Jump to content

Talk:Liudmyla Denisova

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Lyudmyla Denisova)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lyudmyla Denisova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lyudmyla Denisova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox chronology is wrong but I can't fix it, help requested

[edit]

It lists her 2014 - 2014 time as prime minister above (and so out of order with) her 2018 - present tenure as Ombudsman(woman) for Human Rights in Ukraine.

If anyone understands infoboxes and can fix this, I encourage that, since I don't know how to do it myself.

Thanks!

Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She has made numerous public human rights allegations that are not in this article

[edit]

Especially since the start of the 2022 Russian invasion.

That would be a good hour or two project, if anyone is so inclined.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This must be clarified

[edit]
  • [1] - Denisova drew up reports of mass rapes of teenagers, rapes of infants. These cases found no confirmation in the investigations of the Prosecutor General's Office in Kiev. Which exactly "cases found no confirmation" according to this source? All of them? This is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is explained here. Simply, Denisova flooded social networks with unverified rape cases (fake news?) without turning anything over to the Prosecutor General, Iryna Venediktova.[2] Mhorg (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a good RS to support the statement as worded above. I am not sure about the journal, Secolo d'Italia (our page say this is a former neo-fascist publication), but the posting itself is so brief and poorly written one can not even understand what it say. Once again, which exactly "cases found no confirmation" according to this source? All of them? The cited source does not explain it at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Babel source doesn’t say what the text says. Italian source is confusing and probably not reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Babel source doesn’t say what the text says. Babel: "Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova stated that ex-ombudsman Liudmyla Denisova did not provide her with materials on rapes, which she reported on social networks."[3]
Our article: "Iryna Venediktova, the Prosecutor General, reported that Denisova did not provide her with materials on rapes, which she were spreading on social media."
What would be the difference?
Italian source is confusing and probably not reliable Could you specify which part seems confusing and unreliable to you? Consider that that journal is an RS.Mhorg (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to clarify: Babel can't be used for the text above. It does indeed say "did not provide details" so we can use it for that. We should not say "spreading", which is POV, whereas "reporting" is neutral. Can't comment on the reliability of babel.ua or if this is due.
Reading our Secolo d'Italia does not inspire confidence in their reliability. They're quoting La Republicca, which is presumably RS, but unclear where quote starts an ends. I've found the original, which we could consider using.[4] It says "cifre sparate un po' a caso... che non trovavano conferma nelle indagini della procura generale di Kiev". So it's the figures, not the rapes, which weren't confirmed. But what does "didn't find confirmation" mean? They were investigated and couldn't be verified? Or they weren't investigated so not verified? We can't use such a vague comment. What does it add? (Plus the article is written in a sensationalist polemical way - feels like an opinion piece/commentary to me, although it's filed under news, so maybe that's just their style.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok Bob, if you think this doesn't add anything useful I will remove the part. But that source was interesting because it also reported an opinion of another parliamentarian, that was removed by MVBW.[5] Mhorg (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggeration of her dismissal

[edit]
  • In addition to the sourcing, I think making a huge section about her dismissal is out of proportion and a BLP violation. She was dismissed for allegedly "failed to facilitate humanitarian corridors in warzones and prevent Ukrainians under Russian occupation from being deported to Russia". But knowing what was happening on the ground, how could she possibly create the "humanitarian corridors in warzones and prevent Ukrainians under Russian occupation from being deported to Russia" if that was fully controlled by Russian military? Also, I do not see a single specific claims by her which would be founds outright false according to RS. My point: her dismissal should be noted, but only very briefly. Yes, that was covered, but only in a few strong English language sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the sources we have on her, she is known for her reports on rapes, and for the fact that she was fired also because of spread of unverified rape cases (And we are not talking about accusation from unknown personalities, but parliamentarians and heads of editorial staff of newspapers). So it is correct to give wide coverage to this affair. She is not known for other issues. Please don't start again with mass removals of content with sources. Mhorg (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, disparaging a living person by combining every single negative comment about her is not the way to write BLP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have completely removed the whole explanation of why and by whom she was accused of spreading unverified rape reports.[6] You continue with this way of massively deleting content, these are pejorative changes, they give the reader no information at all and cannot be accepted. Mhorg (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the new changes, it has been completely removed that she was accused of making unsubstantiated and false rape reports.[7] Also the contribution of user @Rwendland: has also been removed. I wonder how this behaviour can be accepted by other collegues.--Mhorg (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Mhorg but we can't say what our reliable sources don't say. If there is a reliable source saying she was accused, we can consider it if due, bearing in mind BLP policy. If there isn't, we can't. This is what the BBC says: Earlier, Ukrainian journalists criticized the rhetoric of reports by the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmila Denisova, about sexual crimes committed by the Russian military in Ukraine during the war. Denisova often gave very harsh details about child rapes, which journalists believed could sometimes not even be supported by facts. Journalists signed an open appeal to the ombudsman with a request to adjust communication in accordance with the ethics of dissemination of such sensitive information. However, journalists did not demand Denisova's release. To claim on this basis in our voice that she made false reports is way beyond what the source says, and a blatant BLP violation. At most, we can say some journalists believed that some of her reports were not supported by facts. Further, it is clear that this was not the reason she was sacked, but something separate, and wording suggesting otherwise would not only be a BLP violation but actively misleading. I don't know what Rwendland's edit was that's been deleted; I simply checked our claims against the sources cited and made sure there was nothing that exceeded them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, I know that we often have different ways of interpreting certain issues, but I respect you. Now please look at the version that was there before.[8] There are many reputable sources talking about this, there are important Ukrainian figures accusing her precisely of reporting unverifiable and false news. Please, also the letter signed by 140 people clearly stating that they accuse her of reporting rape without evidence has also been removed: "Some deputies, supported by an open letter from 140 public figures, activists and professionals, expressed concern and outrage because she "had been insensitive in her airing of allegations of sexual crimes, particularly those involving children and minors", and because she released information related to the sexual crimes of Russian soldiers that "is usually impossible to verify in other sources"." The source is Hromadske.[9] Please, I trust in your reasonableness. Mhorg (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have added Frolov back in, as what he said is verified in WSJ and DW which are strong sources, and therefore noteworthy. Important not to suggest the open letter supported him, as it opposed her removal. The problem is now that we have a very long paragraph about a very specific recent incident, and almost nothing about her long career as a minister and MP, skewing the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sure, having a very long paragraph about a very specific recent incident, and almost nothing about her long career as a minister and MP is out of balance. Unless this is fixed, please no more content about her dismissal. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifications, but it now say: "The deputy chairman of the parliament regulatory committee, Pavlo Frolov, added on Facebook that some of her accounts had not been verified". Why is that important and should be included? My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bob for at least restoring that part. However, I would like to point out that the part of the letter signed by 140 people accusing her of reporting rape cases without evidence (source Hromadske) is still missing. That is the most important part, because we have tons of her gruesome reports of child and baby rapes in many newspapers. I think the reader should know that there is this very heavy diatribe in her own country and with criticism coming from pro-government people. Mhorg (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is now included: "An open letter from 140 activists, media professionals and lawyers criticized the rhetoric of her reports about sexual crimes by Russian forces, but opposed her removal." My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "rhetoric" was not the main problem, the rape reports "usually impossible to verify in other sources" is a tremendously more serious and important issue. Please do not distort the content of the sources. Mhorg (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not distort the content of the sources. Who you are talking with and about? My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User "My very best wishes", consider that on the Ukrainian Wikipedia (one of the most biased known) there is even a 'scandal' section[10] with the fact that Denisova did not pass on the rape information to the prosecutor (that you removed here[11]). And you are trying to delete information about her dismissal as 'unimportant' compared to her story. According to reliable sources, Denisova is mainly talked about because of her horror reports and the fact that she was fired in this blatant manner. Please feel free to open an RFC if you think it is correct to delete these facts from the article. Let's hear what the community thinks. Mhorg (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The version on Ukrainian WP includes only one phrase about her dismissal, unlike big section created here. But the point of my last edit [12] was different: why should we repeat second time information which is already included. It first says: She was also criticized for focusing too much on publicizing the most sensational details of uncorroborated cases in her media outreach, such as the rape of babies (such summary is already problematic), but then repeats: Rada member Pavlo Frolov stated that "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". My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about of her rape reports

[edit]
This discussion is moot. Nobody, including Mhorg who was "collecting all sources" about the topic, proposed any article changes. Politrukki (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here I would like to collect all the sources that speak of these accusations:

  1. Denisova often gave very harsh details about child rapes, which journalists believed could sometimes not even be supported by facts.(BBC[13])
  2. Some deputies, supported by an open letter from 140 public figures, activists and professionals, expressed concern and outrage because she "had been insensitive in her airing of allegations of sexual crimes, particularly those involving children and minors",(Deutsche Welle[14])(The Wall Street Journal[15]) and because she released information related to the sexual crimes of Russian soldiers that "is usually impossible to verify in other sources" (Hromadske[16])
  3. Rada member Frolov said Ms. Denisova was also accused of making insensitive and unverifiable statements about alleged Russian sex crimes, "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".(The Wall Street Journal[17])
  4. Iryna Venediktova, the Prosecutor General, reported that Denisova did not provide her with materials on rapes, which she were reporting on social media.(Babel.ua[18])
  5. Sevgil Musayeva, chief-editor of Ukrayinska Pravda: "I asked my editors not to publish the information provided by Ombudswoman Lyudmila Denisova. Because I tried to verify this information in other independent sources, including the Office of the Prosecutor General. And I was not confirmed by the cases she wrote about, and she did it in detail.,(Hromadske[19]) she stated that "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."[20]
  6. Olga Sovhyria, representative at the Ukrainian Constitutional Court and parliamentarian with Servants of the People stated that "sometimes she spread facts that appeared very untrue and information whose source we do not know".(La Repubblica[21])
  7. On an almost daily basis... [Denisova] circulated reports on war crimes that ranged from the implausible to the approximate: mass rapes of teenagers, sexual assaults on infants, somewhat randomly released figures ('43 thousand war crimes', she said on 18 May)(La Repubblica[22])
  8. "Ukraine's ombudsman for human rights, Lyudmila Denisova, was also sacked by Ukraine's parliament. She was criticised for not organising humanitarian corridors and facilitating prisoner exchanges, as well as her handling of alleged rape cases against Russian soldiers"(BBC[23])
  9. "Ukrainian media women appealed to the Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights, Liudmyla Denisova, to correct her communication on sexual crimes during the war. ... Media women demand from Denisova:
- Disclose only information for which there is sufficient evidence; check the facts before publication.
- Report what materials have already been submitted to the justice system.
- Verify and think through every word to avoid sensationalism in the messages. ..."(Babel.ua[24])

Mhorg (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none of these sources say that Denisova fabricated any specific information or data. Giving harsh details - yes, sure, but this not "unreliability". "Insensitive"? I doubt, but some people say it. OK, but this is not "unreliability". She did not provide materials? That source say: "Ms. Denisova does not pass on the materials. She addresses us with letters about such and such conventions, please study such conventions. She sends us letters, but not materials. These are different things. We, of course, take note of her information," OK, but what is meaning of this? For example, did Venediktova request such materials? Do such materials exist and just kept somewhere? Source does not say it. And so on. Last Italian source? No, this is hardly a good source here (see discussion in previous thread), and it say very little. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and pretend that Sevgil Musayeva statement doesn't exist.
Secolo d'Italia is a conservative pro-Western newspaper. Reliable of course, biased of course. You certainly cannot use it to talk about fascism, anti-fascism, feminism. So on and so forth. Otherwise, it remains reliable. Mhorg (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I had my journalists check some of the reports circulated by Denisova and they were neither true nor investigated." This is a textbook example of poor quality/"yellow" journalism. Which report(s) exactly? How did they investigate? What exactly they found? Sources you trying to use say nothing about it. If they did, we might use them. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the statement of Sevgil Musayeva, chief-editor of Ukrayinska Pravda:[25]
"At one point, I asked my editors not to publish the information provided by Ombudsman Lyudmila Denisova, because I tried to check this information in other independent sources, including in the Office of the Prosecutor General. And I did not confirm the cases she wrote about, and she did it in detail. Unacceptable, including from the point of view that you should treat victims of sexual violence and violence in general with great caution". Mhorg (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, Sevgil Musayeva, a journalist, writes: "I did not confirm the cases she [Denisova] wrote about". Of course she could not confirm anything. How she possibly could? The names of victims, especially children, and other details are normally kept secret during criminal investigations. This is just a very common situation when journalists can not provide an independent verification. That means very little. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so secret that even Iryna Venediktova, the Prosecutor General didn't know them. Please try to at least respect what the sources say.[26] Mhorg (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, Iryna Venediktova knew. She said about info from Denisova (citation above): "She addresses us with letters ... We, of course, take note of her information.". Now, should the Prosecutor General be aware (and receive all materials!) about every case, or this is work for lower-rank investigators? They have many thousand such cases right now. My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Letters" are the same horror unsourced information he fed to the press. What the prosecutor did not receive was the 'MATERIAL', i.e. the real information to conduct investigations. Seriously, do you want to continue with these arguments? Stick to the Babel source, this is not a forum. Mhorg (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I am looking at the Babel source [27], but it does not say that Denisova lied. In essence, Venediktova is only saying that she has no full materials about these cases, only some letters (and does not disclose what was in the letters). "She [Venediktova] could not [even] say exactly how many cases of sexual violence have been registered so far". My very best wishes (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
Denisova was making online reports without bringing any evidence to the prosecutor. This aggravates all the accusations made against her at home. Mhorg (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re no.1, Ukrainian doesn't have definite articles, but this would be better translated as the journalists - it's specifically referring to the journalists who signed the open letter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re Secolo d'Italia: not sure it is reliable or "pro-western". Many in traditionalist Catholic circles see Putin as the main “defender of tradition against the darkness of chaos.”... For instance, after the November 2015 Bataclan theater massacre in Paris, the conservative newspaper Secolo d’Italia proclaimed, “The stark reality: Only Putin and Marine Le Pen defend Christian values from Islam.” More significantly, Putin is hailed as the only man who could save Europe from itself, from its secularism which is bringing us “chaos and civil war,” as Dugin has said.[28] On the other hand, In my ongoing research project on the sources and topics of ten radical right media outlets (the transnationally-oriented Voice of Europe, the German Epoch Times, Journalistenwatch, Politically Incorrect News, the Italian Il Primato Nazionale, Secolo d’Italia and VoxNews.info, and the British Westmonster, Order-Order and PoliticalUK) I have found less empirical evidence than expected to support the mainstream narrative of “fake news” and “disinformation” often associated with them.[29] BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re "rape of babies": none of the rapes talk about the rape of babies; most talk about the rape of children. (The closest is "the rape of infants" in Repubblica (the most sensastionalstly written source here) but that's in Italian - if the word is "bambine"/"bambini"?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About Secolo d'Italia, biased and reliable. But I have already replaced it with La Repubblica (centre-left and reliable).
Translation: "bambini" -> "children", "neonati" -> "infants"
Another source: "The woman allegedly denounced mass rapes of teenagers, sexual assaults on infants, even one on a six-month-old baby girl made with a teaspoon, all allegations of which were not confirmed in the investigation by the Kiev Prosecutor General's Office."[30]
It is Denisova's horror news that is being released everywhere: "Also there was a call from the mother, whose nine-month-old daughter was raped by candlelight in front of her. A one-year-old boy was raped by two people. He died."[31] Mhorg (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear on that last source - no idea if it's reliable but it is reporting her report as the truth; there is no indication it is false or even "unverified". Just because a horror story does not make it untrue. Given most sources talk about "children" not "babies" I'd go with that wording if we end up talking about this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, there are cases of infant rape in many countries [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by this discussion - what's the specific wording in our article that the above sources are supposed to be used for and which is under dispute? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I am collecting all sources that talk about this topic. If you can find more, It could be interesting. Thank you. Mhorg (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"An open letter from 140 activists ... opposed her removal."

[edit]

Hello @My very best wishes, I'm afraid there's a mistake in the article, which I'm now about to correct. One reads that An open letter from 140 activists, media professionals and lawyers criticized the rhetoric of her reports about sexual crimes by Russian forces, but opposed her removal - a sentence that you wrote also here above in your harsh discussions with Mhorg. However, you were confusing the following two different things.

  1. This open letter (primary sources), signed by 140 journalists and activists, dated 25 May. The letter was reported by several RS: Meduza, BBC (Ukraina), Ukrainska Pravda, Wall Street Journal, Deutsche Welle, New Voice of Ukraine. That letter does not oppose Denisova's removal, nor does it support such a removal or asks for it. It simply criticises Denisova's approach to communicating on sexual war crimes, which the signatories deem insensitive and possibly hasty and not accurate. Amongst other things they ask Denisova to Publish only that information for which there is enough evidence, check the facts before publication (see primary [33]and secondary source [34]).
  2. This open letter (primary source), signed by nearly 40 human rights activists, dated 31 May. The letter circulated when the Parliament had started the proceeding for removing Denisova from office. There one reads that Despite the fact that the Commissioner’s work has been regularly criticized by the human rights community since her appointment in 2018, we emphasize that amendments to the legislation that allow during the war to declare no confidence (...) pose a threat to the entire state system of protection of human rights. Rather then "opposing her removal", I would say that the signatories urge the Parliament to strictly follow the procedure of dismissal of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner and denounce the illegitimacy of the procedure that was being followed or better ex novo created on that occasion. The only secondary source explicitly mentioning this letter is Ukrainska Pravda: Sharp actions of the authorities caused concern of human rights defenders. After all, the reasons for the resignation were not explained to the public. And the law generally forbids terminating the powers of the ombudsman during martial law. Denisova was removed according to a completely new procedure, which was legalized only in May of this year - expressing distrust in her. "Everything is happening again in an extremely opaque manner, " outraged human rights activist Tetyana Pechonchyk, head of the ZMINA Human Rights Center (...) "Opaque again" - because human rights activists have always had complaints against Denisova.. Also BBC (Ukraine) reports that The head of the board of the human rights organization "ZMINA. Center for Human Rights" Tetyana Pechonchyk criticized the political decision to release Denisova and pointed out the illegality of the procedure.

I don't think that the second letter is worth mentioning here - it is not about Denisova but rather about the procedure followed for removing here. In any case, the confusion between the two open letters needs to be corrected. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did oppose to her removal through such improper procedure. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both are obviously relevant, you can't turn this page into a BLP hit piece.Just Alabama (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment both letters are mentioned and, I think, they are summarised in a fairly neutral and objective way. The points I wanted to make are, first, that we shouldn't confuse the two letters - they are entirely different things - and secondly that we cannot construe the second letter as simply "in support of Denisova"; on the contrary, it is explicitly critical of Denisova, as you can read. So in principle one could write a "hit piece" using the second letter, e.g. one could write that "While emphasising that the human rights movement in Ukraine has always been critical of Denisova, and that she had been appointed on purely political grounds, the signatory organisation also criticised the procedure followed for her removal from office" - this text (that I oppose) would probably be UNDUE because of its negative emphasis but would not be unverifiable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I checked it, and this is good now, after a couple of small corrections. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not good now. Perhaps it was good on the 8 July, when I corrected the mistake My very best wishes (MVBW) had inserted in the text. Now, however, it isn't good anymore because MVBW has just removed [35] all the criticisms levelled at Denisova by the 25 May open letter, and especially those addressing lack of reliability of her allegations of war crimes. Basically I see the three following options:
  1. To publish content about the open letter signed by 140 journalists and HR activists. This is the fully verifiable text published by Boynamedsue on 9 July [36]: Among other demands, they requested that she should publish only information for which their there was sufficient evidence and check facts before making allegations, consider her language with care and avoid sensationalism and respect the privacy of those affected by sexual violence.
  2. To publish content about the reasons why she was dismissed from her office. This is the fully verifiable text published by myself [37] and improved by other editors: She was also criticized by the deputy chairman of the parliament regulatory committee, Pavlo Frolov, for making gratuitously detailed and unverified statements about sexual crimes allegedly committed by Russian soldiers.
  3. To avoid publishing any mention of unverifiable allegations of war crimes made by Denisova. This is the option chosen by MVBW.
As there's no reason for thinking that the third option enjoys consensus, I'm now reverting MVBS's edit. However, the discussion between the three options is open. Sources:
I just want to express my personal opinion. My preferred option is the second one - publishing contents about the reasons why she was dismissed from her office quoting Pavlo Frolov. This looks to me more salient from a political/institutional viewpoint. Besides, gratuitously detailed and unverified statements about sexual crimes sounds to me both accurate and brief. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a controversial subject. One should simply use the best available secondary RS (WSJ and DW). According to them (and the letter you refer to here) the actual significance of this is not the alleged wrongdoings by Denisova, but the fact that "The United Nations Human Rights Office in Ukraine said ... that Ms. Denisova's dismissal was contrary to international standards and undermined the independence of an important Ukrainian institution." [38]. "The country's ombudsperson for human rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, is accused of having neglected her duties. But human rights activists have criticized her dismissal." [39]. That is what we should say here. So yes, this is an opposition by human right organizations to her removal, contrary to what you are trying to prove here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean by "the actual significance of this". We're not talking about the lawfulness of her dismissal, which is controversial; we already provide information on that. We're talking about whether we should say that the open letter of 25 May and/or the chairman of the parliament regulatory committee Pavlo Frolov expressed concern about lack of verifiability of her allegation.
    That's the topic, and we have plenty of good sources on that. E.g. Deutsche Welle says that according to Frolov some of these accounts ... had not been verified, Wall Street Journal says Frolov said Ms. Denisova was also accused of making insensitive and unverifiable statements and Washington Post says Ukraine’s parliament voted last week to oust human rights ombudswoman Lyudmyla Denisova, based in part on concerns that she was disseminating unsubstantiated reports.
    I think that we should choose option n. 2 and restore the following text removed by MVBW:

    She was also criticized by the deputy chairman of the parliament regulatory committee, Pavlo Frolov, for making gratuitously detailed and unverified statements about sexual crimes allegedly committed by Russian soldiers

    . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communication with law enforcement

[edit]

On 29 April, this article in the New York Times reported: The information from callers is fed into a database that Ms. Denisova shares with government officials and prosecutors. Based on that source, MVBW just added the following text to the article:

She shared this database with other government officials and prosecutors.

However, on 31 May the online newspaper Babel (here) published a statement by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova: ex-ombudsman Liudmyla Denisova did not provide her with materials on rapes, which she reported on social networks. Instead, the commissioner sent letters ... "Ms. Denisova does not pass on the materials. She addresses us with letters (...) She sends us letters, but not materials. These are different things. We, of course, take note of her information (google translation).

Also this article in "Meduza" says: The newspaper also reported that the ombudsman’s office never sent any information about the alleged crimes or the victims' contact information to law enforcement (after her dismissal, Denisova said that she didn’t have the right to report the information, and that only the “psychological consultants from the UNICEF hotlines” could do that.). The newspaper they are referring to is this article on Ukranskaia Pravda and the quoted statement by Denisova is here.

So what shall we say in the article about communication with law enforcement? There are three options: 1) The version of NYT at the end of April; 2) The version of the Ukr Prosecutor and Ukr prass at the end of May; 3) Nothing at all: not verifiable/too controversial/not noteworthy enough.

I think that option n 3 is the best one. Pending discussion, I'm reverting MVBW. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no any contradiction. Perhaps she shared the information with specific lower-level prosecutors (who suppose to look at the cases) rather than with the Prosecutor General? Never send any information about specific cases? First of all, sharing a database does not involve sending any specific information about cases. Secondly, as we already discussed, the interpretation by someone from Meduza (the article does not say who was the author!) is different from the original paper you refer to [40], and the original paper does not make such claim, does not say anything about the database, and the article in general is hardly a reliable source since it has been criticized in other publications and written by author no one knows about. Given that we should stick to the best available source, and that is article in NYT. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, let's cite what Venediktova said about info she received from Denisova (from Babel you cite [41]):
"Ms. Denisova does not pass on the materials. She addresses us with letters about such and such conventions, please study such conventions. She sends us letters, but not materials. These are different things. We, of course, take note of her information".
OK. She does not say what was in the letters. Perhaps a link to database or just the same very brief information as in the database? You are making this up by misinterpreting sources, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be crystal clear here, Venediktova (article in Babel) confirms that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors, exactly as the article in NYT said. As about other sources, see above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sharing information with specific lower-level prosecutors? Sending letters with links to the database? These are fascinating hypothesis, MVBW, may I suggest you investigate them thoroughly, publish an article and then we include your findings in Wikipedia? Otherwise this is not even original research, it's original daydreaming.
    Let's get back to reality for a sec. We have contradictory sources on this. As the point is relatively marginal and of little interest in Denisova's biography, I believe we should simply leave your text out, as on the balance of sources it is likely inaccurate and not fully verifiable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is sharing of information by Denisova with prosecutors. You said in the beginning of this thread that statement by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova contradicts info published by NYT. But it does NOT. Rather, it confirms it. According to NYT, Denisova shared her info with prosecutors through a database. According to Venediktova, Denisova shared it through letters. Saying that one source contradicts another is manipulation with sources and an obvious example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are making up the "contradiction". My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are referring to the article in Babel entitled "Ex-ombudsman Liudmyla Denisova did not pass to the prosecutorʼs office materials about rapes, which she wrote about on social networks", am I right? the article where Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova stated that ex-ombudsman Liudmyla Denisova did not provide her with materials on rapes, which she reported on social networks. So, according to your reading (is "reading" even the right word here?) when the Prosecutor says Ms. Denisova does not pass on the materials. She addresses us with letters about such and such conventions, please study such conventions. She sends us letters, but not materials. These are different things, she is actually implying - you say "confirms" - that "Denisova shared her info with prosecutors through a database". And you even dare linking to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT!!! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you do not hear. Both sources say that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors. NYT article say that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors through her database. And Venediktova (article in Babel) say that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors by sending them letters (yes, Denisova did not send all materials of the cases to Prosecutor General, but she informed her and others through letters according to Venediktova, and "We, of course, take note of her information", Venediktova said). The exact means of sharing information are different, but both say that the information was shared. That means she probably used both methods of disseminating the information. Your point was that sources contradict each other, but they do not. My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that this article in Babel confirms that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors, exactly as the article in NYT said because you think that other editors are stupid and lazy and they will trust you without bothering to read a short piece in English? Or is this a case of good-faith pro-Denisova hallucinating? Denisova herself would be moved but embarrassed by so much zeal. Anyway, let's stop bickering among ourselves. Soon one of us or both of us will be topic banned from this area (at least) and it will be for other editors to decide whether they want your text in the article or not. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are denying the obvious. According to Venediktova (the Babel source), "We, of course, take note of her [Denisova] information" [about war crimes]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. About (international) conventions. That's what she says according to the source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The publication is so brief (probably not a good RS) it is not clear if Venediktova talks about Geneva Conventions (violated during the war in specific incidents Denisova reported about) or something else, but in any event, Denisova sent numerous letters to Vendiktova about war crimes and Venediktova "took note" of this information according to Vendiktova . My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you read that the letters were about war crimes? I didn't find the text you are referring to. Also we have Meduza saying "The newspaper also reported that the ombudsman’s office never sent any information about the alleged crimes or the victims' contact information to law enforcement". The sentence you're trying to force upon this article, "She shared this database with other government officials and prosecutors", is dubious and it's not so relevant as to justify this lengthy discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is crystal clear that the brief news report (in Babel) is about allegations of rapes by Russian soldiers made by Denisova. According to the report, Denisova did not provide materials of the cases to the Prosecutor General (such as the complete testimonies of witnesses, etc.), but only wrote letters about such cases to the Prosecutor. As about posting in Meduza, I would not use it because this posting has no author (is it even an "editorial"? apparently not). My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And in any event, neither this publication nor others disprove anything about sharing the database with complaints created by Denisova. Note that sending letters and sharing database are different things. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just ignore later sources. Later reliable sources dispute the claim this was shared. Official people dispute this.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, these later sources do NOT dispute any information provided by NYT, that's the thing. They provide new claims about Denisova that are included to the page. These new claims may be true or not - I have no idea, given the lack of transparency in Ukrainian politics. Perhaps these new claims were politically motivated, who knows? My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS

[edit]

So, if WP:ONUS applies here, then I cannot get my favourite She was also criticized by the deputy chairman of the parliament regulatory committee, Pavlo Frolov, for making gratuitously detailed and unverified statements about sexual crimes allegedly committed by Russian soldiers until we build a consensus with other editors' help and involvement. However, for the very same reason you @My very best wishes can't include your She shared this database with other government officials and prosecutors. Do you agree on this? So pending discussion do we include them both or do we not include any? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you show me any RS saying something like "Denisova had such database, but she did not share it with any other Ukrainian officials", explains where such info about not sharing came from, and this RS is at least remotely as good as the article in NYT, I will agree immediately with your suggested removal. My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the info on Frolov about Denisova's allegations is not supported by sources? I'm asking this because you've being repeatedly removing that info. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained where such info about not sharing came from. You can agree or disagree, but you cannot keep on asking me to explain again and again the same point. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aside of the claim in NYT (it needs to be included), the content included here (at the bottom) seem to be meaningless. What "exaggeration"? If she received complaint about kids being raped, that may be true or not (knowing that would be meaningful), but saying that raping kids was "exaggeration" is nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contents you're trying to remove were first added by Huldra [44]. Should we perhaps ask them? Or perhaps we should rather ask Denisova what she meant, because I've checked the sources (not only EuroWeeklyNews but also LB.ua) and she said what she said. We shouldn't say that Denisova speaks "nonsense" - be careful please, we are in the BLP area. Anyway, we can discuss about whether to keep or remove that text, but what you cannot do is continuing to add the claim in NYT without consensus - this is disruptive editing. You've made your case, I've made mine - let's wait for others to join the discussion. Just saying "it needs to be included" is not an argument and it's not useful. So please stop reverting/edit warring. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you appeal to "ONUS" in the BLP page, this should not be added without consensus. As I said above, the reason for removal is that added text (child rapes were an "exaggeration") simply does not make sense. One can not "exaggerate" child rapes. My very best wishes (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it; "exaggerate" here means "made up"/"never took place", Huldra (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. One can read the text included by Gitz6666 this way, and most people probably would. However, after reading these sources, it appears that unlike Trump and many other officials, she was NOT caught of claiming any specific lies, only that some of her claims (and the claims by victims) in general were not proven, and possibly will never be proven in any court. This is all. Therefore, I believe the included text was misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not correct. It was not only that her claims "were not proven", she admitted that she had ""“exaggerated” reports of sexual crimes by Russian soldiers in order to get Ukraine more weaponry" (link). And seriously; do you think she was fired just beacause her claims were not proven? If so, then you are more pro-Ukrainian than the Ukrainians themselves; they fired her. Huldra (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings again the question: what does it mean “exaggerated”? Just using "cruel language" (as she said in one of her comments)? Does it mean making false statements? That would be understandable. However, while looking at various sources, I did not find a single specific claim by her (even about the baby being raped, such things do happen [45]) which would be proven false or she admitted to be false. All I found was simply claims without independent confirmation. Perhaps I missed something? If so, please give me any ref saying that independent investigators or fact checkers found/proved any specific claim by her (like the bay being raped) to be false. Obviously, there are many "fakes" on such subjects, like the crucified boy, but such "fakes" must be documented in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is significant, she lost her job over this.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, it is significant. That's why it is prominently included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

[edit]

[46] - why did you remove this content sourced to an article in NYT? My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the edit summary, this is way too much detail, especially in an article on a living person. WP:BLPSTYLE suggest we use a restrained, cautious language and refrain from giving too much weight to recent events. If an editor wants to include her statements about "Nazi whores" and Russians killing children, then another editor will want to include her statements about the Russian soldier raping a 6-month-old baby with a teaspoon - why not? At that point, it will be necessary to convey the information you have repeatedly removed from the article: that 140 activists plus Pavlo Frolov criticised Denisova for making gratuitously detailed and unverified statements about sexual crimes, and that Denisova herself admitted she had "exaggerated" in order to help her country win the war. Arguably that's the kind of overload of recent polemical and dubious contents that a good BLP article should avoid.
So, while I think we should include that she has been criticised for making unverifiable allegations - because that's highly notable - I wouldn't like to fill the page with examples of such unverifiable allegations. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course all these claims by her should be included on this page simply because they were widely reported by numerous RS. That is what she is known for. Where these claims true? Well, if any of her specific claims have been disproved by fact checkers or independent investigators and reported, then yes, of course such rebuttals should be included as well. But I am not aware of such. All we have is that claims by her and victims have not been independently confirmed, but this is something different. By the same token, the letter by activists should be included (and it is already included, no one objected). My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about creating a subsection "Denisova's allegations during the Russian invasion"? In that section, we could detail some of her most characteristic and impactful allegations. However, in that section we should also say that she has been criticised by 140 journalists and HR activists for making unverified statements and that she herself admitted that her statements were "exaggerated" - the info you removed from this article. Doing so, we would provide the reader with the full NPOV picture. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist so much to remove or discredit her well sourced views? Because you disagree? I may disagree too, but that is what she is known for; and it has been described in a lot of RS. And once again, if any specific claims by her have been disproved by investigators or fact checkers, that can be included. But I do not see anything beyond generic statements that some of her claims have not been independently verified. Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just ignore later covering by reliable sources on the same topic, your edits are too promotionalMellow Boris (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your concerns about the subject after 1 year of idleness Mellow Boris but why don’t we start RfC instead? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then start RfC, but stop putting this out of date promotional material into the article.Mellow Boris (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we fail to build a consensus, we can start an RfC on whether to have that Denisova was "one of the leading voices of Ukraine’s suffering"; whether to publish her allegations (Nazi whores, etc.); whether to say that her allegations were deemed unverified or exaggerated by 140 journalists / by Pavlo Frolov / by herself. But we cannot have an RfC on whether to include that she "shared this database with other government officials" because WP:V (especially in case of BLP) WP:WEIGHT is a non-negotiable policy. With regard to the database, the only choice we have is between the following two options:
  1. We don't publish anything;
  2. We publish something like "On 2 May, The New York Times wrote that Denisova was sharing her database of war crimes with other government officials and prosecutors; following her removal on 31 May, the Ukrainian General Prosecutor, Ukrainska Pravda and other news outlet reported that Denisova did not share her database".
IMHO this doesn't deserve an RfC and we should go for option n. 1. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC); edited 23:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request at AE

[edit]

Editors working on this article may be interested in, and should be aware of, this request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#My_very_best_wishes Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NYT article

[edit]

[47] - why removal? We need to say something about her work during the war, and what could be better than an article in NYT about her? Note that the text quotes some parts of the source directly, with "...", to avoid WP:OR. Should this text be rephrased? How? Edit summary claims that content from NYT was "false". What was false and why? My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there are no alternative suggestions and clearly explained objections. I am going to reinstate the content. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had extensive discussions on this, both on this talk page and at WP:AE. Please have a look at the thread "Communication with law enforcement" here above on this talk page. It's possible/likely that Denisova did not share her database with law enforcement because the General Prosecutor of Ukraine said that they did not receive allegations from her office. This was reported by several RS (Babel, Meduza and Ukrainska Pravda) in May/June. So we should not report what Denisova said to the NYT in April without reporting what emerged in May. Arguably having a section on "Communication with law enforcement" to explore the issue would be WP:TOOMUCH and WP:UNDUE. Therefore silence on this controversial issue is better. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible/likely that... is your personal speculation and therefore WP:OR. Sources do not say it. Not "receiving allegations from her office" and sharing (or not sharing) database are very different things. Apparently, she shared her database with officials (as NYT said), but did not send reports about any specific cases to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. Writing such report would probably require completing an investigation if the allegations were true. The database apparently just included the original records of claims by victims without any verification, according to NYT. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liudmyla_Denisova&oldid=1215175522"