Jump to content

Talk:Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Men and boys among alleged victims

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/men-and-boys-among-alleged-victims-by-russian-soldiers-in-ukraine Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-official-russians-raped-11-year-old-boy-1696549 Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Raping new moms

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagner-group-mercenaries-accused-of-raping-new-moms-on-maternity-ward-in-central-african-republic?source=twitter&via=desktop Xx236 (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong country. Curbon7 (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Wrong country, the same government.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes but doesn't matter for this particular article, as this is relating to Ukraine, not the CAR. Could be something valid to add to the Wagner Group's article, however. Curbon7 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Double penalisation of women victims of sexual violence in the Russian invasion

This revert removes notable information for reasons that look rather like WP:OR. The Quint considers Ukrainian women's risks in Poland, after having been raped in Ukraine, and the risks of their helpers in Poland, to be notable. A Wikipedian considers them to be un-notable based on his/her judgment of the practical risks that differs from the judgment of The Quint. Uninvolved editors may wish to get involved. Boud (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

German source

https://geschichtedergegenwart.ch/vergewaltigung-als-kriegswaffe-einige-ueberlegungen-zu-sexueller-gewalt-im-krieg-in-der-ukraine/ Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Denisova

I think we have a big problem in this article. Most of the reports come from Denisova, who was also taken out because of her unverifiable absurd reports of rape of all kinds.[1] I think we need to take this horror-fantasy touch out of the article.--Mhorg (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, a dismissal of an official does not invalidate any his/her statements made in their official capacity. Of course a specific claim can be false, but this must be established by other RS (like fact checkers, etc.). Consider Veracity of statements by Donald Trump as an example. So far I did not see a single specific statement or number by Denisova be disproved in RS. If you know such RS, please cite them here. However, one can not summarily dismiss and remove from WP (that is what you do) all statements even by Donald Trump just because that was a statement by Donald Trump. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
These articles are entirely built on Denisova's lies (they are also called that, of things that are unsubstantiated allegations), it is extremely wrong to maintain them in this way. In that case, we must write under each statement that she was accused of lying by reporting on rape cases without bringing evidence. That would be big trouble. Alternatively, we would be promoting disinformation in the encyclopedia. Mhorg (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
These are not "Denisova's lies", but official statements by Ukrainian government. Now, if RS or another representative of Ukrainian government disproves any of her specific statements (for example, that al least 25 rapes had happen in Bucha - you removed it [2]), then it would be something debatable, i.e. should we provide both statements or only one, most recent statement? But not a blanket removal in any case. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Another serious problem with recent edits by Mhorg: one can not attribute all these claims to Denisova and collect them in her section) because some of them were made by other people or also made by other people, as should be clear from text and cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hence I fixed this. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
No, given the heavy criticism in her country and accusations of unreliability, everything by Denisova should be grouped in one section, even if it contains content by other people. We cannot risk passing her reports off as 100% reliable to the reader. Mhorg (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

These articles are entirely built on Denisova's lies <-- this is a straight up WP:BLP violation Mhorg, and you can consider this as a warning. She was dismissed because some lawmakers thought she didn't do a good enough job in organizing humanitarian corridors from occupied areas and your attempt to try to piggy back that into something entirely else is a BLP smear. Volunteer Marek 22:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not what the Wall Street Journal reported... please read here[3]:
Lawmaker Pavlo Frolov: “The unclear focus of the Ombudsman's media work on the numerous details of ‘sexual crimes committed in an unnatural way’ and ‘rape of children’ in the occupied territories that could not be confirmed by evidence, only harmed Ukraine,”
And again: "Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova stated that ex-ombudsman Liudmyla Denisova did not provide her with materials on rapes, which she reported on social networks."[4]
So we are talking about declarations without evidence, one could even call them "fakes", since she had every opportunity to take this material to the competent Ukrainian bodies. Why did he not provide the material? And why were those stories strangely horror and almost unbelievable? Mhorg (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
"Unconfirmed" is not the same as "fake" or "lies". The last two are your personal accusations. BLP violations. You really need to stop. Last warning. Volunteer Marek 08:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I doubt that mine are BLPviolation, as they are not my interpretations. Look here, other Ukrainian parliamentarians also think she spreaded "untrue information" = "fakes": "Olga Sovhyria, parliamentary representative at the Ukrainian Constitutional Court and elected with Servants of the People, Zelensky's party - "Sometimes she spread facts that appeared very untrue and information whose source we do not know". And again: 'The way he presented data about sex crimes was completely unacceptable, she revealed details about the victims that must remain confidential'."[5] This part was removed by MVBW on Denisova's article.
And again, accuses from Sevgil Musayeva (Ukrayinska Pravda):""I had my journalists check some of the reports circulated by Denisova and they were neither true nor investigated. This is very bad for Ukraine, because when you spread unverified war crime news, then it becomes difficult to investigate it further." [6]
And again, according to BBC "Denisova often gave very harsh details about child rapes, which journalists believed could sometimes not even be supported by facts",[7] same meaning of "fake news", I suppose.Mhorg (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Denisova reall needs removing entirely, the Ukrainian parliament don't believe her and a letter from 140 prominent Ukrainians asked her to stop publishing unverified information. Their full demands were:

  • Publish only that information for which there is enough evidence, check the facts before publication;
  • Report what materials she submitted to the justice system;
  • Verify and carefully consider every word in order to avoid sensationalism in messages;
  • Avoid excessive detailing of crimes;
  • Use correct terminology, for example, use the word "survivors" or "affected" instead of "victims";
  • Take care of the privacy and safety of those affected. Remember that victims can be identified if they live in small villages or towns;
  • Remind about support networks for victims (lawyers, human rights centers, professional psychological assistance).

She has openly said that her statements were designed to help Ukraine win the war, which means she's not reliable but a propagandist. Nobody is doing Ukraine any favours by trying to maintain this horror stuff in the article, especially not the victims of genuine crimes. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that maintaining this "horror stuff" in the article is actually damaging the Ukrainian people because it might feed disbelief in the real crimes they're subjected to. From the viewpoint of us editors it is also harmful to the standing and authoritativeness of our articles on Ukraine. In March and April New York Times, BBC and the like were publishing Denisova's declarations because of the reasonable belief that they were reliable sources of information - as a prominent Ukrainian official, she had access to important informative channels. But in May quality press at large stopped publishing her declarations on sexual crimes. Why should we continue to have them here? Why should we be less reliable and accurate than our sources? We have various policies and guidelines that should prevent this: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Besides, pending discussion these contents should be removed as per WP:ONUS. Only two editors so far have expressed the view that they must be kept, @My very best wishes and @Volunteer Marek, while at least four editors have tried to remove these contents or have argued for removal. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The main concern expressed in the media worker's statement is consistent with what we've seen before: to avoid titillating tabloid-like details and respect survivors' privacy rights. The statement requests Denisova to word things a lot more carefully, but it doesn't say that her info is generally unreliable, except for "some" cases. I don't currently see much sign of "titillating details" attributed to Denisova in the current version, except, for example, who was raped in front of his mother (OK by me to remove that particular detail - whether the 9-month-old was raped in front of his mother or not doesn't make much difference for the main fact of the crime). Removing any "titillating details" attributed to Denisova seems reasonable to me; removing the core factual claims would seem excessive, as long as they are clearly attributed to her. The attributive words could be strengthened, e.g. "according to ...". Boud (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Based on what I read, the main concern was not just about excessive details, but also about lack of verifiability. I opened a thread on this at RS/N a few days ago, here, where you can find more information and links to sources. Perhaps the discussion can continue more productively and orderly there, as the topic concerns various articles: this one, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Bucha massacre and possibly others. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The first of the media workers demands is "Publish only that information for which there is enough evidence, check the facts before publication", we can not guess which of her statements are true and which aren't. If she is to be included, the only way to do so is to include her as part of a separate section which isolates her claims from the main body of the text and explains that she was sacked by the Ukrainian parliament and that some of it does not have evidence to bak it up. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
With regard to this revert by @Volunteer Marek, I don't think that there's a consensus for including these contents as (based on this thread) I'd say we are split 50/50. Anyway, there are 3 other concerns that need to be addressed if one wants to retain the contents:
  1. It is simply false (and it is also a case of bad WP:SYNTH) that Same number of girls and women raped by Russian soldiers in Bucha appears in reports by Ukrainaian Ombudsman Lyudmila Denisova. In fact, the mayor of Bucha said that "at least 25 rapes had been reported" while Denisova described a case of gang rape, protracted in time, against 25 girls who were allegedly held captive in a basement. So it's not the "same number" but rather 25 (in Bucha) + 25 (in a basement in Bucha). Note that Denisova's claim is a paradigmatic case of WP:EXTRAORDINARY (frankly grotesque, if you think about it) and isn't reported neither by OHCHR nor by any other RS apart from Denisova.
  2. On 1 year old boy died after being raped... 9-month-old baby" who was raped in front of his mother we had a broad discussion at RS/N and a rough consensus emerged on not conveying the details of the allegations by Denisova, that at the time many of us editors still thought was a reliable source. So there's no consensus for including these gory (and probably fabricated) details.
  3. Also Some of the reports were compiled by independent Ukrainian journalists and published by the Ukrainian parliament as part of a dossier documenting Russian war crimes is inaccurate. It is a gross misrepresentation of what this source says, which is "Matviyishyn said the report had been published by Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova." There's no report by the Ukrainian Parliament on war crimes as far as I know.
So if Volunteer Marek feels that it is really important to have these contents about Denisova's allegations in this article, they should find a way of reporting them that addresses the 3 issues above explained. In the meantime, I'm removing the text again, as it fails WP:V spectacularly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Re your #2, I don't know what RSN discussion you're reading but that is NOT AT ALL the "rough consensus" of that discussion. In fact, quite the opposite. Most commentators there support including the info with either Denisova as a source or other sources (btw, you know that sick motherfucker, the Russian soldier responsible, posted video of himself doing it to Telegram, right? Russians themselves arrested him) There is also no source I'm aware that calls these incidents "fabricated". Please be aware that these kinds of allegations against a BLP subject is exactly what led to Mhorg being banned from this subject. Volunteer Marek 02:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if they were fabricated but it's a possibility that we should take into consideration. As Denisova was reporting unverified allegations she had received from the helpline service on sexual violence she had set up, and as everybody could call that helpline, it is quite likely that some of those allegations were a fabrication: war propagandists, sure, but also traumatised people calling the service can make up stories; every war is bound to create false accounts about horrific sadism as well as superhuman heroism and strength. Therefore it's important we uphold our standard of verifiable accuracy in the face of changing information about the accuracy of our sources.
I don't know anything about the video on Telegram you mention. Could you please share some links about this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I re-read the messy discussion at RS/N: four editors argued for including a reference to Denisova's allegations (Aquillon, My very best wishes, Elinruby and CutePeach, who is now indefinitely banned) and five editors argued for removing it (Headbomb, M.Bitton, TFD, Slywriter and myself). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Rapes committed by Ukrainian armed forces?

What about the rapes which were committed by Ukrainian armed forces for example by the far right Volunteers? 92.74.247.125 (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources about those? Kleinpecan (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The following source
The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24 February to 15 May 2022 (Report). OHCHR. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
at para. 98 reports that the OHCHR is aware of 108 allegations of conflict related sexual violence; the vast majority is attributed to Russian armed forces and pro-Russian separatists, but there are also 9 cases attributed to Ukrainian forces, including territorial defence, 1 case attributed to Ukrainian police, and 7 cases attributed to civilians/unidentified actors in Government-controlled territory. Note, however, that "sexual violence" is not identical too rape, as the concept includes cases in which sexual violence (broadly defined) is used as a means of torture or ill-treatment, e.g. forced public stripping, beating on the genitalia, threatening of rape or castration. They all fall within the scope of this article, I imagine, and these numbers should we reported alongside those concerning the Russian forces (87 cases), pro-Russian separatists (2 cases), civilian and unidentified actors in Russian-controlled territory (2 cases). Out of 23 cases verified by OHCHR, those attributed to Ukrainian armed forces/police (5) and civilians (5) were related to forced public stripping of alleged "marauders" (e.g. looters). On this practice a couple of sources are [9] [10]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The cited source [11] includes separate chapters entitled: "D. Conflict-related sexual violence" (yes, that belongs to this page) and "C. Torture and ill-treatment of civilians" (no, that belongs to other pages; including such materials here is WP:SYN because the source clearly treats them as torture/ill treatment of non-sexual nature). My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong. Your "cited source" is another source. The source I cited (here above) is both more recent (29 June) and more analytical (44 pages). In my post, as you can see, I quoted from para. 98-102, which are placed under the heading "Conflict-related sexual violence" (therefore, as you yourself admit, its contents belong to this page). Anyway, also the source that you cited (26 March update, 10 pages) reports under the heading "Conflict-related sexual violence" that OHCHR also notes that binding partially or fully stripped persons to poles or trees and beating them in public could also amount to CRSV (para. 45). Claiming that this text you removed [12] is "apparently, a misrepresentation. The source does mention such cases, but not in relation to sexual violence", is itself a misrepresentation. Anyway, let's fill in the section with info taken from the more recent report. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, para 98-102 from your source [13] (this is PDF file linked from the source you refer to in this thread) are about sexual violence. However, they do NOT include content I removed [14] and you placed back [15]. That content appears in para 94 that is NOT about sexual violence. Therefore, it can not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It would help if you included the page of the report you refer to, along with the link to the PDF. My very best wishes (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The content you removed and I restored is not from para. 94 of the June report. That content is from the March report, which in fact is the source quoted there. That text is almost a verbatim quotation from para. 41, which is placed under the heading "Torture and ill-treatment of civilians" but contains an explicit reference to sexual violence:

OHCHR is concerned by a large number of reports and video footage of torture and ill-treatment of people believed to be marauders (...) perpetrators allegedly duct-taped individuals to electricity poles or trees, partially or fully stripped them, beat them, including with sticks and rods, and sprayed them with paint or marked their bodies and clothes with the word “marauder” (...) Some of this conduct may also amount to conflict related sexual violence (which is addressed in more detail below).

Then, a few lines below on the same page (p. 8) at para. 45, under the heading "Conflict-related sexual violence", one reads

OHCHR also notes that binding partially or fully stripped persons to poles or trees and beating them in public could also amount to CRSV.

Do you agree that the two quoted text refer to the same episodes? And that those episodes are cases of ill-treatment or torture that also qualify as CRSV when the alleged marauders are partially or totally striped? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Antecedents

I think that having a section on "Antecedents" was quite natural and informative in this article. Obviously "Antecedents" as such do not belong to the time frame of the article, but they provide context and background information that may be interesting to the readers. As the sources are fine, I don't agree with this removal [16] by @My very best wishes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This way you can include anything. No, if the subject of the page (i.e. Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) was not even mentioned in RS, belongs to a different period of time, and there is no obvious connection between the events except that they belong to the same category (like sexual violence in Ukraine), such content obviously can not be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
no obvious connection? It's the same war, taking place in the same area between the same parties, and the "Antecedents" section includes the same behaviours - conflict-related sexual violence - taking place a few years or even months before. How could that not be a relevant background information to convey? If the reader is interested only in recent events, they will go to the relevant section of the article without reading the "Antecedents" section, but I don't see a sound editorial reason for depriving them of the possibility of reading it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Only article in WaPo makes direct connection between the current and previous events, so it can be used. I just re-included it back. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
MVBW re-included the following text [17]:

According to the Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict data set, sexual violence by Russian forces has been reported in three of seven years of conflict since 2014 in eastern Ukraine.[1]

However, most of the contents he removed here [18] have not been restored and can now be read in their entirety either here or here, in the sandbox where I keep all the contents he removes from articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I re-included this phrase to a different section because that is more appropriate based on what it say. If you disagree, welcome to remove this phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources for a suggested expansion of scope to start with 2014 invasion

Michael Z suggested extending the scope to start with the 2014 Russian invasion. I don't see any arguments against, except that we need some sources and some editors to summarise key content and also, preferably, keep an eye out for subtle vandalism. For comparison (in terms of editing histories), Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas got stuck mostly at 2014+2015; nobody has been motivated/had the time to add the 2016-2021 material there; and an attribution of "most" of the lawlessness and human rights violations, in the second sentence of the lead, to Ukrainian forces, mismatching the source, remained in place for three years (2019-2022) before it was fixed. This is not an argument against extension, it's just a comment that people concerned enough about the content should add the article to their watchlist, and that long-term editing attention is not guaranteed.

Here are some references to build up until an extension looks like it has enough sources:

In practical terms, my suggestion would be start with 2014-2021 as a "background" section, and if/when it's substantial enough, check again if anyone has any objections, and if there are no objections, then redefine the lead/title/scope to cover the full period since 2014. That would allow for working on this incrementally if/when people have time. Boud (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Support, in general, but may not have much bandwidth to contribute. I do however agree that the condition described above is a frequent problem in articles about the war in Ukraine. I tend to agree with the general proposition that there has been war in Ukraine since 2014. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Tornado" crimes https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/272953.html

"Azov" https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_14th_HRMMU_Report.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

avoiding false balance

On one hand we have reports and evidence of mass rapes, gang rapes, brutality and torture directed at civilians. On the other hand we have ... a "threat" made against one Russian soldier. It is absolutely absurd to pretend that these are the same. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This is neither "false balance" nor "pretending" that different things "are the same".
On the contrary, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) are a reliable source that is about the most neutral available for this topic. This article is not uniquely about war crimes, it's about sexual violence. We cannot censor WP:RSd issues of sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in an article specifically on the topic sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are four paragraphs in the 26 March 2022 OHCHR report; we should summarise all four of those paragraphs, in appropriate sections. Boud (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, OHCHR is indeed a reliable source and yes, there are four paragraphs on this topic in the (very lengthy) report but this is just one sentence which only says "possibly could also amount to". The part on taping people to poles is not even in the section on sexual violence! This is just trying to squeeze out some "other side does it too" nonsense out of a source which is simply not there. This is a clear cut case of WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, I have restored several of these censored items, though I left the one "threat to castrate" incident out of the lead. Feel free to add other references, e.g. apparently the person involved apologised.
HRMMU is clearly correct to state that partially or completely undressing people and beating them publicly (or privately) is a human rights violation that is likely to count as sexual violence.
In any case, deliberately ignoring what OHCHR/HRMMU see as an overview of sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would constitute original research. Boud (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
A single sentence which says "may be" out of a lengthy report is not enough to put this in, creating false impression that both sides are just as bad. Find more substantive discussion in reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This revert edit summary says no, this is a misrepresentation of a source - it says "may" and on top of that this is a single sentence out of a very long report which clearly means it's WP:CHERRY picked.
No. Out of a 10-page report, there is one only section, IV.D, on page 8, that gives an overview of D. Conflict-related sexual violence. One of the four points (42, 43, 44, 45) is point 45, which refers back implicitly (on the reasonable assumption that the reader understands English and has read through the report consecutively) to point 41, on the same page. This is not cherry-picking a single sentence out of a long report, it is choosing one out of four points made on the topic of this article. The other two points are included in the current version of the article; and the third point (the threat of castration, para 44) was included in the initial version of the article. Overall, all four paragraphs were covered. This is not cherry-picking.
This revert edit summary says likewise it doesn't even put the blame on Ukrainian Territorial Defense and only says it "may be" sexual violence. This is just false equivocation and UNDUE trying to put it on same level as mass rapes and removes a summary of the OHCHR's 26 March 2022 report point 41, which was referred to by point 45, which is one out of four points on sexual violence in the invasion. The Ukrainian Territorial Defence is explicitly blamed: HRMMU has received credible allegations of more than 45 such cases of torture and ill-treatment by civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence. In most cases, perpetrators allegedly duct-taped individuals to electricity poles or trees, partially or fully stripped them, beat them, ... persons stripped of clothing ... Some of this conduct may also amount to conflict related sexual violence. (bold added) True that OHCHR says "may also amount". It also is very cautious in warning that it has not been able to verify any allegations of CRSV by Russian forces according to OHCHR standards; if we insist on using "may" to exclude the topic of Ukrainian Territorial Forces sexually abusing Ukrainians in "most" of 45 cases, then we should equally exclude the whole section on allegations of CRSV by Russian forces. In other words, OHCHR states clearly that Russian forces do not have a monopoly on using sexual violence in the invasion.
To avoid an edit war, I suggest that other people either restore the section and the sentence in the lead, or discuss whether it is acceptable to carry out original research in rejecting the four-paragraph summary, section IV.D. (42 + 43 + 44 + 45), of the 26 March 2022 OHCHR report, and if it is acceptable to reject paragraph 41 that is referred to by paragraph 45. @Ilenart626: ping since you've been editing on this topic on the main war crimes page. Boud (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Boud and @Volunteer Marek, I have used the lead section of this article for a proposed replacement of the Sexual Violence section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, refer Talk page discussion - Edit 2 of Sexual violence section. Suggest we finalise the War crimes- Sexual violence discussion first, as that consensus may provide guidence to this issue, plus it may lead to details being transferred from the War crimes article to this article Ilenart626 (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It says in March report: "credible allegations of more than 45 such cases of torture and ill-treatment by civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence". That's fine, I have three comments.
  1. It says just "torture and ill-treatment" rather than sexual violence. Is it on the subject of this page? This is not clear.
  2. One should find more RS to check which exactly allegations/cases they are talking about and if these cases have been confirmed by the organization or others. We need more specifics here.
  3. If these are sexual crimes, and we include them to the page, this needs to framed exactly as in the cited source, i.e. torture and ill-treatment by civilians, police officers and members of the territorial defence, rather than "crimes by Ukrainian army". My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WashPost_are_RU_troops_using was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_violence_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_1&oldid=1265050779"