Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
Line 120:
I see this as a fundamental misunderstanding of “what is a source”. Denisova is not the source. The media reports of her statements are the sources. The real question is whether statements about war crimes in Ukraine made by a Ukrainian official appointed to investigate war crimes are notable. The fact that she was reproved for talking so much about “unverified” claims was accompanied by complaints that somebody else had done her duties with respect to humanitarian corridors and other quite obvious crimes of aggression such as the bombing of kindergartens and other civilian infrastructure. Sexual crimes are always difficult to prove, and it isn’t amazing that some of the victims she was talking about have since disappeared or lost touch with a criminal complaint that if anything threatens their safety. I don’t know how many times we need to go through this. Don’t quote her if you don’t want to, but stop calling her untruthful, omg. It is a massive NPOV violation [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 03:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
::The consensus of the Ukrainian parliament and 140 Ukrainian media figures is that she made "unverified claims". To cite her without mentioning this is a massive NPOV violation. --[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 05:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
:::verified is a tricky word. Most sexual assault claims are unverified. The complaints about her job performance centered on other issues, like not taking care of prisoner exchanges. I don’t understand the determination to make this woman out as crazy or a liar. There are plenty of solid secondary sources that rapes occurred. Pick a different rape if you must. It isn’t your job to “verify” these sexual assaults, and frankly with war crimes so thick on the ground in Ukraine I don’t see why you two are obsessed with this. You are making false and possibly libelous statements — not sure if she counts as a public figure — and you really need to stop with the BLP violations. You are misrepresenting the sources as well. Deutsche Welle did not say she was unreliable. That would be libel, since the actual issues cited were pretty different than that. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 09:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
== Cambridge Scholars Publishing ==
| |||