peter, Professor of History at City University of New York-College of Staten Island

"The world is now confronted with a new kind of genocide: one that does not feel the need to hide. This is a 21st century genocide, where Russian authors publish plans for genocide while at the same time accusing the Ukrainians of committing the genocide themselves. This is a postmodern genocide where words don’t seem to matter, even as bodies keep piling up".

Source: https://medium.com/@jkmuf1861/genocide-in-plain-sight-c2c9119ca533

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention

"The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention believes that Russia’s behavior since the 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine is indicative of genocidal intent" (March 22 statement). "Given recent revelations of atrocity in Russian-occupied Ukraine, the Lemkin Institute wishes to underscore its conviction that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine" (April 09 statement).

Sources:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/_files/ugd/9bc553_1bad719c1ac644ec90e34e6e74afb6c0.pdf https://www.lemkininstitute.com/_files/ugd/db28fa_7e0d15a700ff42879f0861003394886a.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa von Joeden-Forgey seems to be cited quite a bit in Wikipedia, but Lemkin Institute or Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention is not (yet?) Wikipedia-notable. The website is quite confusing: it advertises itself prominently as "Home of the Iraq Project" without giving the reader any easy hint as to what the "Iraq Project" actually is. Claiming copyright starting from next year (2023) is also a bit odd. There seem to be some genuine genocide research scholars involved, and the pdf statements sound well prepared and argued, but despite the impressive sounding name, the organisation does not (yet) sound like a strong source. Boud (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Morkevičius, Associated Professor of Political Science at Colgate University and Chicago University

"Finally, the Kremlin's rhetoric, repeated breathlessly on state-controlled TV, has taken on an ever more genocidal tone. And we know from social scientific research that such language is a serious warning of genocidal actions".

Source: https://twitter.com/vmorkevicius/status/1522061362243026945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, certainly. And this is also already described in news sources [1]. Therefore, this page should be renamed to Genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Maria Orsic for collecting all of the sources. At this time I concur, and a new move request ought to be made as soon as the one below is closed. —Michael Z. 18:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Collecting the sources is useful, but copy/pasting cv's of the authors is a distraction, and at least a big part is a copyright violation. Authors who are likely to be Wikipedia notable can have new articles made about them; those who already have articles can be intrawiki linked (as below). Boud (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are authors of the New Lines/Wallenberg report that have Wikipedia articles: Rayhan Asat, Hon. Irwin Cotler, Prof. David Crane (lawyer), Dato Param Cumaraswamy, Amb. Kelley Currie, Mark Ellis (lawyer), Prof. Steven T. Katz, Dr. Norman M. Naimark, Amb. Allan Rock, Michael Scharf, Amb. David J. Scheffer, Prof. Marci Shore, and Dr. Gregory H. Stanton. —Michael Z. 22:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timofey Sergeytsev - A columnist?

https://ontrend.news/ukronazism-timofey-sergeytsev-wikipedia-twitter-age Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
http://zinovievclub.com/authors/timofey_sergeitsev/ Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/russia-ukraine-war-highlights-truths-about-global-capitalism-by-slavoj-zizek-2022-04 "Timofey Sergeytsev presents the full scope of the Kremlin’s genocidal project in Ukraine."Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.juancole.com/2022/04/anifesto-published-reflects.html journalist and Kremlin-aligned political operative Timofey Sergeytsev Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup suggestions

This article still needs quite a bit of work based on the current sources. For anyone willing to have a go, some suggestions include:

  • add archives into the references;
  • prefer English-language references where available (though don't remove the non-English ones if they have relevant extra information);
  • check that the sources actually give the information claimed in the text (there's material that I moved around to make more sense, but I didn't check many of the matches between source and summary from the source; I found one source to a live feed that's no longer valid);
  • I didn't include statements by national leaders in the WP:LEAD, since I would assume that parliamentary statements are better checked than individual leaders' statements (although group think might suggest the opposite, so this is not a strong argument), but if someone wants to add the national leaders' statements, then it would be best to find a single reference for multiple leaders, to avoid putting too many references in the lead;
  • shift from :0, :1, :2, type (visual editor?) reference labels to more meaningful ones that make it easier for editors to remember which source they found which information in.

Boud (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • several of the names of scholars were guessed (by someone other than me) without checking - the Juan Méndez who made the comment is very likely Juan E. Méndez, not Juan Mendez (politician); and Rebecca Hamilton (politician) does not appear to be "Rebecca Hamilton, an international law professor at American University and a former lawyer in the ICC's prosecutor's office.";
  • check thoroughly for copy/pastes from sources; just because The Washington Post describes Rebecca Hamilton (lawyer) as "Rebecca Hamilton, an international law professor at American University and a former lawyer in the ICC's prosecutor's office" does not justify us making a WP:PARAPHRASE with American University professor of international law and former International Criminal Court attorney, which is a (minor) copyright violation, because there is no particular need to state both of these particular pieces of information about Hamilton. If she is notable enough, then someone should create Rebecca Hamilton (lawyer) and readers will then learn more about her.

Boud (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton - associate professor https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/rehamilton/bio Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Law. Boud (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a genocide

In the current version of the article, the #Allegations of insufficient evidence of genocide section has statements by five scholars, only two of whom are currently Wikipedia-notable: Juan E. Méndez and Alexander Laban Hinton, and their statements are mostly more nuanced than "not a genocide", so it's not easy to summarise their stance in a brief way. It's also quite likely that some or all may change their views as evidence accumulates, especially given the current content of what they say. Overall, my impression is that they say either "not yet a genocide" or "not necessarily a genocide", but also "it's clearly an atrocious event, whether or not it's a genocide". Boud (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICJ International Court of Justice

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/182/press-releases Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of genocide

There is not only one important definition of genocide. The term is a legal one, but also an analytical one in academic discourse (e.g.), and also a political one (as is tacitly recognized by inclusion of the “Legislative recognition” section in this article). But all three should be overtly recognized as valid.

It’s also important to note that international law requires states to prevent genocide, and so its possibility must be acknowledged prima facie, before investigators have finished gathering evidence, before researchers have completed their studies, and before international courts have been able to consider and rule. —Michael Z. 16:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. If investigations come out, or this article is rescoped around them, the proposed title may be accepted later. Otherwise, maybe a third choice is possible. The one thing I can say is that the proposed title has been resoundingly rejected. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Genocide investigations of 2022 Russian atrocities in Ukraine – There is a consensus that the current title is unsatisfactory, per discussion above, in talk:Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Finding a viable name.

This title is better, it supports the five WP:CRITERIA as well as possible, and it reflects a WP:neutral point of view. It avoids loaded terms as described in WP:CLAIM. It defines the subject as the many ongoing investigations being conducted by legal and public entities, whose evidence will potentially inform the International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine or other legal cases, and can include the academic and legal questions over them.

Atrocity crimes is the umbrella term for military aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.[2] At least some of those are accepted to exist, and using the umbrella term obviates the need to debate their specifics in accepting this title.  —Michael Z. 14:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 07:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • support well reasoned nomination—blindlynx 15:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Stricken my support per the arguments below. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the majority of the article isn't about an investigation. Evidence ≠ investigation. Expert statements ≠ Investigation. Legislative recognition ≠ Investigation. The International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine is an investigation. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine is an investigation. I'm not sure what the best title for this article is, but it is not that.  selfwormTalk) 03:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The plural title is clearly not referring to an investigation. Evidence presented by journalists was gathered in their investigations. Expert statements are based on evidence from investigations and may contribute to other investigations. Legislative recognition couldn’t happen without legislators’ investigations. And all of these may impact the investigations you mentioned. —Michael Z. 15:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the title "Genocide investigations of 2022 Russian atrocities in Ukraine" very clearly refers to investigations (of a certain type). The noun in this title is "investigations" and any article titled "investigations" should be about investigations. Notice that all of the following articles are about investigations:
    Investigations into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - It is primarily about investigations. It is NOT about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster itself.
    Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - It is primarily about investigations. It is NOT about the 2012 Benghazi attack itself.
    Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - It is primarily about investigations. It is NOT about COVID itself.
    Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) - It is primarily about the investigation. It is NOT about Russian interference itself.
    Although these articles I've listed all mention evidence, expert opinions, etc., their contents are nevertheless true to their titles; that is, they are primarily about investigations.
    This makes me wonder: are any of these genocide investigations even complete yet?  selfwormTalk) 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you’re implying the subject is the possibly genocidal crimes, not their investigation. Would you favour 2022 Ukrainian genocide? Inserting “alleged” is problematic, as a signal of WP:DOUBT. —Michael Z. 22:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands right now, this article is not about the investigations into genocide, which is why I oppose having the word "investigations" in the title (these investigations each seem to have their own articles anyway). Your proposed name "2022 Ukrainian genocide" would more accurately describe this article's content.  selfwormTalk) 00:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a subject of study of genocide scholars should be called genocide, and this would be a better title. —Michael Z. 03:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand. This article (as far as I can tell) is about the claims, or allegations, of "genocide". It is specifically about the conjectures and claims in the popular press, by politicians or intellectuals, about whether the word "genocide" (a big word) applies here. It is not about war crimes or atrocities themselves (which have their own articles), it is about the chatter surrounding the use of the word "genocide". Walrasiad (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title is a mouthful, and "claims" would be better than "investigations". ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is mainly about judgments or statements by parliaments, other organisations officials, and by scholars; only a small part is about investigations. The proposed title would be highly misleading about the current content, and removing/compressing 90% of the content to satisfy the new title wouldn't make sense (except if the compressed content were shifted to a new article with the current title, which would defeat the whole point of a rename). The investigations themselves, in terms of public RSd information, generally cover the full range of war crime types, including genocide, or also include human rights violations, so it's premature to create an article specifically on investigations into genocide: we don't (yet) have the sources to support it. Boud (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I think this is an improvement, but not the best title we could have. I'd support something like Genocide allegations during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This could also expand the article's scope to include the Kremlin's delusion that Ukraine has been commiting genocide on Russians. Although that shouldn't be a priority for this RM. It could also be Genocidal intent of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. We could add a word like "potential" or "claimed" if necessary. Super Ψ Dro 20:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after reading the comments of Selfworm and others, I am convinced "investigations" is not a satisfactory option. Super Ψ Dro 20:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source

[4] Volunteer Marek 17:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by statements from government leaders and heads of state and official resolutions and statements from legislative bodies

Micheál Martin, Prime-Minister of Ireland

"We utterly condemn the slaughter of innocent civilians at Kramatorsk train station today. The horrific attack is further evidence of the barbaric nature of Russia’s war on #Ukraine. This is genocide. And those responsible must be held to account".

Source: https://twitter.com/MichealMartinTD/status/1512534459085688838?s=20&t=epe2Zjxr7ej1vgHoYit-OQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of Portugal

On June 3, the Portuguese Parliament passed a resolution on Russian aggression. The resolution supports the prosecution of Putin and other Russian leaders for various international crimes, including genocide.

Sources:

https://app.parlamento.pt/webutils/docs/doc.pdf?path=6148523063484d364c793968636d356c6443397a6158526c63793959566b786c5a79394562324e31625756756447397a5357357059326c6864476c325953396b4d54466b5932453059533168596d59344c54526a595759744f5745324e79316d4f4455794e4441305a574d31595459755a47396a65413d3d&fich=d11dca4a-abf8-4caf-9a67-f852404ec5a6.docx&Inline=true

https://www.tsf.pt/portugal/politica/parlamento-aprova-resolucao-do-livre-pela-condenacao-da-guerra-na-ucrania-com-votos-contra-do-pcp-14913541.html

Open Letter

https://libmod.de/en/genocide-in-ukraine-and-german-historical-responsibility/ Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The report of the Ordo Iuris Institute

After the report by the New Lines Institute and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre, we have a second report that also qualifies the Russian aggression as genocide. This time, it was prepared by the jurists of The Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture, in Poland. For now, there is only the Polish version.

Source: https://ordoiuris.pl/wolnosci-obywatelskie/czy-mozna-uznac-dzialania-rosji-podczas-wojny-na-ukrainie-za-ludobojstwo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Alexander Hinton recognizes the genocide

"Russia’s mass deportations, and especially its forced transfer of children, are central to the case that Russia has also committed genocide in Ukraine".

Source:

https://theconversation.com/russias-mass-kidnappings-of-ukrainians-are-a-page-out-of-a-wartime-playbook-and-evidence-of-genocide-187065 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence shifted from War crimes article

The sentence below is shifted here from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in case someone wants to integrate the info into this article. The info could be useful, but it would have to be integrated properly, and live pages are generally not good sources.

A report[by whom?] accuses Russia.[1][2]

Boud (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ A new report concludes that Russia is inciting genocide in Ukraine
  2. ^ Russia is guilty of inciting genocide in Ukraine, expert report concludes

Requested move 22 July 2022

Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Risk of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – Remove the doubt word “WP:claim.” It is WP:NPOV to cast doubt since a reliable source found that violations of the Genocide Convention exist, an imminent risk of genocide exists, and an obligation on all states to prevent it exists.

Specifically, the New Lines/Wallenberg reportconcluded that there are “1) reasonable grounds to believe Russia is responsible for (i) direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and (ii) a pattern of atrocities from which an inference of an intent to destroy the Ukrainian national group in part can be drawn; and 2) the existence of a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine, triggering the legal obligation of all States to prevent genocide.” [5][6]

It is also important that the title is specific and unambiguous, not only per the WP:CRITERIA, but especially avoiding confusion with “Accusations of genocide in Donbas,” an article about Russian accusations in a mirror, and the issue covered better in “Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022).”

Another possible title is Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is inferior. The subject here is the actual acts of the Russian state which are thought to constitute genocide, and which have beef followed by allegations, warnings, accusations, investigations, or other responses. Consensus in the previous #Requested move 10 May 2022 was that the subject is not “investigations.”  —Michael Z. 17:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proposed title, like the current one, doesn't sound too natural. I was wondering if there could be some way of shortening the proposed title or make it sound more academic or elegant. Still I see it as an improvement so I give a weak support. I proposed Genocidal intent of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in the last RM and I still think it could be a valid alternative. I think "genocidal intent" is a legal term. Maybe it could be discussed a bit. Super Ψ Dro 23:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not just about intent. It is about acts that were committed that could be genocide according to the Genocide Convention, about incitement of genocide, and about the possible existence of the crime of genocide (where intent is relevant) and punishable acts. —Michael Z. 15:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Update: corrected the title of the article “Accusations of genocide in Donbas.” —Michael Z. 23:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)][reply]
  • Support a move per WP:NPOV, though not necessarily this one. Super Dromaeosaurus' suggestion is a good one, but I am concerned that it also has NPOV issues - suggesting that it is a fact that there was genocidal intent, while to the best of my knowledge that this veracity of this statement has not been established. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could be addressed with words like "proposed", "possible" or "alleged". Super Ψ Dro 07:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Risk of genocide” specifically means that intent may have not been established, although there is concrete evidence of it. The Genocide Convention’s obligation to prevent genocide kicks in now because of the strong evidence, regardless whether the genocide has been proven. —Michael Z. 15:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per well-reasoned nomination and per supportive elements indicated by Super Ψ Dro and BilledMammal. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But Super Ψ Dro and BilledMammal supported an alternative title, so are you saying you'd support Super Ψ Dro's proposal? Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also given support to the proposed move, despite proposing an alternative. Super Ψ Dro 08:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the article is about the claims and not about the risk, and we do not have reliable sources calling it a risk anyway. I would support "Allegations" though.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we do.
    The main source, the New Lines/Wallenberg report[7] by 30 genocide and legal scholars, calls it a risk:
    • “the existence of a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine” (p 1)
    • “States have legal obligation . . . once they become aware of the serious risk of genocide” . . . “protecting vulnerable Ukrainian civilians from the imminent risk of genocide.” (3)
    • “The report also concludes that there exists undoubtedly a very serious risk of genocide (6)
    Also twice in the “Introduction” (7), “Methodology” (8), quoting ICJ case law (9), asserting evidence of specific risk of genocide (15), several times about “The Duty to prevent Genocide” and “The Imminent Risk of Genocide” (37–38), and in the “Conclusion,” stating that “the report conclusively establishes the existence of a serious risk of genocide” (39).
    It only uses the word “allegation” for something else: “President Putin delivered an address in which he accused Ukraine of genocide in the Donbas, a baseless allegation he has repeated for years, which has been echoed by senior Russian officials and State media” (p 15).
    Out of sources currently cited in this article, we see:
    • “The risk of genocide is increasing due to that kind of talk, [Jonathan Leader Maynard, lecturer in international politics at King's College London] says” —BBC.[8]
    • “The report concludes there is ‘a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine, triggering the legal obligation of all states to prevent genocide’ under the convention. States will not be able to say they were unaware of the risk, it warns,” and “The international court of justice ruled in 2007 that state parties to the Genocide Convention had an obligation to take preventive action when they learn of, or should have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.” —The Guardian.[9]
    • “Their conclusions were damning. Russia is inciting genocide, and there is a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine.” —FP.[10]
    Some articles express the notion in different terms, like “evidence first must be gathered and examined to determine whether it occurred,”[11] “we are not at a stage yet where enough evidence has been gathered to make a legal assessment of whether genocide is occurring,”[12] “I think that is enough evidence,”[13] “even as the physical evidence of genocide was emerging.”[14]
    I have only considered references to expert academic or legal opinions here, not political designations, which are also significant (didn’t bother because they are often poo-pooed and end up distracting in discussions).
    But there are also a number of sources quoting experts saying that genocide is definitely being committed, so maybe we should move it to Genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Allegations" per Ymblanter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The proposed title doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through all the accessible English-language sources cited in the article. I found “allegations of war crimes” (×2), “allegations of executions in Bucha,” “allegations of sexual violence by Russian soldiers,” “allegations of rape, including gang rape, attempted rape, forced nudity, threats of sexual violence against civilian women and girls, men and boys.”
    There was only one occurrence of “allegations of genocide.”[15] It is about the New Lines/Raoul Wallenberg “report we produced on the allegation of genocide,” but then goes on about the “team of more than 30 international legal specialists and scholars of genocide”: “their conclusions were damning. Russia is inciting genocide, and there is a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine.”
    Its final paragraph also has a possibly useful characterization: “Something terrible is being done to Ukraine, above and beyond the ordinary crimes of an aggressive war. The evidence bears out Ukrainian claims that they are facing an actual or potential genocide.”
    The significantly more WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources is “risk of genocide.” If we were to write a more precise but less concise title (see WP:CRITERIA), it would be Russian incitement to genocide and risk of genocide in Ukraine.
     —Michael Z. 15:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I really don't see how "risk of genocide" makes any sense as an article title. It's being used out of context. Saying "there is a risk of genocide" within a sentence and titling an article "Risk of genocide" are two entirely different things. You either commit genocide or you don't. You don't risk it. It's just not good English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “You do or you don’t” is a naïve analysis. It hasn’t been proven in an international court. But the law requires action to prevent, before it’s been proven or committed. So the existence of the risk is an extremely significant or critical fact.
    Reliable sources do not tell us:
    • Genocide is not being committed
    • Only allegations of genocide exist
    • Genocide is being committed (well, some experts do specifically say so)
    • Genocide has been legally proven
    RS’s do tell us these exist:
    • Incitement to genocide
    • Acts prohibited by the Genocide Convention
    • A risk or probability of genocide
    • An obligation on states to act to prevent genocide
    These things belong to the general subject of genocide.
    A reasonable title is “Risk of genocide . . . ,” “Genocidal acts . . . ,” or “Genocide . . .” —Michael Z. 00:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Necrothesp. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Risk of genocide ...". Although I sympathise, I think the proposed title has the opposite effect. It makes it sound as if nothing is going on and something could potentially happen. It also doesn't sound like natural English. I find Super Dromaeosaurus's proposal of "Genocidal intent of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" very interesting as it accurately represents most of the article text, so I would support that, though BilledMammal's concern is valid. Perhaps "Genocidal intent as a factor of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"? Secondarily I would support the "Allegations" title although I must say I don't see how that's all that different from the current title. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:CLAIM: “To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence.”
    • MOS:ALLEGED, although it falls under the heading “Expressions of doubt,” is at least better: “Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.”
    As I pointed out, the source does say that violations of Genocide Convention prohibitions have been committed, and that incitement to genocide, a distinct crime whether or not genocide follows, has been committed. They are alleged, but with the weight of confidence by thirty scholars. They are conclusions based on evidence. —Michael Z. 23:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Proposal unconvincing. A "claim" or allegation, assertion, accusation, is concretely what is being deal with in the content here. It accurately reflects the content. "Risk" is a number, which can be quite negligible. Not only is there no number offered up, it actually casts more doubt ("risk" allows for zero outcomes). To fix ideas, to say "I am at risk of being robbed" is quite more doubtful than saying "I was allegedly robbed". The latter deals with a concrete accusation of an event, to be taken seriously that is asking for inquiry, the former throws up hoary probabilities and suggests likelihood of non-event, and even suggests not to react but to wait and see. I investigate claims of robbery. I don't investigate risks of robbery. To assert there is merely a "risk" is almost begging to be ignored. Walrasiad (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1102287389"