Jump to content

Talk:Makiivka surrender incident

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

Stated as facts.

[edit]

The claims are stated as facts in the lead, but by what authority? The three references appear to report allegations by Russian sources, which are not neutral, nor well known for unbiased reporting. Also the date and time of the alleged killings does not appear in the article, nor is there any information regarding who recorded the video, or how it was published. This is not a difficult thing to fake for propaganda purposes. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Aye1399 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment  This is seriously anti-Ukrainian NPOV. What we know is at least one of the Russians appeared to be guilty of the war crime of perfidy, attempting to kill Ukrainian soldiers after a real or perfidious surrender to a smaller force. Both sides should have known that a likely outcome would be deaths on the surrendering side if the prison-taking side followed SOP drills. —Michael Z. 17:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is contention about the article title and facts on its talk page, so I doubt this is suitable for DYK until it is resolved. —Michael Z. 19:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael: According to what is clear in the videos, which the United Nations has also confirmed, the Russian soldiers were finally killed and there is no one there except the Ukrainian soldiers. The condition of the Russian soldiers has also surrendered. Aye1399 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aye1399: That is false, or at least seriously misleading. It is visible that at least one Russian soldier broke the truce by firing a weapon, which is the opposite of “surrendered.” It sounds like the Ukrainian machine gunner immediately fired his PKM machine gun, and the military S.O.P. in this situation would be to shoot all possible combatants in the larger group: not an “execution” but self-defence. But we do not know who shot whom or exactly when. The perfidious Russian doomed his own co-belligerents to likely death. Russian authorities exploiting this incident by insisting it is an execution without evidence probably exacerbates the effects of the crime of perfidy (the Russians have already summarily executed accused deserters, including one in a ritual sledge-hammer show execution, and their state media has called for take-no-prisoners and execute-deserters and execute-surrenderers policies).
We literally have proof the Russian side committed a war crime, and we literally have only an allegation and no evidence the Ukrainian side did.
(My user name is user:Mzajac.) —Michael Z. 19:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac: Your opinion is completely biased, and what is certain is that at least 10 soldiers were killed in surrender, and I think it is necessary to say that you must adhere to WP:FORUM Aye1399 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT source extensively used seems certain that “one of their fellow fighters suddenly opened fire on Ukrainian soldiers,” and wrote “the Russian gunman’s actions are critical, too, Dr. Vukusic said, and could be deemed perfidy — feigning surrender or noncombatant status as a ruse against the Ukrainians — which may be prosecutable as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.”[1] —Michael Z. 17:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested text:
 —Michael Z. 06:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary renaming

[edit]

The change of title is unnecessary. The point isn't the status of the surrender, but killing of 12 Russian prisoners of war. I don't see how a dubious surrender can deserve a Wikipedia website. The reason for writing of article is that Ukrainian armed forces committed a warcrime, that resulted in more then 10 dead people. Both Russia and the UN stated that they are investigating war crimes and 2 days ago it was confirmed that the video is authentic. I will return the previous title and add additional war crimes statements. Blueginger2 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above ("Stated as facts."). Wikipedia is not an arm of the Russian propaganda machine. We follow reliable sources and that includes not regurgitating Russian claims as fact. The title is a compromise originating from the discussion at Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#And again with the POV. Prolog (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in the same section, the users in the talk section also noted that the title missed the point of the article of Russian prisoners being killed, and not juridicial status of a surrender. Wikipedia is not an arm of Ukrainian propaganda machine. The point is that the source is reliable, as the United Nations decided two days ago, so you have no base for doubting the reliability. Blueginger2 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about something more descriptive such as Shooting/Death of Russian soldiers in Makiivka? BTW I think "Alleged execution of Russian soldiers in Makiivka" is closer to the content of the article+sources than "Disputed surrender of Russian soldiers in Makiivka". WikiHannibal (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiHannibal All three options are fine by me, I prefer Shooting if I have to decide. Blueginger2 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well “execution” in “Execution of Russian soldiers in Makiivka to Disputed surrender of Russian soldiers in Makiivka” is contrary to what sources say and clearly demonizes the unmentioned Ukrainians. Not WP:NPOV.
What does “disputed surrender” mean?
They all knew that the Ukrainian machine gunner had his gun trained on the larger group of Russians conducting or feigning surrender to neutralize any threats from all in case of an act perfidy (a war crime), according to normal military procedure of taking prisoners. It’s clear that at least one Russian is guilty. The evidence in the video is that they were killed immediately in reaction in the fight that we see starting, and there is no evidence of “execution.”
A more neutral title would be Perfidious Russian surrender in Makiivka (but I won’t hold my breath).  —Michael Z. 18:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac Suggestions like Shooting or Death of Russian soldiers seems like a good compromise. The Ukrainian shooter knew that the soldiers on the floor don't pose a threat and yet he killed every single one of them. Blueginger2 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any reliable sources say he knew that. The military drills that both sides were conducting assumes he could not know that. We still do not know that and might never know it. —Michael Z. 00:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this article only notable because russia has claimed it is a Ukrainian war crime? If this hadn't happened, the article would not be notable I think. That one of the russians might have committed perfidy is not relevant enough by itself. Most likely it hasn't been the single case in this war, maybe not the only documented one even. Therefore, I believe the title should be oriented to this Ukrainian war crime claim. I propose Alleged execution of Russian soldiers in Makiivka. Super Ψ Dro 20:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Why is the subject notable because of the Russian accusation of a Ukrainian war crime and not because of the actual Russian war crime (perfidy) that evidence shows did take place?  —Michael Z. 00:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the fact that we have far less articles on Ukrainian war crimes during the war than Russian ones, because russia brought up the accusation to the international community which inevitably gave it more coverage by sources, and because the murder of 11 POWs is obviously more than an act of perfidy which may not even necessarily cause deaths. And anyway, the information in the article is already more oriented on the Russian accusation and on investigations to prove or disprove it. Barely anything is said about the videos themselves when compared to the reactions section. Changing the title to something similar to my proposal would reflect the information that is discussed on the page more accurately. Super Ψ Dro 14:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though if it's confirmed that an act of perfidy was committed and that the Ukrainians acted on self defense, I would support your proposal. It wouldn't make sense to orient the article to a disproven accusation. But from what I've understood from the article, this is not currently the case. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not a Ukrainian war crime or murder, nor even evidence of such, only allegations. Still, the article’s subject is the event, and not the reactions to it, nor merely the videos of it.
If the subject is the killing of the Russian soldiers then that may be a more neutral description than alleged execution: Killing of Russian soldiers in Makiivka.
But the articles also note the possibility of the war crime of perfidy, and video shows clear evidence. It’s more than just an allegation. Plus the act of perfidy appears to have directly lead to the shooting of one Ukrainian and the Russians and is integral to the subject.
It may be better characterized as the entire incident or “encounter” as the NYT refers to it in paragraph 2, while describing it as “whether Ukrainian forces committed war crimes or acted in self-defense as they tried to capture a group of Russian soldiers who were then killed,” and “in which at least 11 Russians, most of whom are seen lying on the ground, appear to have been shot dead at close range after one of their fellow fighters suddenly opened fire on Ukrainian soldiers standing nearby.” I’m not sure how to title that. Attempted taking of prisoners in Makiivka? Shootings in Makiivka? Maybe a longer version.  —Michael Z. 17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makiivka incident? Vague. But we do have 2014 Simferopol incident, Kerch Strait incident, and 2021 Black Sea incident.  —Michael Z. 17:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Killing of Russian soldiers in Makiivka is the red link I added to the Ukraine invasion infobox before the creation of this article. I would prefer to avoid something as vague as Makiivka incident and Shootings in Makiivka and Attempted taking of prisoners in Makiivka sounds very unorthodox. I agree that the perfidy claim is more plausible than the murder one, and as such we could maybe use Perfidy and killing of Russian soldiers in Makiivka or Killing of perfidious Russian soldiers in Makiivka, maybe just Russian perfidy at Makiivka, though I don't like this last one very much. However, I am afraid that by adding perfidy into the title, we're embracing a claim that is still uncertain. I don't think it's neutral to fully assume that what happened was perfidy, as that's not what the sources seem to do. So, we could maybe limit ourselves to Killing of Russian soldiers in Makiivka and explain the possible reasons of this killing only on the article itself. It's also more neutral that the alleged executions one, so maybe it's the best option we have. Super Ψ Dro 17:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a more apt term for the exchange of fire than shootout or firefight?  —Michael Z. 19:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makiivka surrender incident?  —Michael Z. 19:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe clash or standoff. Makiivka surrender incident is not a bad suggestion, but if there was perfidy, was there any actual surrender? Super Ψ Dro 23:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources say it appears most of the Russians were surrendering. Presumably they’d agreed to surrender, perhaps were even ordered to surrender by the senior member present or over radio, regardless of whether at least one of them apparently did so in bad faith or changed his mind. The drills being conducted by both sides were the procedures for surrender and taking prisoners when things went south. —Michael Z. 00:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac this title is even worse. Who is to say that the surrender was false? There's no source making such claims. Previously, the title was disputed surrender. The lone soldier wasn't necessarily cooperating in a planned way with the other prisoners. Blueginger2 (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which of my suggestions you’re responding to. Did I write “surrender was false”? Which source calls it “disputed surrender” and what does that even mean?
But ha ha, “wasn’t necessarily cooperating”! A subunit of Russian military offered its surrender, then at least one of its members fired on the Ukrainian subunit accepting surrender. Perhaps the Ukrainian legal investigation will establish if any more Russians were in on the war crime of perfidy, or perhaps not, because the result was exactly what one would expect, and they are all dead. Either way, Russian propaganda uses it to demonize the Ukrainians, and anyone who shares its goals amplifies its statements. —Michael Z. 14:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding to the altering title, it was my understanding you reached agreement in the comment section about it because I didn't see any consensus reached here on talk page or elsewhere. If there is no consensus, the title should be returned to the previous version.
My only point is that there are plenty of claims of Ukrainian war crime, including from United Nations, investigating the incident, and no grounded claim of perfidy, which would be absurd, given the result of more then 10 dead Russian soldiers, who would be now additionally accused of war crimes. That's sick humour. Blueginger2 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UN did not claim this. Read more carefully. UN HRO said allegations would be investigated. UN HRMM said only Russian mistreatment of PWs is systematic.[2] see my list of links below regarding perfidy.
It is not sick humour. I was laughing at your ridiculous description of a probable war crime that likely led to the criminal’s own military mates’ unnecessary deaths. What’s sick is the non-stop Russian propagandist’s demonization and calls for genocide that may have encouraged it.
I don’t think there is a consensus title, but perhaps some of us agree the last two titles are better than the original one. —Michael Z. 16:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

28 Nov move

[edit]

The current title "Killing of Russian soldiers in Makiivka" as shown in this diff is fine as this is what the coverage is about. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only looks that way if you look at just a few top sites, because the one wire story showed up on all of them, and then they forgot about the story.
Bonus:
 —Michael Z. 06:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with K.e.coffman, WikiHannibal and others that "Death of Russian soldiers in Makiivk" is a preferible title. We don't need to present the Ukrainian thesis in the title. The incident is generally known for the killing of the Russian soldiers, and the controversy is whether they were still combatants or rather POWs. See WP:CRITERIA, spec. WP:NPOVTITLE, NDESC, COMMONNAME and also WP:CONCISE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makiivka surrender incident, as proposed by Michael, seems also reasonable to me, as well as Killing of Russian soldiers in Makiivk. The former has the advantage of using the word "surrender," which is naturally associated with this incident, while the latter has the advantage of leaving open the basic question: combatant soldiers or soldiers hors de combat? What seems important to me, however, is that the word "False surrender" is rempved from the title asap. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were clearly not PWs as one or more of them were initiating close combat with weapons, before they were disarmed and taken prisoner. The “controversy,” or rather the Russian allegation, is that they were “executed” later, rather than being killed in response to the perfidious Russian attack during the process of surrender – this seems obvious from the Russian statements and even the original title’s emphasis on the Russian-POV term.[3] But obviously, the article should be named after what sources say happened, not after what the Russian state wants us to believe. —Michael Z. 17:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which leads to other possible titles, like Allegation of execution of soldiers in Makiivka, which makes the subject the accusation rather than the event. Just spitballing: not sure I would agree to this. —Michael Z. 17:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point. Both the proposed names, "Makiivka surrender incident" and "Killing of Russian soldiers in Makiivk", describe what happened, not what the Russian state wants us to believe. "Fake surrender", however, is obviously POV. Any preferences between the two NPOV titles here? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is not the allegation but rather what acturally happened there, so this is not an improvement. Of the two NPOV titles, "Killing of Russian soldiers in Makiivk" is the one with the most consensus so far, so I'd go for that. There's nothing pro-Russian sbout this title: we know for a fact that they were killed, and the controversy is about the circumstances of the killing, about which we know very little. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no “controversy.” There is a Russian accusation (“execution”) which lacks any evidence. There is also a Ukrainian accusation (“perfidy”) which is cut and dried. The simple and obvious explanation is not controversial. It will be resolved by investigation.  —Michael Z. 18:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well there were two videos that clearly show some of Russians lying unarmed on the ground and then in another one lying dead. What have happened is clearly a war crime. In the context of ongoing war, though, it's not that important. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly the war crime of perfidy by at least one Russian, if not more of them. Any other determination awaits investigation and possibly a court.  —Michael Z. 19:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, shooting unarmed people because of another one armed is not Russians's side fault, but the Ukranian one. The discretion should be applied anyway. Given that witnesses are dead, no way to know whether they were acting in perfidy or not. I doubt they were smart enough. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely one or more Russians’ fault because they violated the drill and started a firefight. Your gross mischaracterization and unfounded assumption is no basis for a constructive conversation to improve the article or its title.  —Michael Z. 16:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the first because the second implies a story but doesn’t sum it up. It omits the Russian(s) turning a “surrender” into a firefight, and it omits the accusation of “execution,” both of which are integral. —Michael Z. 18:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's go for "Makiivka surrender incident", which you originally proposed, Super Dromaeosaurus accepted and no one objected to, and this thread remains open for different views and further discussions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.  —Michael Z. 18:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't explicitly express support. Though I will now, just for the record. Super Ψ Dro 21:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The video of a Russian soldier shooting is mentioned only in the lead summary

[edit]

It's nowhere within the actual article, which only mentions Russian soldiers surrendering in the "Videos" section, but not a Russian soldier opening fire. 5.173.113.62 (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was also just abandoned about 1 month ago. Meanwhile, both sides launched investigations into alleged war crimes (against the other side only). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.113.62 (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to add this fact. Indeed, one of them opened a fire AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External video

[edit]

Anyone objecting adding links to external videos, e.g.?: [4] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Makiivka_surrender_incident&oldid=1215250282"