Talk:Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Requested move 9 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. With regards of 'allegations' vs 'accusations', the discussion here shows that both are fundamentally equivalent under MOS:ALLEGED. With regards to the dropping of 'allegations' in the title, this is a revisitation of the discussions made 4 months ago, and as with the previous discussion, there is no consensus to move as such. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Accusations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War – First, "Allegations" in the title violates MOS:ALLEGED. Second, according to this source and this source the genocide of Ukrainians began before the invasion. Thirdly, "Allegations" is not written in the title of the articles related to the Palestinians and the Holodomor. Parham wiki (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, but only because of the second reason Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't see anything inherently wrong with the word "allegations". MOS:ALLEGED just says to be careful about using it and various other words. It says the word is perfectly "appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Who asserts no wrongdoing here?  —Michael Z. 13:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Genocide is more than wrongdoing. Wikipedia is not an international court. Conclusions of "quite likely" and "very serious risk" and "worth investigating", and the issuance of arrest warrants, are not convictions, and neither are declarations by (a small number) of legislative bodies. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  So, no sources deny that genocide is being committed. A number of sources have determined that it is being committed.  —Michael Z. 14:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here are actual, not made-up quotations:

  “Russia has done the deed and confessed to the intention.”[1] (April 2022)

  “The threshold from war crimes to genocide has been crossed.”[2] (April 2022)

  “There are: 1) reasonable grounds to conclude Russia is responsible for (i) direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and (ii) a pattern of atrocities from which an inference of intent to destroy the Ukrainian national group in part can be drawn.”[3] (May 2022)

  “Russian government sources confirmed that Russia is bringing Ukrainian children to Russia . . . The forcible transfer of children from one group to another with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”[4] (August 2022)

  “Russian state actors have further escalated their wilful, systematic breaches of the Genocide Convention.”[5] (July 2023)

   —Michael Z. 15:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  At first glance, most of those quotes are from publications of advocacy organizations or self-published blogs or are clearly labelled as opinion articles. Such sources are not considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes (except for confirming that the author said what they said, per WP:NEWSOPED and WP:ABOUTSELF). As for "no sources deny that genocide is being committed", that seems to cross a bit into a "presumption of guilt" territory. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  As I have already said, the Genocide Convention places an obligation on signatories to act to prevent genocide, so risk of genocide is an important aspect of the convention, not presumption of innocence. And as I have shown, experts say the obligation was triggered by spring 2022.

  Is presumption a factor in genocide law? I don’t know. But I see no sources expressing doubt that Russia is guilty of inciting genocide, or that it has committed all five of the possible genocidal acts, nor that it has expressed intent by its many public statements. Sounds like a prima facie case to me.

  I doubt that sober organizations like the ICC and UN OHCHR would be throwing around the term genocide if there weren’t something to it.  —Michael Z. 03:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Drop both "allegations" and "accusations". There is sufficient evidence and sourcing for simply "Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War". WP:YESPOV. The subject of the article is the atrocities, not the act of documenting the atrocities. Sennalen (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ALLEGED lists “accused” among the words to watch, so changing the one to the other doesn’t resolve the identified problem. Still much worse, it makes this title look equivalent to Accusations of genocide in Donbas, an article about a patently false accusation, and one that is itself part of Russia’s incitement to genocide. The result would be exactly parallel titles for subjects that couldn’t be more opposite – a seriously twisted POV.

Either allegations or accusations casts the subject as “he-said, she-said,” which is wrong. Academic sources are assessing the risk of genocide being committed already or in the immediate future and the fact of it being committed, as well as the also-relevant fact of the crime of incitement to genocide being committed. A more relevant title would be Risk of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or just the subject of Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine (or A or B in the Russo-Ukrainian War).

In fact there is no disagreement that Russia has committed all five criminal acts that are genocidal (they are well documented and Russia brags about them itself), no disagreement that it is inciting genocide (it does so openly), and the latter demonstrates the intent which needs to be shown for the prohibited acts to constitute genocide. The only disagreement was over a year ago when some sources wrote that it may have been too early to prove it, and not disagreeing that genocide was being committed, but now the best source on the subject says that Russia has continued and escalated its genocide.[6] (And the “not proven” was also moot, because it’s the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and eighteen months ago it already obliged 152 signatory states to take action to prevent due to the risk of genocide demonstrated by all of the acts above by Russia.)  —Michael Z. 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac and @Sennalen, I agree with the move to Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War Parham wiki (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but hadn't you proposed a title already? What's the point of starting a RM if you're then going to start defending another proposal, particularly one that has already been discussed? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I changed my opinion. Parham wiki (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. Sennalen (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• It is the Palestinian genocide article that is the newer one, this one shouldn't have to follow it but viceversa in any case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Neither has to follow. The subjects are not the same nor very similar.  —Michael Z. 13:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I am quite certain that both titles are inherently inappropriate (allegations and accusations) and unencyclopedic and would strongly suggest that article title should be changed to fit an adjusted scope so that both can meet encyclopedic format. "Accusations" and "allegations" should not have their standalone articles in the first place - these are polemical notions and propositions. However, we could and should have an article about ongoing atrocities and war-crimes in this conflict - in other words, we should focus its scope on writing about war-crimes and when and where needed create appropriate sections whether on both sides, if confirmed committed atrocities can be sourced and refed; whether on "accusations" and "allegations", but usual mutual accusations should be avoided unless they are some official reports and statements, and international should be prioritised; and so on, is up to contributing editors. Now, the proper title imposes itself - War crimes in ongoing Foo-Foo military conflict or some such variant.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Something like War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? (Such an article already exists.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In that case this article warrants merger with that. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the specific atrocity crimes of genocide and incitement to genocide, not about war crimes. The “accusations” are not “polemical,” “usual,” or “mutual”: a significant number of independent experts have determined that Russia, and not Ukraine, has been violating the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide for over a year and a half, including incitement to genocide, all five of the genocidal acts, and with intent, and has been continuing and escalating its genocide.

Reliable sources have identified genocide. We should title the article after the subject, and stop imposing our opinion and giving the criminal state a pass by labelling its crimes with qualifiers, or indulging in denial by censoring the article  —Michael Z. 14:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Beside various politicians, I don'r see in this article nor in its sources anything beyond accusations, allegations, grounds for investigations, potential for what would happen if it happened, and vast amount of text on it. Only thing that it's not polemical in this article is bit on ICCt official investigation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You notably missed the two New Lines reports, by thirty legal and genocide experts, as well as quite a few individual articles by experts. I quoted some above.  —Michael Z. 16:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean "concluded that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that Russia breached two articles of the 1948 Genocide Convention, by publicly inciting genocide" and "report serves as a warning that Russia's war could become genocide" - I did not miss it, I have spent significant amount of time today on reading through this article, and I stand by my conclusions. We should not have standalone article such as this one - on potential / risk of genocide, and what would happen if it happen, nor on genocidal intent. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You’re quoting Wikipedia, about a seventeen-month-old Foreign Policy article about the first report of May 2022. And the same FP article’s author wrote in the same publication in March 2023: “Russia’s Theft of Children in Ukraine Is Genocide: Moscow is out to destroy a people.”

I apologize for repeating myself, but the direct followup New Lines report 14 months later said:[7] “Russian state actors have further escalated their wilful, systematic breaches of the Genocide Convention.” It says there are reasonable grounds to believe the crimes of incitement to genocide and genocide are being committed and escalating.

It also writes that “the legal obligation of all States to prevent genocide was triggered by the spring of 2022,” and you want to delete this article?? (“Never again” doesn’t mean refusing to acknowledge or do anything about genocide ever again, hence the convention is “On Prevention and Punishment.”)  —Michael Z. 19:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, "Allegations" and "Accusations" are functionally synonyms here, to the point that MOS:ACCUSED exists as a synonym of MOS:ALLEGED. On the second reason, the second source does not support the assertion, drawing an explicit distinction "in their express purpose, apparent geographic scale, indeterminate duration, logistical complexity, breadth of official involvement, and the number of children involved". However, if there is a corpus of sources here, the slight scope expansion seems reasonable. CMD (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  The first paragraph on the same page of the second source describes how this expanded Russian operation against Ukrainian children started in early February, a few weeks before the invasion (and we don’t know when the planning and decision to proceed were done). Russia’s crime of incitement to genocide also started earlier, for example in Putin’s widely cited July 2021 essay, so it’s reasonable to sum up that crimes against the Genocide Convention predated the invasion. In the absence of certainty that genocidal acts were not committed before exactly February 24, 2022, renaming the article to “… in the Russo-Ukrainian War” is the reasonable course.  —Michael Z. 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Michael Z.: I suggest to have a look at WP:BLUDGEON. Please try to refrain from responding strongly to practically every comment here; it looks like there was a similar pattern in the August RM as well. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was addressing a point of fact regarding the chronological scope here, a topic I hadn’t mentioned before, so I don’t think it constitutes “forcing my point of view.” But I will try to limit my comments.  —Michael Z. 20:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I know it is a hard tendency to resist; I sometimes suffer from it myself. (But in this instance, I did let more than a week pass between my first comment and my next one, despite receiving a rather rapid and argumentative reply.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  If one's arguments are questioned or challenged, it is perfectly fine the same editor to respond to those. It is wrong to limit this. Also, other editors may be silent because arguments are perfectly valid and there is no need to repeat. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Further discussion needed to find consensus as to where to move (assuming the apparent consensus to do so remains). estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support I accept the argument that there are no meaningful differences between "allegations" and "accusations" as terms. Therefore, per our guidelines on WP: CONSISTENT titling, the term "accusations" is more appropriate to bring the article in line with the articles Palestinian genocide accusation and Accusations of genocide in Donbas. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: accusations is equivalent to allegations per MOS:ALLEGED, and would make this title misleadingly parallel to the article about the perpetrators own false accusations that sources tell us are part of its genocidal crimes (accusation in a mirror). Instead rename this article Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is academic consensus that Russia has violated the Genocide Convention by committing incitement to genocide, that it has committed every potentially genocidal act in the Convention, and that its open rhetoric is evidence of its genocidal intent. Many sources say in so many words that it is committing genocide, and none disagree. If nothing else, the subject of genocide in Ukraine makes this a valid title, but there is clearly much more to it.  —Michael Z. 23:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Mzajac, So what about the two sources that say the genocide of Ukrainians started before the invasion and On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians? Parham wiki (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that the change of scope is desirable (but not critically necessary). I support a move to Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War.  —Michael Z. 13:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support changing to Genocide of Ukrainians during the Russian invasion of Ukraine per Michael Z. Volunteer Marek 14:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Also just to make it consistent with the lede and article content. Volunteer Marek 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - for this latest suggestion you would really have to find some strong sources, and I mean like heck of a strong, heck of a reliable, and in decent number - not some armchair opinionated media articles or essays, without actual research and consensus among scholars. I suggest you visit articles such as Srebrenica Massacre and Bosnian Genocide to see and sense how difficult is to source and ref such claims (not to mention Palestinian plight), even though in case of Bosnia we have 20 years of prosecution and final judgments of both international courts (ICJ and ICTY). So please, get over yourself and try to put things into perspective.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Full article: Forcibly Transferring Ukrainian Children to the Russian Federation: A Genocide? (tandfonline.com) . Based on the available information and evidence, I contend that forcible transferring of Ukrainian children to the Russian Federation satisfies the prima facie elements of the crime of genocide under Article II (e) of theGenocide Convention that entails both state responsibility and international criminal responsibility. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  And who else supports this "contention" ?! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Understanding Russia’s Actions in Ukraine as the Crime of Genocide | Journal of International Criminal Justice | Oxford Academic (oup.com) Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Russian Federation's Escalating Commission of Genocide in Ukraine: A Legal Analysis - New Lines Institute The evidence presented compels us to conclude that the Russian Federation has not only continued but escalated its efforts to commit genocide. Beyond a serious risk of genocide, we conclude there are violations of the Genocide Convention beyond a reasonable doubt. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's not "genocide committed" it's a "risk of genocide". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  (2) Reasonable grounds to believe that Russia is responsible for the commission of genocide
  against the Ukrainian national group, a position supported by (i) a pattern of atrocities
  from which an inference of intent to destroy the Ukrainian national group in part can be
  drawn and (ii) documented evidence of one or more of the prohibited acts in violation of
  the Genocide Convention, and
  (3) Signs of serious, escalating genocide and genocidal incitement in Ukraine: Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  It literally says “beyond a risk”, and “there are violations … beyond a reasonable doubt.” Are you refusing to see the words?  —Michael Z. 16:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Only if you could go "beyond" these titles and actually read these few papers, maybe we would have something to talk about. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  So when we don’t fall for you misrepresenting text in the document, then you imply it’s insignificant anyway? Not sure how else to interpret this. Seems like disruptive noise in lieu of an argument. —Michael Z. 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  You can't be serious asking to make this already bloated article into article about "genocide" based on two polemical papers, based and written, by admonition of its authors themselves, on their impression in interpreting sparse data and second-hand information. I gave you an honest suggestion to go and see how the articles about the Srebrenica Massacre and the Bosnian Genocide were written and backed with sources, and to see for yourself how much and what it takes to write and publish a decent encyclopedic article on the subject of genocide, however, you persistently push this unsupported idea that genocide has already happened in Ukraine, even though not a single source you have confirms or supports such an idea firmly and without a doubt. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  not a single source you have confirms or supports such an idea firmly and without a doubt.
  Let a source speak for you
  ... we conclude there are violations of the Genocide Convention beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Understanding Russia’s Actions in Ukraine as the Crime of Genocide | Journal of International Criminal Justice | Oxford Academic (oup.com) The facts described in this article, in their entirety, provide grounds to believe that the actions of the Russian Federation committed during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine are indeed aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainian nation as such at least in part and therefore amount to genocide. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  So, you have one source. When creating article on, say, hard fact that Foo river exists, and you provide one source and one ref, one immediately gets on first review an article template message warning that article is based on single source - are you sure you can build consensus to rewrite and retitle this article into "genocide" article based on these two papers with unconclusive and ambiguous polemics? Look, I won't reply on this thread anymore - proponents of "genocide" will need a truly serious scholarly consensus,, possibly judiciary take on the matter, abundant well of research in secondary sources and tertiary coverage of it, from variety of international institutions and organizations. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  one source
  Understanding Russia’s Actions in Ukraine as the Crime of Genocide | Journal of International Criminal Justice | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

  The Russian Federation's Escalating Commission of Genocide in Ukraine: A Legal Analysis - New Lines Institute

  Full article: Forcibly Transferring Ukrainian Children to the Russian Federation: A Genocide? (tandfonline.com)

  The Nomenclature of War and Genocide: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Ukraine is also concurrently suffering its second genocide in Ukraine in less than 100 years.

  Genocide committed by the Russian Federation in Ukraine: Legal Reasoning And Historical Context by Denis Azarov, Dmytro Koval, Gaiane Nuridzhanian, Volodymyr Venher :: SSRN The facts described in the article, in their entirety, provide grounds to believe that the actions of the Russian Federation committed during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine are indeed aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainian nation and therefore amount to genocide.

  How much is enough? Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  This much would be great > Bosnian_genocide#References; at least half of that would be a kinda mandatory. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's not fair to compare amount of sources for events happened 30 years ago to sources for an event still happening. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, there’s no mandatory number of sources.  —Michael Z. 23:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ukraine and Russia - Google Books p. 302 When such acts (and others) are committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”85 the acts constitute genocide. To qualify as genocide, a campaign need not try kill every single member of a group, but rather to end the existence of the group as a group, which is exactly what some of Russia’s propaganda advocated.86 That the unit responsible for the massacre in Bucha was given an award by Putin is further evidence that war crimes were neither accidental nor punished.87 In May 2022, two NGOs produced a legal analysis concluding that “reasonable grounds to conclude Russia is responsible for (i) direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and (ii) a pattern of atrocities from which an inference of intent to destroy the Ukrainian national group in part can be drawn …”88 Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Author is professor of Public Policy and Political Science, a "political scientist specializing politics and international relations in the former Soviet Union, focusing on Ukraine and Russia", and he is "considered expert on economics, finance, and budgeting in US universities". You still really think you can convince me with these cursory opinionated mentions and, for the "Nth" time, polemical few article, and now book by non-expert, that you have provided enough. And how many times have you requested the same retitling in just past few weeks, anyway? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  book by non-expert
  

  professor of Public Policy and Political Science, a "political scientist specializing politics and international relations in the former Soviet Union, focusing on Ukraine and Russia"
  

  but here's somebody who sure is a genocide expert. Ukraine Holds the Future: The War between Democracy and Nihilism The Centennial Issue 101 Foreign Affairs 2022 (heinonline.org) Russia embodies fascism while claiming to fight it; Russians commit genocide while claiming to prevent it. ... Manyareasexpert (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Expert on what? History and global affairs? Where is his research on "genocide", where exactly has he dug deep into day-by-day events, took on archives, looked at military orders,chain of command...... You really believe we are building encyclopedic articles on genocide by finding cursory mentions and chery-picked opinions? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  The New Lines reports are written by over thirty legal and genocide experts. Anyway, this dialogue obviously futile. Santa will keep producing new objections to any source, as they have made up their mind what is right and there must be a reason everything contrary is wrong.  —Michael Z. 00:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am not the only one, as far as I can tell - maybe tonight, but in recent weeks you have attempted more than once to retitle this article without success. I guess other editors were not convinced either. I think it's time that you take a pause and wait awhile before you make another request on the same issue. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  And for heaven's sake, let it go - New Lines Institute is a think-tank not some genocide experts' hub. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t understand the objection about New Lines. These are the contributors to the first report.[8] If this is not a genocide experts’ hub, what is it you demand?

  This report has been produced with the contributions of, and upon consultation with, numerous independent experts, including the following who have agreed to be identified publicly:

List of about 35 specific individual contributors and their biographies (collapsed by BarrelProof)

Yonah Diamond Yonah Diamond, principal author of this report, is an international human rights lawyer specializing in atrocity prevention, international justice, and political prisoner advocacy at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. He is also principal author and co-author of the independent reports The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention (2021) and Cameroon's Unfolding Catastrophe: Evidence of Human Rights Violations and Crimes against Humanity (2019), respectively. Professor John Packer Professor John Packer is the Neuberger-Jesin Professor of International Conflict Resolution in the Faculty of Law and Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa. For over 20 years he worked for intergovernmental organizations (UNHCR, ILO, OHCHR, UNDPA, OSCE) which included investigations of serious violations of human rights notably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Burma/Myanmar. He is a former Senior Legal Adviser and the first Director of the Office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Professor Packer served this project as a principal advisor. Erin Farrell Rosenberg Erin Farrell Rosenberg is a Visiting Scholar with the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. She is an attorney specializing in international criminal law and reparations, having worked at the ICTY and the International Criminal Court for a decade. She is the former Senior Advisor for the Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, where she was the lead author for the report series, Practical Prevention: How the Genocide Convention’s Obligation to Prevent Applies to Burma. She is a member of the Editorial Committee of the Journal of International Criminal Justice (JICJ) and the ABA Working Group on Crimes Against Humanity. Farrell Rosenberg served this project as a principal advisor. Professor Susan Benesch Professor Susan Benesch founded and directs the Dangerous Speech Project (dangerousspeech.org), to study speech that can inspire violence - and to find ways to prevent this, without infringing on freedom of expression. An international human rights lawyer, she is also Faculty Associate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Rayhan Asat Rayhan Asat is a human rights attorney based in Washington DC. A graduate of Harvard Law School and former anti-corruption attorney at a major U.S. law firm, she specializes in international human rights law. She is currently a Senior Fellow at the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights and is also the Founder and President of the American Turkic International Lawyers Association. Adejoké Babington-Ashaye Adejoké Babington-Ashaye is an international law expert. She is actively engaged in the provision of technical support and advice for national prosecution and investigation of international crimes through UNODC and The Wayamo Foundation, and was an investigator at the International Criminal Court (2005 - 2010). Babington-Ashaye has also served as the Former Senior Counsel at the World Bank (2012 - 2021) and Former Associate Legal Officer at the International Court of Justice (2010 - 2012). Christopher Atwood Christopher Atwood is a graduate student at the Harriman Institute of Columbia University. He researches regional perceptions of identity, culture, and communications. He has advised several media, advertising, and marketing organizations and NGOs in both Ukraine and Russia. He served this project as an advisor. Santiago A. Canton Santiago A. Canton is the director of the Peter D. Bell Rule of Law Program at the Inter-American Dialogue and an international visiting scholar at the American University Washington College of Law. In 1998, he served as the first Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression in the Inter-American System. From 2001 - 2012, he was the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States. In 2005, Canton was awarded the Inter-American Press Association´s Chapultepec Grand Prize for his contributions to the promotion, development, strengthening, and defense of the principles of freedom of expression. Honorable Irwin Cotler The Honorable Irwin Cotler is the International Chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, an Emeritus Professor of Law at McGill University, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and longtime Member of Parliament, and an international human rights lawyer. Professor David Crane Professor David Crane is a Professor of Practice at Syracuse University College of Law. He teaches international law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, national security law, and other related subjects. He is also the founder of the “I am Syria” campaign and “Impunity Watch.” Previously, Crane served as the Chief Prosecutor of the International War Crimes Tribunal in West Africa, known as the Special Court for Sierra Leone, appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, from 2002-2005. Dato Param Cumaraswamy Dato Param Cumaraswamy is a distinguished international lawyer who served as the Chair of the Malaysian Bar Council from 1986 to 1988 and United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers by the UN Commission on Human Rights from 1994 to 2003. He has written extensively about the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary and about the importance of human rights. He has lectured widely on a variety of legal topics, notably on the role of an independent and responsible judiciary in fostering democracy. Ambassador Kelley Currie Ambassador Kelley Currie is a human rights lawyer who has served as US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues (2019 - 2021) and US Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (2017 - 2019). Throughout her career in foreign policy, Ambassador Currie has specialized in human rights, political reform, development and humanitarian issues. She is currently an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for New American Security and Senior Non Resident Fellow at the New Lines Institute. Professor Tanya L. Domi Professor Tanya L. Domi is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and is an affiliate faculty member of the Harriman Institute. Domi has researched EU integration of Western Balkan countries and NATO enlargement in the region. Dr. Tatyana Eatwell Dr. Tatyana Eatwell is a Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers in London, U.K., who specialises in public international law and international human rights law. She has acted in high-profile criminal appeals before the UK Supreme Court concerning the interpretation of international law on, for example, war crimes, terrorism, and torture, and the application of international law in domestic proceedings. She has a PhD from the University of Cambridge in Public International Law. Her thesis focuses on questions of attribution and is titled ‘State Responsibility for the Unlawful Conduct of Armed Groups’ (due to be published by Cambridge University Press in 2022). Mark Ellis Mark Ellis is the Director of the International Bar Association and is the chair of the UN-created Advisory Panel on Matters Relating to Defence Counsel of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. Ellis has also served as Legal Advisor to the Independent International Commission on Kosovo and was appointed by OSCE to advise on the creation of Serbia’s War Crimes Tribunal. He was actively involved with the Iraqi High Tribunal and acted as legal consultant to the defense team of Nuon Chea at the Cambodian War Crimes Tribunal (ECCC). Zoe Gladstone Zoe Gladstone has a JD from the University of Ottawa where she specialized in human rights and international law. She has varied work experience in the public sector, including through Canada’s Department of Justice and Department of Foreign Affairs, as a former Project Manager at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, and as a Policy and Legal Intern at the Human Rights Foundation. Professor Max Hilaire Professor Max Hilaire is a Professor at New York University, Prague. He holds an M.A, M.Phil, and Ph.D in International Relations from Columbia University. His expertise includes Public International Law, International Human Rights & International Humanitarian Law, United Nations Law, and U.S. Foreign Relations Law. He is the former Professor & Chair of the Department of Political Science at Morgan State University. He is a two-time Fulbright Scholar, and a recipient of a number of Fulbright- Hayes award and other distinguished faculty awards. He is the author of several books, most recently The Evolution and Transformation of International Law. Mofidul Hoque Mofidul Hoque is the Founding Trustee of the Liberation War Museum in Bangladesh and the Director of the Centre for Studies on Genocide and Peace. He is a recipient of the second-highest civilian award in Bangladesh, the Ekushey Padak, and is recognized internationally for his work as a genocide scholar, an activist, and a researcher. Professor Steven T. Katz Professor Steven T. Katz holds the Alvin J. And Shirley Slater Chair in Jewish Holocaust Studies at Boston University and is the former Director of the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies. He previously taught at Dartmouth College and has published numerous works on the Holocaust and Jewish philosophy. Professor Hiroaki Kuromiya Professor Hiroaki Kuromiya is a Professor of History Emeritus at Indiana University. He studies modern and contemporary Ukraine in the wider context of Eurasian history. Professor Kuromiya has written on the Donbass (historical and contemporary), the Holodomor, the Great Terror, along with other subjects, mainly focusing on the Stalin era. Professor Errol Mendes Professor Errol Mendes is a lawyer, author, and Professor at the University of Ottawa. He has previously served as Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre, the oldest University-based bilingual human rights research and education institution in Canada. Professor Mendes has also served as an adviser to corporations, governments, civil society groups, and the United Nations. His interests include constitutional and human rights law, public international law, including humanitarian and international criminal law, and international business and trade law. Professor Norman M. Naimark Professor Norman M. Naimark is the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies at Stanford University. Naimark is interested in modern Eastern European and Russian history as well as genocide and ethnic cleansing in the 20th century. He is the author of Genocide: A World History. Naimark earned his Ph.D. in History from Stanford University in 1972. In addition to his myriad academic positions, he has been awarded the Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1996. Dr. Melanie O’Brien Dr. Melanie O’Brien is an Associate Professor of International Law at the University of Western Australia’s Law School. She is the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and a member of the WA International Humanitarian Law Committee of the Australian Red Cross. Dr. O'Brien's research and supervision areas include international criminal law, genocide studies, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, feminist legal theory, public international law, comparative criminal law, peacekeeping, and military law. O'Brien's work on forced marriage has been cited by the International Criminal Court, and she has been an amicus curiae before the ICC. Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab is a human rights advocate, author and co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response. Dr. Ochab works on the topic of genocide, with specific focus on the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities around the world. Her main projects focus on the Daesh genocide in Syria and Iraq, Boko Haram atrocities in West Africa, the situation of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and of the Uyghurs in China. She has written over 30 reports for the UN and has made oral and written submissions at the Human Rights Council, the UN Forum on Minority Issues, PACE, and other international and regional fora. Professor Maxim Pensky Professor Max Pensky is a Professor of Philosophy at Binghamton University, the State University of New York, where he is a founding Co-Director of the Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (I-GMAP). He has held fellowships at Goethe University Frankfurt as well as Oxford and Cornell Universities. Emily Prey Emily Prey is a Senior Analyst at The New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy. She is a gender expert specializing in genocide and transitional justice with a Master’s in Gender Analysis and Human Security from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. She contributed to the independent expert report The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the Genocide Convention. She served this project as an advisor. Ambassador Allan Rock Ambassador Allan Rock is President Emeritus and Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa. He practiced for 20 years as a trial lawyer in Toronto before his election to Parliament, where he held multiple Cabinet posts. He later served as Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, where he led the successful Canadian effort to secure the unanimous adoption by UN member states of The Responsibility to Protect. Dean Michael Scharf Dean Michael Scharf has been Co-Dean of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law since 2013. He also serves as Managing Director of the Public International Law and Policy Group, a Nobel Peace Prize-nominated NGO. He has led USAID-funded transitional justice projects in Uganda, Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, and Turkey (for Syria), and maritime piracy projects in Kenya, Mauritius, and The Seychelles. Scharf has also held numerous positions with the U.S. Department of State as an attorney. Ambassador David J. Scheffer Ambassador David J. Scheffer is the International Francqui Professor, KU Leuven, and was the first US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues (1997 - 2001). Scheffer participated in the creation of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the Khmer Rouge tribunal. He also led the U.S. negotiating team in United Nations talks on the International Criminal Court. Scheffer is Clinical Professor Emeritus and Director Emeritus of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Professor Marci Shore Professor Marci Shore is an Associate Professor of History at Yale University and a regular visiting fellow at the Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna. She is the translator of Michał Głowiński's The Black Seasons and the author of Caviar and Ashes: A Warsaw Generation's Life and Death in Marxism (1918-1968), The Taste of Ashes: The Afterlife of Totalitarianism in Eastern Europe, and The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution. She received a Guggenheim Fellowship for her current project about phenomenology in East-Central Europe, tentatively titled Eyeglasses Floating in the Sky: Central European Encounters that Took Place while Searching for Truth. Dr. David Simon Dr. David Simon serves on the Executive Committee of the Consortium of Higher Education Centers for Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights Studies. Simon studies how states and societies commit and experience mass atrocities, and their subsequent recovery. He serves as the Director of Undergraduate Studies at Yale and has served as a consultant for several U.N. agencies, including UNDP, UNITAR, Office of the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, and the Millennium Development Project. Prof. Timothy Snyder Prof. Timothy Snyder is the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University and a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. His books include The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (2003), Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010), Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning (2015), and On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century (2017). He was a Marshall Scholar at Oxford, and has received the Carnegie and Guggenheim fellowships. Among other distinctions are the Emerson Prize in the Humanities, the Literature Award of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the Foundation for Polish Science prize in the social sciences, the Leipzig Award for European Understanding, the Dutch Auschwitz Committee award, and the Hannah Arendt Prize in Political Thought. Dr. Gregory H. Stanton Dr. Gregory H. Stanton is the Founding President of Genocide Watch, founder of the Cambodian Genocide Project, and founder of the Alliance Against Genocide. He was President (2007 - 2009) of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). While in the US State Department, he drafted the UN Security Council Resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Chief Charles Taku Chief Taku is a certified leading international law expert with forty years of professional and trial experience. He is the immediate past President of the International Criminal Court Bar Association (ICCBA) and a Trustee and Member for Life of the Executive Governing Council of the African Bar Association (AfBA). Over the last two decades, he represented clients at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the International Criminal Court, the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Arusha Tanzania. Dr. György Tatár Dr. György Tatár is the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for the International Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities established in Budapest, Hungarym, since 2011. Prior to joining the Foundation, from 2004 to 2010 he worked for the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy in the capacity of Head of Task Force for Horizontal Security Issues and Conflict Prevention within the Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit. From 1977 to 2004, he served in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Hungary in various positions in Budapest and in the Embassies of Hungary in Baghdad, Prague and Vienna. Robert Tyler Robert Tyler is a Senior Policy Advisor at New Direction – Foundation for European Reform, a Brussels- based think tank founded by Margaret Thatcher in 2009 as the official foundation of the European Conservative Movement. Prior to working for New Direction, he worked as policy adviser in the European Parliament, focused on foreign policy and counterterrorism.

 —Michael Z. 01:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

But a whole year later UN's Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine report to the Human Rights Council does not mention nor endorse such views and opinions by "independent report" produced by think-tank from US. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So? The UN commission neither endorsed nor cast doubt on the New Lines report. But it recognized allegations and is investigating genocide.[9]

The Commission is also concerned about allegations of genocide in Ukraine. For instance, some of the rhetoric transmitted in Russian state and other media may constitute incitement to genocide. The Commission is continuing its investigations on such issues.

 —Michael Z. 01:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And Jesus Christ, Mary and Joseph, get ahold of yourself, you are an admin and as such you should at least have some grasp of our project's policies and guidelines - I mean regarding this relentless WP:BLUDGEONING. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A year on, we have clear evidence of genocide in Ukraine | The Hill
Alex Hinton is Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, director of the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, and UNESCO Chair in Genocide Prevention at Rutgers University. The author or editor of 17 books on genocide and mass violence, his most recent book is “Anthropological Witness: Expert Lessons from the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.” Manyareasexpert (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(I guess you’ve given up on the “that's not "genocide committed"” argument?)

“Polemical” is your unfounded opinion, not backed by sources. The two important New Lines reports were published eighteen and three months ago and no one has disputed their conclusions, much less called them “polemical. There are many reliable sources saying every element of genocide exists, and practically none saying they don’t or disputing those that do. This meets the definition of academic consensus, and you are the one that continues to, transparently, “persistently push” unsupported ideas. If there were any academic debate, which no one has demonstrated, then it would still meet the definition of an encyclopedic subject.  —Michael Z. 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's one more time so that you nor anyone else can abuse and misinterpret my position anymore - I am absolutely convinced that genocide is not firmly established by any institution and organization and that these papers show this, including even the biased Ukrainian side - at this point in time, Ukrainian authors in tossing around the idea of genocide are biased, and will remain so until international body or bodies eventually confirm and establish "genocide", scholarly and judiciously, and include whatever is being said in the meantime by Ukrainian colleagues, in a narrative that would have broad consensus. Not one of these papers actually firmly establish "genocide is committed", they are indeed polemical and opinionated. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether *you* personally are convinced or not is beside the point. The only question is whether there are multiple sources stating it. You started off by saying, quote: "not a single source you have confirms or supports such an idea firmly and without a doubt" and were immediately presented with a source which does exactly that, even so far as to use the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt". You then replied with "So, you have one source", effectively moving the goalpost. You were then immediately provided with FIVE sources and an indication that there were more. You then demanded that the number of sources to be provided was to be some ill-defined number comparable to what is in some other article and claimed this was "mandatory" (sic). You are now at the point where you are calling reliable sources "biased" and dismissing them a priori - any kind of source which you don't agree with you is "biased". Even this argument, as flawed as it is, is several steps removed from your original "not a single source". How about we do actually stick to sources? Volunteer Marek 21:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You still haven't provided a single source where genocide claim is backed by data from the field - anyone can repeat genocide convention, letter by letter, and offer opinion from afar. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

First you ask for a source. You got a source. Then you demand more sources. You got more sources. Then you decide they have to be right kind of sources. You get those too. Then you demand that all these right kind of sources have to use the precise language you decided was the only acceptable one. Yup, got that too. You then claim that any source you disagree with is “biased” anyway. And top it off with demanding that sources have “data from the field”, whatever that means (and which isn’t a requirement for RS). I think this sequence kind of speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing you said about providing sources is actually right - someone with a staggering nearly one hundred thousand edits should know better what RS are, and how, in what way, what extent, etc. should real reliable sources talk about some topic, especially one which is quite a controversial. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know what reliable sources are. Journal of Genocide Research is a reliable source. As are all the other academic journal articles that have been shown to you. Repeatedly. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Any by the way, when I said "I am not convinced" that statement is actually very much relevant and on point, because it was about my conviction about your attempt to argue "genocide" inadequately while providing inadequate sources, it can't be more relevant than that - I never expressed my conviction about what is going on on the field in Ukraina, that and only that would be beside the point. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you challenged citing, for example, Jewish and Israeli authors on Holocaust subjects, too? Or is it only the Ukrainians that you want us to discriminate against? Please explain how this relates to Wikipedia guidelines.  —Michael Z. 22:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Genocide of Ukrainians during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Already rejected at #Requested move 4 August 2023. No opinion on "allegations" vs "acussations". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrible RM, agree with Mellk on opposing all proposals. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Another source that says the genocide started before the invasion: [10] Parham wiki (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose all proposals. No new arguments compared to last time, tired of the bludgeoning. Mellk (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Last time there were very few sources from 2023. Now we have almost a whole another years worth of sources supporting a new title. The sources and evidence just keeps piling up. Volunteer Marek 02:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The last RM was four months ago, not a year ago. And that proposal is not even what this RM was originally supposed to be about. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Mellk: Even my suggestion? I brought three sources Parham wiki (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Because you started supporting an already discussed proposal that was different from the one you originally started this RM for, the "allegations" vs "acussations" thing has barely been discussed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I withdrew support. Parham wiki (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - We had enough of this, really; some discussion posts disregard decorum completely with bludgeoning, so I think someone should close this pronoto.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • You asked for a source. You got it. You demanded more sources. You got them. You kept asking. Editors kept providing and trying to please you. Now you declare that these attempts at satisfying your ever increasing demands are “bludgeoning”. Again, this sequence speaks for itself. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

    Been there. Sennalen (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest a different rename to Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is neither allegation nor accusation, but more like a fact. First of all, there is a view by majority of sources and by a number of national parliaments that the genocide is indeed happening. Secondly, the International Criminal Court even issued arrest warrants. Third, the committed war crimes straightforwardly fit the definition of genocide (hence the arrest warrant). My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, the ICC investigation does include crimes against the Genocide Convention, but the current warrants are for a war crime (which happens to be a genocidal act if it is associated with intent to commit genocide). So I would characterize the warrants as a stepping stone to potential indictments for genocide. (But I agree it still supports your logic, as Russia’s open incitement to genocide is widely accepted as evidence of intent.)  —Michael Z. 17:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. I now see there was another, earlier RfC on this page about renaming to Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it was closed as "no consensus". I checked this thread now and think that the argument for renaming were very strong, consistent with my comment just above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly all proposals per my Comments before and after Relisting, and per Super Dromaeosaurus and Mellk short but on-point remarks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • You’ve already made like two or three bolded Comments which are effectively opposes above. Volunteer Marek 17:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

    So? I never expressed my explicit Vote for either option, and closing admin wouldn't count my Comments as such. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  • per my Comments
    All your requests for sources, for more sources and for more academic sources were met, no reason to oppose anymore. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

    Comments are !vote ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

    ... but also The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments - WP:RMCOMMENT . Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

    You have just answered your own raised concerns - you don't see that. Yes, debate/discussion, in other words comment, is not a vote ! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

    .... and please don't vote without argument - in other words, without discussion/comment! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

The bias is a little.. huge

While we all know that Wikipedia are full of bias, and the administrators are pro-ukraine, i suggest making the article a little less biased. The page about the alleged Palestinian genocide is more impartial, I think the administrators are not so biased. As using the cited article as source, I suggest: 1 - Add responses to the accusation, like the palestinian article. 2 - Change perpetrators to Accused, like the palestinian article. Desaibsiaidepikiw (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

HAve any arrest warrant been issued over Gaza? Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The situation of Ukraine and Gaza are very different. Genocidal intent has been expressed by israel which rightly should be pointed out. But right now its best to keep it labeled as an allegation. Ethnic cleansing is probably a more accurate description of what has been committed in Gaza. And there is also the fact the ICC has an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for the forcible transfer of Ukrainian children into Russia. and the incitement to genocide and accusation mirror Russia did in violation of the genocide convention. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Really? A warrant sponsored by direct geopolitical competitors who have been hostile for years is evidence?

Should we consider Russian charges against Ukrainians for 'genocide' in the Donbass evidence as well? 84.247.43.62 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No WP:SOAPBOX please. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's all the documented Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine from Russia

https://www.justsecurity.org/81789/russias-eliminationist-rhetoric-against-ukraine-a-collection/ it would probably be excessive to add it all but it we should document how widespread the incitement to genocide is. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There should be a section on incitement to genocide from Russian officials and there rhetoric. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

THis is a BLP, we need more than open source. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thousands of Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia and Belarus

https://www.politico.eu/article/deported-ukrainian-children-sent-to-survival-training-with-the-belarusian-military/

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/28/1222025735/ukrainian-children-deported-belarus

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-children-belarus-b2448974.html

There are more, it all goes back to a Yale (yes an accademic) study. 15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they say it was a part of the genocide. In particular, 1st ref: "The ‘forcible transfer and russification of Ukrainian children’ is ‘evidence of a genocide,’ the Council of Europe says." ...A study by Yale University found that between September 2022 and May 2023, over 2,400 Ukrainian children aged 6 to 17 were deported to Belarus ..." I included this ref. My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2024

Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War – according to this source, this source and this source the genocide of Ukrainians began before the invasion. Also, Putin committed incitement to genocide before the invasion. Parham wiki (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

support per nom—blindlynx 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Suppoort Yes, the allegations was made before the invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)