Talk:Lyudmyla Denisova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mhorg (talk | contribs) at 14:09, 23 June 2022 (→‎Sources about the unreliability of her rape reports: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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

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

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

  • [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

  • 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 the unreliability of her rape reports

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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyudmyla_Denisova&oldid=1094588594"