Talk:Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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)

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:

• OHCHR 2017
• refs in Izolyatsia prison (several in Russian)
  • https://www.unian.info/war/10753155-dpr-secret-prisons-employ-torture-experts-not-random-people-ex-captives.html "Our interlocutors note that their cellmates in Izoliatsia, young women, were being regularly raped. "
  • OHCHR report 16 November 2019 to 15 February 2020 = ... ?

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. —Michael Z. 15:46, 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)

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)

• Speaking about this edit (edit summary), I do have a problem with this because there is no a single example of any RS demonstrating any specific "lies" by her. For example, she said it was 25 cases. Did anyone said it was actually 20? My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 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)

• My main objection on this page was explained in edit summaries, e.g. here [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 18 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.

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)

Category:Ukrainian war crimes

Does the Category:Ukrainian war crimes belong to this article? @Volunteer Marek believes that it doesn't: [19][20]. But in this article we have a whole section on Ukrainian forces reporting one case of sexual violence against a Russian POW and other cases "related to war" (CRSV) against civilians. It's reasonable that those who are interested in Ukrainian war crimes are also interested in reading about these incidents - that's the reason why we have categories, they are just a tool for helping readers to get to the information they want. Otherwise after the recent failed RM we should also remove the Category:Massacres in Ukraine from the article Izium mass graves (see the recent edit war there Talk:Izium mass graves#Massacre). Honestly this looks to me as a waste of editors' time just to just push a POV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The "one case" is an unverified report of a POW supposedly being threatened with but not actually castrated... which reminds me: we have an unverified report of a supposed threat of castration of a POW but we... don't actually have the verified, documented, video'd cases of Russian soldiers actually castrating Ukrainian POWs. Not supposedly "threatening" them but actually doing it. With box cutters. On fucking video. And posting it to the internet as a brag. But instead of putting actual real war crimes into this article somebody thought it oh so important to instead focus on not even confirmed possible threats of war crimes on the Ukrainian side.

That right there shows the stupidity of this whole "both sides" approach. Volunteer Marek 15:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This is entirely off topic. Somebody read the report of the OHCHR, which is full of "bothsidesism" from top to bottom, and added some contents about sexual violence committed by Ukrainian forces. Too bad. But now they're there, and so the category:Ukrainian war crimes belongs to the page. Instead of wasting your time (and mine) removing that category, you yourself can put "actual real war crimes into this article" - nobody is here to write the encyclopedia the way you want it to be. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What is "off topic"? The text you're trying to insert into this article against consensus? Huh? How does that make sense? And thanks for acknowledging that the only reason the category would belong here is because of the UNDUE and POV text you're trying to cram in here. Volunteer Marek 02:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Here. Why don't you do something actually constructive, search this article for "seven-year-old girl", and add the relevant information to this article. Because honestly I can't bring myself to do it. It's just too fucking sick.

Or you could keep on trying to put idle threats made by frustrated shocked people - which they didn't follow through - on the same level as a gang rape of a 7 year old child. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put anything on the same level as anything else; I'm just trying to keep content here in this article that you continue to remove against consensus. When this article was first created it had a section on "Sexual violence attributed to the Armed Forces of Ukraine": [21]. Since then, you've tried at least half a dozen times to remove that section, and you've tried at least a couple of times to move this article to Sexual violence by Russian forces during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Multiple editors have revered you and WP:NOCON applies. If you want to remove the whole section and turn this article into an article on Russian sexual violence exclusively, edit war is not the right way - you need to get a consensus. I suggest you open an RfC. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. It’s been pretty much just you trying to repeatedly that text despite several people objecting. Volunteer Marek 05:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Several people? Who did object to it apart from you? I see that apart from me also Boud restored a few times, and also a couple of other users restored the section and moved the article back to the current title. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, you *just* got reverted by another user and here you are on talk page trying to pull this “who did object to it apart from you” nonsense. Volunteer Marek 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. Do you mean the user who just said sexual violence by Ukrainian forces should be mentioned (because such info appears in RS), and it is included on the page and to the lead? Or do you mean another user? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

[22] [23] I honestly can’t tell if you’re playing games or if this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem that multiple users keep pointing out to you is just a WP:COMPETENCE thing. Volunteer Marek 23:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So you really meant the user who said that we should include the section on "Ukrainian forces"! How funny Gitz (talk)(contribs) 23:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You said Since then, you've tried at least half a dozen times to remove that section(…) and then Who did object to it apart from you?. Your claim was shown to be false and your query answered. Volunteer Marek 05:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The sexual violence by Ukrainian forces should be mentioned (because such info appears in RS), and it is included on the page and to the lead. But at the same time, we should emphasize in the lead that the vast majority of such crimes were committed by Russian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

As about the category, I think this is over-categorization. It is enough that the page belongs to Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with MVBW that we should emphasize in the lead (and in the body) that the majority of such crimes were committed by Russian forces. This info is both notable and well-supported by sources (most recently, OHCHR). In fact, in the version of the article I restored yesterday, the info is reported: [24]. Note that the section on "Ukrainian forces", as modified by me a few months ago, contains out of 108 allegations of conflict-related sexual violence the alleged perpetrators were Ukrainian armed forces in 9 cases, Ukrainian law enforcement in 1 case, and civilians and unidentified actors in Government-controlled territory in 7 cases. However,

1. We should not have including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war and ... torture of children in the lead or elsewhere. We may have including the rape of children, but "mass rape" and rape as a "weapon of war" are not supported by sources. In fact, we don't cite any source to support that very dubious claim. I made this point yesterday in the edit summary [25] and I don't understand why you reverted my edit without adding any sources.
2. I don't think we should remove the category:Russian war crimes and the category:Ukrainian war crimes. Categories are not moral judgments, nor are they the gist of the article. As far as I understand, they are just tools for information retrieval: if someone is interested in Ukrainian (or Russian) war crimes, and they are using WP to find information, they may be interested in this article. Why should we make it more difficult to find?
3. I'm OK with dropping the info on the Russian POW who was threatened with castration on camera (by the way, if I'm not wrong that happened while they were calling his girlfriend in Russia); however, we should not drop the info The HRMMU also reported cases of people having been partially or fully stripped who were bound to poles and trees and beaten in public. That way of punishing "marauders", looters, curfew violators and Russian supporters has been widely reported by sources [26] [27] [28]; HRMMU documented at least 45 such cases of abuse and torture by both civilians and members of the territorial defense; this was reported also by OSCE. That practice of vigilante justice was both widespread and unacceptable. Since OHCHR says that it may amount to sexual violence, it belongs to this article and IMO is notable enough for inclusion.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The people bound to polls. According to cited sources, that was a "vigilante justice" by population and possibly by some members of civilian police force, not by Ukrainian Army as your edit implies [29] by making it under the title of "Ukrainian forces". Is is "may amount to sexual violence"? Most sources do not say it, and I do not see how, but they do not say "this is war crime". As about the categories, this is "overcat" meaning using not needed categories or duplicating categories, e.g. page P belongs to cat. A and cat A. belongs to cat. B, but you include both categories A and B to page P instead of including only A. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Originally there was a section "Sexual violence attributed to civilians", in which this content was included. However, I believe that a specific section should not be restored. The section "Ukrainian forces" can include both armed forces and police forces, just as the section on Russian forces also contains pro-Russian forces and policemen in the DPR and LPR. As for WP:OVERCAT, I don'think that "Russian war crimes" and "Ukrainian war crimes" are non-defining, overlapping, small and with no potentional for grow, arbitrary, etc., categories, to be replaced with the all-encompassing "war crimes in Ukraine". If we think there's an issue with overcategorization, then we should delete the categories; but since the categories are there, and readers may be interested in finding out about Ukrainian (or Russian) war crimes specifically, I think that both of them should be included in this article, just like they are included in the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That was violence completely or mostly attributed to civilians (police people are not military), and hardly a sexual violence. A humiliation - yes, sure, but not of sexual nature. Hence does not belong to this page. We are focusing on war crimes here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The wording at the end of the other version of the lede says “Examples of crimes in the UN report include rape, gang rape, and public sexual humiliation.” This makes it sound like BOTH Russian and Ukrainian forces have committed rape and gang rape. Which is completely false. All the rape and gang rape was just Russian forces. This misleads the reader and is obviously POV. Volunteer Marek 01:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek - The entire report is about the Russian forces committing sexual crimes, including gang rapes. A few Uk cases do not deserve a separate section. This should go in my humble opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

... and the category also does not belong here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek never mind, I removed it, Overall scale section covers is already. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The text now published [30] addresses the concerns you raised in your edit summaries. It is not true that the entire report is about Russian forces committing sexual crimes. Note that the information in the June report on Russian sexual crimes were added to the article by myself [31]. But OHCHR reports also contain information about Ukrainian forces: the practice of punishing looters and others by subjecting them to public stripping is well-documented and widespread. Dozens of articles, both in Ukrainian and international press, have covered this practice. Two reports by the OHCHR warn that it amounts to a human rights violation and may qualify as sexual violence. This deserves to be included. Removing all information about Ukrainian crimes is clearly at odds with WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

We can not rely on a single source, and even based on that source the inclusion of materials about looters on this page is questionable, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Besides, combining together the cases of threats and actual rapes (that is what the source apparently does) is like combining apples and oranges. One needs more sources or alternative sources to look at meaningful statistical data. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about edit summary here [32], I should say that: (a) no, this is not an exceptional claim, and (b) multiple RS do support the existence of rapes on a large scale during this war, this is a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Re to the same question at a noticeboard [33]. Should the article have such section and the category?. I think the answer is no because the most recent UN report on October 18 [34] blames only Russian army of committing the significant sexual violence. One can also check the original of the report [35] (pages 16-18 in English version). Importantly, this most recent report also summarizes their findings from previous reports. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• After discussion on NPOVNB, I think this, i.e. the content about Vigilantism should be properly titled, for example "Vigilante justice", and be placed to another page, such as Human rights in Ukraine. Based on that, I agree with removal of section "Ukrainian forces" (as written!) by other contributors. I am not saying such section should never exist. That depends on sourced content to be included there. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Absurdly false edit summary

[36] with edit summary “no independent RS supports "mass rape as a weapon of war"”

We have a whole freakin’ section on this! Here [37]. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The section doesn't allow us to use wikivoice to assert that rape has been practiced on a "mass scale" and used as a "weapon of war" (that is, to pursue military ends). On the one side, we have OHCHR saying on 27 Sept 2022 that OHCHR cannot yet draw conclusions regarding the scale of CRSV perpetrated since February. On the other side, we have (under the absurd heading "Claims of intent"):

• The Guardian saying in April that Women across Ukraine are grappling with the threat of rape as a weapon of war as growing evidence of sexual violence emerges;
• The Canadian and UK foreign ministers saying in April that Women across Ukraine are dealing with the growing reality of rape used as a weapon of war [38].
• Pramila Patten, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, saying in an interview with AFP in October that Russia is using rape and sexual violence as part of its military strategy [39]. Yet no report or official statement has been realeased by her office: [40]

To sum up: the sentence now in the lead Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war fails WP:V, it cannot be included in the article let alone in the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Not only these sources use such terminology, but any significant sexual violence committed by invading military (as in this case by Russian army) is generally regarded as using rape as a weapon of war. As the corresponding page in EB [41] explains, "In the late 20th century, in part because of the prevalence of rape in the Balkan and Rwandan conflicts, the international community began to recognize rape as a weapon and strategy of war, and efforts were made to prosecute such acts under existing international law." My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This is factually wrong. Rape as a weapon of war is not "any significant sexual violence committed by invading military". You wrote that sentence in italics as if it were a quotation from the source, but in fact you're the author of that sentence. The source you quote rightly mentions rape as a means of terrorizing enemy civilian populations and demoralizing enemy troops. Rape as a weapon of war is opposed to "opportunistic" rape, which is another kind of conflict-related sexual violence. What I find frustrating is that you've already taken part to two discussions on the notion of "rape as a weapon of war" (here and here), in which sources were provided to you on that notion - e.g., a statement by the President of the Security Council, a resolution of the UN Security Council, the official definition developed by the UN: sexual violence when used or commissioned as a tactic of war in order to deliberately target civilians, or as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations - this is rape as a weapon of war. Note that in 2014-2016 rape was already widespread in the Russo-Ukrainian war, but OHCHR concluded that there are no grounds to believe that sexual violence has been used for strategic or tactical ends by Government forces or the armed groups in the eastern regions of Ukraine [42]. The reason why you and Volunteer Marek want to have this notion in the lead is not because it is supported by sources - it is not; it's pure advocacy. But trivializing the concepts of international humanitarian law and making them meaningless and purely evocative and suggestive, is not in the interest of human rights and is contrary to the mission of this encyclopedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait, are you really trying to use a source from 2017 to argue about what is happening NOW? Also, your comment is textbook original research. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we can use such expression simply because multiple RS do it (they are linked on this page, but for example, [43]). As about overall meaning and interpretation of the term, this is something debatable, and the article in EB I cited [44] does not give a clear-cut definition. But I understood what it said correctly. It said "Its use as a weapon of war was gruesomely demonstrated during World War II ... Two of the worst examples were the sexual enslavement of women in territories conquered by the Japanese army and the mass rape committed against German women by advancing Russian soldiers.". My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The paradigmatic example of rape as a weapon of war is Rape during the Bosnian War. The concept has been recently used by the United Nations with regard to Sexual violence in the Tigray War [45]: perpetrated on a staggering scale ... more than 1,000 women and girls have been subjected to such acts ... attackers expressed an intent to render the victims infertile by permanently destroying their sexual and reproductive health ... intent to destroy the Tigrayan ethnicity. Is something similar taking place in Ukraine? I don't know, but I hope not, because RSs say nothing of the sort. We are grossly failing WP:V if we report "mass rape" and "weaponized rape" without solid support in the sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what many people think. That is why I quoted article "Rape as a weapon of war" from Encyclopædia Britannica. It says that mass rapes during WWII were also "Rape as a weapon of war", and not only two infamous cases (by Japanese and Soviet forces), but in general. You refuse to listen. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The article you cited from the Encyclopaedia Britannica supports my thesis and refutes yours. If I reguse to listen, you refuse to read. Rape during the occupation of Germany involved hundreds of thousands of victims; Japanese comfort women ammounted to about 50,000–200,000. The idea that the same is happening now in Ukraine is ludicrous and absurd. You're not complying with WP:V. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You still refuse to read/listen. I just said "and not only two [most] infamous cases (by Japanese and Soviet forces), but in general". Same in EB linked above [46], i.e. "Its use as a weapon of war was gruesomely demonstrated during World War II, when both Allied and Axis armies committed rape as a means of terrorizing enemy civilian populations and demoralizing enemy troops. Two of the worst examples were..."" There is no requirement for this to be N thousand. My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You just quoted the text in sources which supports the text in the article and then claim that… it doesn’t satisfy WP:V? I’m sorry I simply don’t know how to respond to that. Volunteer Marek 05:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Why can't we follow the same standard of verifiability followed by quality press? Quality press don't say that rape is happening at a mass scale and is being used as a weapon, but rather report Patten's assessment with attribution. You're just trying to push a POV here and use this article for advocacy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

First, cut it out with the personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS. How many times do I have to ask you this? Second, yes sources do say the UN says it, experts say it. You quoted three sources yourself. Here’s another one [47]. Volunteer Marek 17:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just reading what the sources say, it looks like the only dispute is over the word "mass". My initial reaction is that the following is supported: Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of rape as a weapon of war. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] etc etc etc etc Volunteer Marek 17:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked the first 6 sources and none of them can be used to support the claims in Wikivoice about "mass rape" and/or "rape as a weapon of war". All of them either speak of individuals (e.g., a gender policy specialist, Ukrainian government officials, etc.) who said that rape was systemic/weaponised, or speak of "allegations" and "fear" that rape may be systemic/weaponised. As far as I know, the only independent assessment we have so far on the extent of rapes is that of the OHCHR, quoted above. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked the first 6 sources and none of them can be used to support ... Ffs, the first one is titled "Allegations of mass rape by Russian troops in Ukraine". The third one says "as the first reports of mass rape surfaced after the Russian invasion." Fourth one says "mass rape as war crime has become a truly hideous reality in Ukraine.". Fifth one says "Ukrainian prosecutors and human rights groups are gathering evidence of mass rape and assault committed by Russian soldiers". Sixth one says "the Russian army has a long history of brutal violence, but it seemed unthinkable that soldiers would engage in the mass rape, torture and killing of civilians whom the Russian regime officially considers their Slavic brothers. And yet this is exactly what they did in towns and villages on the outskirts of Kyiv."

I think the problem is with your ability to "check" sources. Volunteer Marek 18:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The Kyiv Independent one says: The exhumations and the testimonies of surviving locals have shed light on another Russian atrocity: mass rape of Ukrainians, including women, men, and children. That seems pretty unequivocal. The Kyiv Post too: mass rape as war crime has become a truly hideous reality in Ukraine. But I'd prefer to see it in a non-Ukrainian source. I still think that the only doubt is about the word "mass". Adoring nanny (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, Time Magazine says: But as female lawmakers in Kyiv grapple with the mass rape of their people and Ukrainian women mobilize en masse in the war effort, those perceptions are also changing. That looks good enough to me. It's not a Ukrainian source, so no concerns about WP:INDEPENDENT. [58]Adoring nanny (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Kyiv Post is not WP:INDEPENDENT and the Times article is a May 2022 piece on "Foreign Women Joining Ukraine’s Fight Against Russia": it's subject is not the scale of sexual violence in Ukraine (about which we knew even less in May than we do now). The notion of mass rape is marely mentioned in this passing sentence: But as female lawmakers in Kyiv grapple with the mass rape of their people and Ukrainian women mobilize en masse in the war effort, those perceptions are also changing. Do you really think that it supports the claim (with wikivoice) that in Ukraine the use of mass rape as a weapon of war took place? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just like the other dozen sources I listed. It’s time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Volunteer Marek 00:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

CNN: Russian troops use rape as ‘an instrument of war’ in Ukraine, rights groups allege, WaPo [59]. Using rape as a weapon was really the case here because Russian military commanders ordered soldiers to commit sexual violence in Ukraine, war crimes investigator says. Well, if they ordered, encouraged or just turned a blind eye does not really matter. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Note rights group allege and war crimes investigator says. We can't use wikivoice on the base of these sources. Since they report these claims with attribution, we should do the same. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources in this thread disputes the fact that mass rapes have been committed by Russian forces, and many sources use exactly same language. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources in this trhead deals with the fact that mass rapes have been committed, neither to dispute it nor to affirm it - they merely use that notion, or report that someone used that notion. We have very few sources on the scale of sexual violence during the invasion and on the "chain of command" behind rapes. Any rape is one rape too many, but "mass rape" and "rape as a weapon of war" are specific phenomena, which we can only report on the basis of independent and reliable sources on the scale and nature of sexual violence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this is blatantly untrue as even the few quotes provided above easily evidence. Some of the sources speak of allegations or reports, other sources state it as fact. And yes they say “mass rape”. And yes they say “as weapon of war”. This is beyond tiresome. Volunteer Marek 04:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:WIKIVOICE. The relevant sentences are Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. We should follow it. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this edit [60] @Adoring nanny, is that to state something - and especially something WP:EXCEPTIONAL - with wikivoice, we need reliable sources making factual assetions on the subject: they must deal with the scale of sexual violence in Ukraine and with the intentions of the perpetrators, and they must say that rape is occurring on a mass scale and that it's being used to terrorize the civilians or demoralize the troops. The Guardian article speaks genericaly (in April) of a threat of rape as a weapon of war; the Times article contains a passing reference (in May) to female lawmakers in Kyiv grapple with the mass rape of their people. On the other side, we have OHCHR saying on 27 Sept 2022 that OHCHR cannot yet draw conclusions regarding the scale of CRSV perpetrated since February. If they couldn't draw conclusions about the scale in September, why do you think you can do it using news reports from April and May? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing WP:EXCEPTIONAL here. We have a whole lot of different people saying variations on the same thing. In that case, we should summarize. "Mass rape as a weapon of war" is a fair summary of what the sources are saying. It doesn't matter if one source can't draw conclusions about the scale. Other sources have, and they agree. For our purposes, that's enough. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I guess that Gitz is the only one here pushing his position that Russian forces did not commit mass rapes in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Gitz needs to stop edit warring against multiple editors. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said here above, this is what "mass rape as a weapon of war" looks like: [61] (para. 55-70). By trivializing the notion of weaponised rape, we run the risk of making it even more invisible than it already is, we fail in the mission of any encyclopaedia, which is to bring clarity and knowledge in place of prejudice and confusion, and we also breach our policy by combining together various sources on "allegations", "threats", "fears" of systematic and weaponised sexual violence in order to claim with wikivoice that sexual violence is already systematic and weaponised. Please, instead of replying to me, take 15 minutes of your time to read and understand what "sexual violence as a weapon of war" actually means. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what a source about… Ethiopia, has to do with the topic at hand, except as yet another illustration that what you’re doing is original research and synthesis. And nobody here is trivializing the notion of mass rape except the one editor who is trying to portray a few instances of vigilantes tying looters to poles in the early days of the invasion as “sexual violence” on par with mass rape, including the rape of children. That’d be you. Volunteer Marek 03:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Gitz you can’t just claim something “fails verification” when it clearly doesn’t. Volunteer Marek 04:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead

The lead as it is know is very bed. There's a nasty citation overkill and it doesn't comply with MOS:LEAD. The following text is IMO an improvement. It quotes the best available sources and is a close summary of most of the contents of the article:

proposed new lead

Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Russian armed forces and policemen and, to a lesser extent, by Ukrainian forces. Russian forces have been repeatedly accused by Ukrainian officials and human rights organisations of committing sexual violence on a mass scale and using sexual violence as a weapon of war. In September 2022, a United Nations commission of inquiry documented cases of rape and torture against children; the victims of sexual violence by Russian soldiers ranged in age from 4 years to 80 years. Cases of conclict-related sexual violence by Ukrainian armed forces and police mainly consisted in forced public stripping of suspected looters and in threats of sexual violence against Russian prisoners of war. References

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No because this version summarizes content about Ukrainian "forces" that is currently not included to the page, and there is no consensus to include. They are not [military] forces, but mostly civilians. It is not clear if these incidents represent sexual violence (i.e. belong to this page) if we look at their description in multiple sources (rather than in the single source of your choice), as was already discussed on this page.My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the section on Ukrainian forces is currently not included because of your and Volunteer Marek's relentless edit warring. The discussion at NPOV/N shows that there's no consensus to remove a section that has always been here. WP:NOCON applies and it's for you to build a consensus for removal. Secondly, the argument They are not [military] forces, but mostly civilians is irrilevant. Why should an article on "Sexual violence in the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022" deal exclusively with sexual violence by military forces? The article deals with sexual violence related to the conflict, which may well by committed by civilians (and policemen) against refugees, looters, "enemies", etc. Finally, that "multiple sources" is another assumption with no basis on policy; it's just a rule of your own making. OHCHR reports are a WP:RS and can be used as such. By the way, we have multiple reports by OHCHR on sexual violence committed by Ukrainian forces. Are you implying that they are not reliable? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If we do not want to mislead reader, we absolutely must look at multiple RS. Moreover, we should use sources that describe the subject (incidents of vigilante justice in this case) in significant detail, e.g. this source, as opposed to sources that mention such incidents in passing or in a couple of phrases (sources that you are using here). And what do the most detailed sources say? First, they do not say it was a sex crime. Secondly, they say: Out of the 17 videos our team analysed, we only found nine instances where we can see someone tying up an accused thief. Sometimes, they appear to be ordinary citizens while others – carrying weapons or wearing military fatigues, blue or yellow armbands or badges – may be members of Ukraine's security forces and so on. This is far cry from the content you want to include. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the last point you made: we should add "and civilians": "Cases of conclict-related sexual violence by Ukrainian armed forces, police and civilians mainly consisted in..." If you allow me to do it, I'd add these words to the proposed text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, this content might belong to page vigilante justice or some other pages, not here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Biased

Not that i know that certainly Ukrainian soldiers have committed war rape, but it is excluded without any text about whether they did. Also, it has been written in a very subjective way. Also, only the voice of the ukrainian government has been said, which makes it unreliable because ukraine is a belligerent of the war. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. There's currently a discussion on the neutrality of this article at Neutral point of view Noticeboard: you can add your views here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "biased" means. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is no evidence that rape as a tool of war or terror is being used by Ukrainian forces; there is overwhelming evidence that Russian forces are using rape as a tool of war or terror. Crimes committed by military personnel are different from using rape as a tool of war. I think this is an attempt to create an twisted moral equivalency between the actions of Russian forces and Ukrainian forces.  // Timothy :: talk  17:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  So yesterday you checked the sources carefully @TimothyBlue. Do you still believe that there is "overwhelming evidence that Russian forces are using rape as a tool of war or terror"? Do you think that the lead is justified per MOS:LEAD or is it just bad SYNTH and OR? The only independent reliable source on "rape as a weapon of war" is the October interview of Pramila Patten, UN Special Rapporteur. On "mass rape" there is more, but no conclusive evidence, just opinions by non-independent parties. Note that the source you restored [62] is not reporting "testimony about mass rape" [63] but a (quite unlikely) intercepted conversation circulated by the Ukrainian secret service. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This is simply false, there is more than adequate sourcing in the section Reports and statements and throughout the article. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That's my point. Not that i think ukraine is doing it, but this article seems like it is only saying what russia is doing. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Streaming WP:Proseline

As noted by AllGloryToTheHypnotoad at the OR/N discussion, the section "Nature and extent of sexual violence" (which I myself included [64]) is a WP:PROSELINE, it needs to be replaced with a proper section detailing the nature and extent or simply erased [65]. I agreed with them and replaced it with a new text [66]. Who knows, maybe the editors closely monitoring this article had implicitly agreed that the new text was an improvement? However TimothyBlue doesn't think so and removed it with the edit summary: "There is no consensus" [67]. How can there be consensus or no consensus if there has been no discussion yet? So let's have a discussion. The nasty WP:Proseline is an issue. How should we solve it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think at best you're mischaracterizing the discussion at OR. "Streamling" is ce not changing the meaning and substance of text. You do not have consensus for changing the meaning and substance of the text.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Provide arguments. Can you? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They just did. Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you to show you have consensus for your changes.  // Timothy :: talk  19:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

He will never have "consensus" for fixing a poorly written section if you don't engage in discussion. State in detail what he has to do to fix the proseline problem to your approval, or make changes to his edit to fix what you consider problematic in his edit, or rewrite the section yourself to fix the proseline problem. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

btw: when you read WP:PROSELINE be sure to focus on the attention box at the top that says: "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." so the foundation of this supposed problem is really weak. Anyone can write an essay, its a point of view and nothing more, not a policy or a guideline and it does not represent an issue where the community sees the need to make a guideline or policy. // Timothy :: talk  20:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. Well, you've been fixing the section, so my concern is addressed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

and be aware of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVAS  // Timothy :: talk  19:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue, I admit that I like the section as it is now. You removed most of the contents that my first cautious redrafting of the section had left in place (e.g., the claims by Ukrainian officials and Ukrainian human rights organisations that rape is used as a weapon of war, the letter from the foreign ministers of Canada and the UK on rape as a weapon of war, and the statement by the UK Foreign Secretary about mass rape) and placed them in a self-standing section "Reports and statements". What is left in the section "Nature and extent of sexual violence" is what independent reliable secondary sources report on the topic. I believe this is the approach we should have also elsewhere - at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in particular. However, in my opinion there is still a problem. Please, read the section and then read the lead. Do you think that the following sentence is in compliance with WP:V and MOS:LEAD? Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been committed by Armed Forces of Russia, including the use of mass rape as a weapon of war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(I know you asked them and not me, but....) Leaving aside the tone of the sentence, I'd personally disqualify all the media references given under note (a) for supporting the lead, since it's such a severe statement; and I'd support it instead with the authoritative primary source [68] (if that source does indeed support the sentence as written). If then you want to weasel the intro with "The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has found that...", that may address concern? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(I asked also you and everyone else!) Actually that source doesn't support the statement. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry didn't mention nor imply mass rape or rape as a weapon of war (see para. 88-98). Coming from the UN environments, the only source AFIK supporting the statement is an interview to AFP by the UN Special Representative Pramila Patten (see e.g. here [69]). That interview, however, has not (yet) been followed by an official report or statement by her office. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, if so, then at a minimum the sentence has to be rewritten to say what authoritative sources actually say. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree with you. As you might remember, that's the point I was trying to make at OR/N, here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is clearly supported by the sources. This has been discussed. And secondary sources are preferred to primary sources.  // Timothy :: talk  02:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We apparently do not have consensus that the sentence is clearly supported by the sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Supported or not depends on the meaning of terminology. I am not an expert, but mass rape currently links to Mass sexual assault, which is simply a collective sexual assault of individuals by a group. Such definitions is sourced, and that did happen during this war as a matter of fact according to sources cited on this page. Rape as a weapon of war currently redirect to Wartime_sexual_violence#Causes. According to description (which is sourced), this is simply mass rapes by military forces during any war (it cites UN: "women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group."). That also did happen as a matter of fact, and the cited sources do use wording "Rape as a weapon of war". Therefore, I agree that the statements are supported. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

MVBW, mind WP:CIRCULAR. I've already provided sources on the meaning of "rape as a weapon of war" (a statement by the President of the Security Council, a resolution of the UN Security Council, the official definition developed by the UN). If the United Nations doesn't agree with Wikipedia, that's an issue that sooner or later we'll need to address. However, as the discussion on this topic is still open on NORN, I suggest @AllGloryToTheHypnotoad and @TimothyBlue to express their views there, so that we can have an orderly and unified discussion and allow the closer, if there will be a formal closure, to take your views into account. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In this and other comments you imply that UN (or let's say Amnesty International) reports are the best source one can find. This is not the case. They are good and can be used, but they are WP:BIASED as advocacy sources, and have been criticized a lot. Also, they are usually WP:PRIMARY. In other words, "if the United Nations doesn't agree with Wikipedia", that can be a problem with the United Nations. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the point is that "rape as a weapon of war" has a precise meaning in international humanitarian law, war studies and related areas. Our reliable sources are well aware of that meaning - or at least most of them are; maybe not all the journalists, but surely Pramila Patten, the U.N.’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, knows what she says when she says that Russian forces are carrying out sexual violence as part of their military strategy. So if our sources are aware of the meaning of "rape as a weapon of war", it's better that we also are aware of it, and don't claim that it is, as you said, mass rapes by military forces during any war. It's different. Key notion: military strategy. Rape as a weapon of war implies that the chain of command is at least aware of the rapes and let them go on without trying to prevent them because they fit its military strategy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the existence of the "chain of command" has been described or suggested in a number of RS. Probably the most famous case was Putin awarding the detachment that committed atrocities, including rapes in Bucha - see [70]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A UN statement that rape is being used as a weapon of war by the Russians is a sufficient source for justifying the opening sentence of this article. Also, please read WP:PRIMARY before referring to it. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." A UN report is authoritative in this respect, otherwise nothing is. If someone thinks the UN is biased, then the statement can be qualified with "The UN has found...", as WP:PRIMARY states. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the "UN statement" that rape is being used as a weapon of war is not an official report or an official statement, but an interview to Agence France-Presse by the UN Special Representative Pramila Patten, which was reported by several news outlets (e.g. [71]). Those news outlets don't say "rape is weaponised" but rather "Pramila Patten says that rape is weaponised". So shouldn't we do the same? Can we say in wikivoice that rape is weaponised or should we rather say (as I proposed) "according to UN officials and human rights organisations rape is weaponised"?

Also please tell me whether this discussion should continue here, or be transferred to WP:ORN (where the thread on the same subject is still open), or whether this is simply not an issue and the discussion can continue here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

ORN discussions don't seem to end with any decision. Anyway, I guess if there's more than one UN or rights organization official saying this, then to do as you propose sounds fine. But why isn't there explicit, definitive mention in the UN report linked earlier? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Quotes from individual soldiers' phone calls

...are WP:UNDUE for inclusion unless they're widely reported, e.g., by many RSes, not just one or two or three. I've removed them for this reason. This is basically true for any quote, with a few exceptions, but in an article about war crimes, a quote from a single soldier is hardly significant to the topic. And if it's illustrative of a broader theme, then we need multiple RSes that say "this is an important quote". Levivich (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If you'd read the article and the references, they have been widely reported. I am adding more content and refs.  // Timothy :: talk  20:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

and where did you come up with "not just one or two or three." Did something change?  // Timothy :: talk  20:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No we do not need multiple RSes that say "this is an important quote" for inclusion of quotes on any pages. I am for inclusion because this is sourced and indeed an illustrative quotation consistent with the general picture provided by other sources. Yes, that was really terrible. That is what this quotation say. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why should I bother discussing this with you if you're just going to reinstate the content anyway? What's the point?

Anyway, the reason we need multiple sources to support a quote is because of WP:DUE, which says, in relevant part (bold is mine but italics are in the original):

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views...

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery...

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

So we don't know if the quote from a individual soldier is just that one person's opinion, or representative of a wider-held view, unless there's an RS that explicitly says so. And we don't know if one RS is a tiny minority or just one of the majority, unless there are multiple RSes. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Exceptional quotes require exceptional sources, too. See also the essay WP:QUOTE. It's better to just say that sexual violence by Russian troops is widespread, in wikivoice (which there is ample RS support for), rather than include one or two particularly-incendiary quote...unless perhaps the quote is quoted by a majority of RSes, or at least a significant minority, demonstrating that the quote is WP:DUE for inclusion. Levivich (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"Why should I bother discussing this with you" - because it's required. I mean, nobody is making you edit this particular article. But since you decided to start editing it all of sudden (any particular reason?) out of the blue then yes, you do have to discuss your proposed edits with others. That's how Wikipedia works - you have to interact with other people whether you like it or not. Volunteer Marek 21:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with everything above. That is precisely why we must include this on the page. This description is consistent with descriptions of such events in the majority of sources Once again, this citation is not anything "extraordinary". The description is perfectly consistent with events that took place on a number of other locations in Ukraine, such as Bucha. Saying something opposite (e.g. no one was killed and raped) would indeed be WP:Extraordinary. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  "consistent with" doesn't make a quote WP:DUE for inclusion. Why this particular quote and not any of the many, many other reported intercepted phone calls, or quotes from investigators, or survivors, or witnesses, etc. etc. etc. Wikipedia editors are choosing this quote to illustrate the topic, and that's not encyclopedic, and not in keeping with our WP:NPOV policy, particularly when the quote is chosen because it's so dramatic, and not because it's widely-reported in RSes. In an article about war crimes, the only quotation that's WP:DUE is one that's widely treated as significant by RSes, and I'm not sure there is any such quote for this particular war (yet). Levivich (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like these particular quotes are being included because they're... related to the topic? While other intercepted quotes aren't? Not clear on what the problem is. Volunteer Marek 21:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The choice of all quotations is to some degree subjective. You say it is "so dramatic". Yes, it is - because this is war, and the atrocities during war are always dramatic. This is just a fair description of what is actually happening, and we have an obligation to describe it on pages as appears in RS on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The choice of quotation is much less subjective if we judge it by "widely reported in RS", and we should describe in wikivoice, not by quotations. I also question whether it's a BLPVIO because it's one person saying "we" committed heinous crimes, although I think the "we" is thousands of people (Russian soldiers who surrendered Lyman). I will post to BLPN about this shortly. Levivich (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, who exactly is this a BLPVIO against? Volunteer Marek 21:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Replying at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#BLPvio against groups (soldiers)? Levivich (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, such atrocities have been widely reported. A single citation of an eyewitness can say a lot more than a wall of text. That was realized by people like Ales Adamovich and Svetlana Alexievich who collected such testimonies in their books, resulting in a Nobel prize. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We must be miscommunicating. You wrote "such atrocities have been widely reported"; yes, of course, nobody disputes this. I said we shouldn't include a quote unless the quote is widely-reported. We should describe the atrocities in Wikivoice, and not by using quotations. I believe this is what our various policies/essays I linked to above instruct. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We should provide summaries of sources. Yes, sure. That is what most of this page does. But we also can provide direct citations. Should such citations by widely reported? No, there is no requirement for "widely". Yes, it is preferable that a citation would be taken from a secondary RS (as in this case), although even this is not required. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich that there's a big DUE WEIGHT issue here. I don't see why a reader that for whatever reason doesn't usually read Yahoo News and Ukranska Pravda needs to find this long quotation in the body of our article: we have plenty of high quality sources on sexual violence in Ukraine and nothing justifies such an emphasis on a news item that the high-quality press has so far discarded. Moreover, there might be also a problem of WP:V because the Security Service of a country at war is not a reliable source. This phone conversation was released to the press by SBU, and Ukranska Pravda and Yahoo News circulated it with no editorial oversight, so we're basically echoing their assessment that SBU is reliable, which it isn't. Please, we've already been through this, don't you remember? When SBU circulated that conversation between a soldier and his mum, the soldier describing how he tortures Ukrainian prisoners, how heroic Ukrainian prisoners were, and the mummy getting high and commenting "they are beasts!" [72][73][74]. Quality press usually don't publish this crap, tabloids and occasionaly sources such as YahooNews and The Daily Beast do. But we shouldn't. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Any intercepts by SBU that have been reliably published, for example by NPR (as in your link), can be cited. There is no any reason they can not. My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

MVBW, you say there is no requirement for "widely" [reported] and that we do not need multiple RSes that say "this is an important quote" for inclusion of quotes. May I remind you that a few days ago, on this ver talk page, you were arguing that we should not include sexual violence against looters by Ukrainian forces, while the incidents are reported by many sources, only the OHCHR qualified some of them as "sexual violence"? See at 02:55, 5 January 2023: If we do not want to mislead reader, we absolutely must look at multiple RS. So we need multiple sources because the OHCHR may be wrong about what qualifies as sexual violence, but we don't need multiple sources to establish how significant this quote is? You feel that it is significant, therefore it is a "significant viewpoint" per WP:DUE - right? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should used multiple RS, and this is one of them. And yes, that intercept was widely published, for example, [75], [76],[77], in addition to citation currently on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by these sources - the webiste of the Secret Service of Ukraine and two Ukrainian news portals - and have the feeling that they strengthen the case for UNDUE. No other sources at all? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, since the narrow point is moot, although the broader one applies - Gitz did think that "Ukrainian news portals" were perfectly fine on the article on Ruslan Kotsaba and indeed kept restoring those there [78]. And that is an actual BLP not a invented "BLPVIO" as some arguing here. So this position, that Ukrainian news portals can be reliable, is still pertinent to this discussion. Volunteer Marek 01:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We must have widely different definitions of "widely". The sources you posted are Ukrainian government [79], Telegraf (Ukrainian newspaper) [80], an opinion piece marked as opinion (Мнения) from a website called "CensorU.net" that is probably not an RS [81], plus what's in the article now, Ukrainska Pravda [82]. So that's two Ukrainian newspapers, the gov't, and an opinion piece. When I google the quote [83], I find nothing beyond this. Not widely, not in English media anyway. Levivich (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If you need more sources, yes, sure. Here is publication by Dmitry Gordon, certainly an RS. Here is publication by Ukrainian Independent Information Agency. There are dozens publications about this particular intercept. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Those look good, UNIAN and the (existing) Ukrainska Pravda looks like probably the two best sources to me. Levivich (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What gives me pause is that I can't find this covered by Kyiv Post (even though they've published intercepts before, but with a different tenor [84]), or Dzerkalo Tyzhnia (even though they published about war crimes just days before [85]), or The Day (Kyiv), or in any media outside of Ukraine. It seems to have been picked up by some but not all major Ukrainian outlets, but not at all outside of Ukraine, and I wonder if that is because of questions of authenticity. Levivich (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, if you look at the other quote I removed ("Locals hate us here..."), which is now also sourced to The Guardian [86], it's a "live blog", and the way the Guardian frames it is much more cautious: The security service of Ukraine has released a recording of an intercepted call by a Russian soldier in which he appears to complain about the setbacks faced by Russian troops in recent months. “Locals hate us here. Ours rape local women,” the soldier appeared to say into the phone, adding that there was little to no chance of him returning home anytime soon. And still, the Guardian has nothing about the "When we surrendered Lyman, we slaughtered everyone out there..." quote. Levivich (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course not every news source reported about this intercept (Guardian is telling about a different intercept). This not a major war offensive to be reported everywhere. As a note of order, the text provided by many sources is incomplete translation of the audio. It tells more. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

so we have Ukrainian Pravda on Lyman already? Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz, drop the stick. Can the whatsboutism. It hasn't even been an hour since you claimed that it had to be a press release to be RS. You're just making stuff up. I'm here to say that as long as these edits meet RS and other standards, they have my full support. And don't even try signing Just Prancing on. Elinruby (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of using sock- or meatpuppets? Please strike through or open an investigation at WP:SPI. As I just told you at the thread open at ANI, your behaviour is out of line. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

amazing what you find out when you read other editors' posts, yawn. Have you struck those aspersions yet? I'm just here for the diffs. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz, if you need help to understand the reliable sources policy you know where RSN is. Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Phone intercepts by the Ukrainian Security Service are a legitimate topic discussed in reliable sources. These phone intercepts are covered in as far as they related to sexual violence. The content and sources reflects this. Trying to pretend these phone intercepts don't exist or that the reliable sources cited don't exist isn't acceptable, removing them would introduce pro-Russian bias.  // Timothy :: talk  01:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

*:We had dozens of those phone calls, ok? I've already mentioned the most ludicrous one, the guy describing his mummy how he likes to torture Ukrainians. We had the girlfriend telling his boyfriend to rape freely because he has to relief himself somehow. We had the soldier giving the overt command to kill all the Ukrainian civilians in the village. At the beginning of the invasion, some of this crap made its way into the quality press - e.g. NPR, if I remember correctly, maybe even CNN. Then they stopped publishing these things because they don't know if they are authentic - nobody knows. There's a war and there's war propaganda, and we should publish what the best available sources publish, so that our readers know we are reliable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Keep working on the article Elinruby (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, if reliably published like here (that one also needs to be mentioned on this page). But the most interesting intercept during this war was the intercept Gitz was taking about [87]. I saw it here (this is by Dmitry Gordon). It is shame that the original record is now inaccessible. I have learned a lot while listening it. The devil is in details. But that one belongs to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That one was also reported on in Ukrainska Pravda [88] and maybe some other sources. But it's probably not on topic for this article. Volunteer Marek 05:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have the direct link to Ukrainian Pravda, if that is helpful, and also found this except at fakty, which I am fairly certain that someone told me is considered reliable. As for torture, while that might be sexual for some people, I think that the material we have on sadism is disturbing enough (?) so my thought is that on this page we should just deal with violence that is explicitly sexual in nature.

On the page about torture I think I once took issue with the idea that sexual violence couldn't be torture, but I don't recall the particulars and am not certain that this page existed yet. I think I took it as another attempt to minimize the sexual violence issue. But that is a discussion for another page. I think this one is in good hands now; let me know if I can help somehow. Elinruby (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Links:

• Meduza

• Business Insider

Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Break for a bit

The article is in much better shape but there is still work needed; I've stopped for a while to recover; I've read probably 200 articles on sexual violence in war and combined with the situation from earlier this has taken a toll (insignificant compared with the subject of the article, but a toll on this old man nevertheless) and has included collatoral damage (@Bbb23 and Tgeorgescu:). I'd like to see this become a featured article this summer; I believe I have some good notes going forward. No need for replies, I need to completely set this aside for a bit. Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  19:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sunday Times on two castrations

This article has developed a lot since last time I checked, so I'm not quite sure where this should go. Feel free to use <ref name="SundayTimes_she_thought_unshockable">{{cite Q|Q119707348|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref> as a direct claim by The Sunday Times of Russian forces' castration of two Ukrainian soldiers during the ongoing invasion. This is not just a video circulating on online social networks - it's direct testimony in a WP:RS and The Sunday Times emphasizes the claim in its title. The archive.today version is un-paywalled.

This doesn't qualify under Sources related to mass rape and rape as a weapon of war or military strategy, which itself is on the verge of WP:OR, since as far as I know, under international humanitarian law (IHL), rape as a weapon of war is a war crime, it's not an instrument of military strategy, and rape as ... military strategy is a misunderstanding of the law: rape cannot be a military strategy, it can only be a war crime strategy (in the wide sense of war crime/crime against humanity/genocide). Removing "or military strategy" would fix this.

The issue of how to use this source remains open. "... The Russians told them, 'We are doing this so you can't have kids.' To me this is genocide. Yatsenko sees the castrations as an element of genocide. To include this in the general list would require changing to something like Sources related to mass rape, rape as a weapon of war or rape as genocide. Boud (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not as a "weapon of war", but this is a sourced allegation. Here is some info about author [89]. It seems to appear in "Times" [90], not just "Sunday Times", and it was debated in other sources, such as [91], [92],[93]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

References

"Children and elderly" section

"In another village in the same region, Russian soldiers gang-raped a 56-year-old woman after robbing her. Later the Russians tortured and murdered her husband."

I wouldn't characterize a 56-year-old woman as elderly. Not sure where to move this sentence. Mooonswimmer 00:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

Per AfD, please add the following content in the section #Prominent_cases_in_the_media

In September 2022, two fighters of the Donetsk People's Republic were allegedly raped by allied Chechen Kadyrovite soldiers in the village of Berestove. The perpetrators also allegedly threatened other service people who attempted to protect the victims. Abubakar Yangulbaev, a human rights activist, confirmed the authenticity of the related video.

Or something like this. Thanks.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 14:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)