Talk:Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 1

Finding a viable name
For this article to survive an WP:AfD, it would need a name that accurately describes the current content and that is considered notable. Problems with the current name include: the Russian invasion started in 2014, and genocide didn't start then; the name sounds like there is wide agreement among WP:RS that genocide has occurred, which is not the case; preference in style is for in the 2022 Russian invasion rather than during. Possible names that could be viable include: I suggest informal search for consensus, though if that doesn't work, a more structured discussion could be used. Without a name change, there is a big risk of confusing genocide itself from politicians' claims of genocide. Boud (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
 * 2) Debate about genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
 * 3) Claims of Ukrainian genocide in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
 * A more specific title is also necessary to distinguish the subject of this article from the Holodomor, which could also be called a Ukrainian genocide due to a Russian "invasion" - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with all these concerns over the page title. I think Option 1 would be the best name, and my second preference would be for Option 3. Also, I see that "Ukraine genocide" has been recently created as an article, and could do with some help... QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the move. I think this at least sets a viable topic likely to survive an AfD, especially seeing the result of Articles for deletion/Ukraine genocide. Regarding "X-ian genocide" vs "genocide of X-ians", Category:Genocides seems to favour "X-ian genocide" by number of articles, but "genocide of X-ians" in terms of the more recent events (Yazidis, Serbs). I suspect that the reason is the difference between common names that have stuck versus descriptive names that minimise ambiguity ("X-ian genocide" can be misconstrued as "genocide by X-ians", although the usage seems to always mean "genocide of X-ians"). Since this case is not (yet?) a common name (for genocide scholars or other historians), being descriptive rather than common makes sense. There is also a RM at Ukraine genocide that looks likely to reach consensus for Ukrainian genocide, not genocide of Ukrainians, which also favours the current title (though I'm going to go over there and recommend a plural name). TL;DR: I think that the current choice (1.) is fair. Boud (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall the title is pretty good, imo. I might replace "genocide of Ukrainians in" with just "genocide in" or "genocide during". That Ukrainians were/are the victims is quite clear from the rest of the title. Anyway, as RS pile up for/against the designation, the title can easily be changed (to "debate", "question", or most likely, removing "claims of" altogether). Ovinus (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is not about “claims”: it is about the crimes, and whether they constitute genocide or not. (And see WP:CLAIM: the term claims has connotations of doubt.) A more neutral name might use debate, allegations, question, but these still occupy a space of bothsidesism, with the assumption that the absence of guilt (of genocide) means innocence, when it does not.

A good NPOV title would say something like “the investigation of Russian crimes in Ukraine as genocide,” which acknowledges the existence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. —Michael Z. 16:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

New assessments of the situation as genocide

 * Stephen Blank: "Russian war aims include the elimination of the territorial, political, economic and cultural basis of Ukrainian statehood. Putin himself has often declared that Ukrainians are really Russians (“one people”) and has argued at length that Ukraine has no right to exist as an independent and sovereign state. In other words, this is a genocidal war in line with the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention. It is being waged with the explicit intention to “completely or partially destroy a group based on its nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion." Source: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/appeasing-putin-means-enabling-genocide/
 * Yonah Diamond
 * Professor John Packer
 * Erin Farrell Rosenberg
 * Rayhan Asat
 * Adejoké Babington-Ashaye
 * Christopher Atwood
 * Santiago A. Canton
 * The Honorable Irwin Cotler
 * Professor David Crane
 * Dato Param Cumaraswamy
 * Ambassador Kelley Currie
 * Professor Tanya L. Domi
 * Dr. Tatyana Eatwell
 * Mark Ellis
 * Zoe Gladstone
 * Professor Max Hilaire
 * Mofidul Hoque
 * Professor Steven T. Katz
 * Professor Hiroaki Kuromiya
 * Professor Errol Mendes
 * Professor Norman M. Naimark
 * Dr. Melanie O’Brien
 * Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab
 * Professor Max Pensky
 * Emily Prey
 * Ambassador Allan Rock
 * Michael Scharf
 * Ambassador David J. Scheffer
 * Professor Marci Shore
 * Dr. David Simon
 * Dr. Gregory H. Stanton
 * Chief Charles Taku
 * Dr. György Tatár
 * Robert Tyler
 * Dr Azeem Ibrahim Director, Special Initiatives, New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy.
 * Honourable Irwin Cotler, International Chair, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights Montreal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"Russia's actions in Ukraine provide enough evidence to conclude that Moscow is inciting genocide and committing atrocities intended to destroy the Ukrainian people, according to the first independent report into allegations of genocide in that country.

The legal report, signed by more than 30 leading legal scholars and genocide experts, accuses the Russian state of violating several articles of the United Nations Genocide Convention. It warns there is a serious and imminent risk of genocide in Ukraine, backing the accusations with a long list of evidence including examples of mass killings of civilians, forced deportations and dehumanizing anti-Ukrainian rhetoric used by top Russian officials. The report was put together by New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, a US-based think tank, and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights which is based in Canada, and is set to release on Friday, with the authors sending copies to parliaments, governments and international organizations around the world".

Report: https://www.raoulwallenbergcentre.org/images/reports/An-Independent-Legal-Analysis-of-the-Russian-Federations-Breaches-of-the-Genocide-Convention-in-Ukraine-and-the-Duty-to-Prevent-2.pdf

Source:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/27/europe/russia-ukraine-genocide-warning-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark

"Putin’s genocidal policy toward Ukrainians has a clearly expressed ideological and political underpinning."

Source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/is-putin-committing-genocide-in-ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Douglas Irvin-Erickson is Assistant Professor at the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University, where he directs the Raphaël Lemkin Genocide Prevention Program.

"The genocidal intent of the war has been clear from Putin’s own statements, delivered to Russian and international audiences, before and during the war, which explicitly outline the destruction of the Ukrainian nation and ethnicity as the Russian state’s policy objectives of the war".

Source: http://opiniojuris.org/2022/04/21/is-russia-committing-genocide-in-ukraine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Edward B. Westermann, professor of history at Texas A&M University–San Antonio, who teaches and writes about genocide.

"Stop dithering. Ukraine is genocide"

Source:

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/05/15/stop-dithering-ukraine-is-genocide/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ellen J. Kennedy, executive director of World Without Genocide at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, an adjunct professor of law and the representative of World Without Genocide to the UN Department of Global Communications.

"Putin continues the Russian history of war and genocide in Ukraine"

Source:

https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2022/03/putin-continues-the-russian-history-of-war-and-genocide-in-ukraine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Francine Hirsch, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

"Russian leaders began by calling Ukraine’s leaders “Nazis” to cover up their plan for a predatory war of aggression. Now they are calling for genocide. President Biden was right to sound the alarm about genocide. The world must act".

Source: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3267060-de-ukrainization-is-genocide-biden-was-right-to-sound-the-alarm/

Jeff Benvenuto, professor of Holocaust and Genocide Program at Gratz College

"In Ukraine, there is in fact multiple genocides."

Source: https://catholicphilly.com/2022/05/listen/genocide-in-ukraine-and-the-risk-for-more-atrocities/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 10:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Omer Bartov, John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History and Professor of History and Professor of German Studies at Brown University

In an interview, Bartov said the RIA Novosti article a turning point on the question of intent. “This is literally a call to extinguish Ukraine and Ukrainian national existence as such, and likely conforms to the definition of genocide.”

Source: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/is-russia-committing-genocide-ukraine/

Oona Hathaway, Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University

"It is increasingly clear that Russia is committing acts of genocide in Ukraine. When President Biden initially accused Russian forces of committing genocide, he was clearly out in front of his lawyers. But the evidence is growing that he was right."

Source: https://twitter.com/oonahathaway/status/1520401264366043138 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7498:2400:A0A0:CAB8:A854:8041 (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Matthews, executive director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University

"The actions of Russian forces in Ukraine demonstrate that Russia has “genocidal intent to destroy Ukraine as a political entity, as a cultural entity, to destroy the Ukrainian people,” Matthews elaborated. “And the intent is being expressed verbally by the media and by the political elites of Russia.”

Source: https://www.thewhig.com/opinion/columnists/expert-world-leaders-suggest-russia-committing-genocide

Susan Smith-Peter, Professor of History at City University of New York-College of Staten Island

"The world is now confronted with a new kind of genocide: one that does not feel the need to hide. This is a 21st century genocide, where Russian authors publish plans for genocide while at the same time accusing the Ukrainians of committing the genocide themselves. This is a postmodern genocide where words don’t seem to matter, even as bodies keep piling up".

Source: https://medium.com/@jkmuf1861/genocide-in-plain-sight-c2c9119ca533

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention

"The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention believes that Russia’s behavior since the 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine is indicative of genocidal intent" (March 22 statement). "Given recent revelations of atrocity in Russian-occupied Ukraine, the Lemkin Institute wishes to underscore its conviction that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine" (April 09 statement).

Sources:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/_files/ugd/9bc553_1bad719c1ac644ec90e34e6e74afb6c0.pdf https://www.lemkininstitute.com/_files/ugd/db28fa_7e0d15a700ff42879f0861003394886a.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Elisa von Joeden-Forgey seems to be cited quite a bit in Wikipedia, but Lemkin Institute or Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention is not (yet?) Wikipedia-notable. The website is quite confusing: it advertises itself prominently as "Home of the Iraq Project" without giving the reader any easy hint as to what the "Iraq Project" actually is. Claiming copyright starting from next year (2023) is also a bit odd. There seem to be some genuine genocide research scholars involved, and the pdf statements sound well prepared and argued, but despite the impressive sounding name, the organisation does not (yet) sound like a strong source. Boud (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Valerie Morkevičius, Associated Professor of Political Science at Colgate University and Chicago University

"Finally, the Kremlin's rhetoric, repeated breathlessly on state-controlled TV, has taken on an ever more genocidal tone. And we know from social scientific research that such language is a serious warning of genocidal actions".

Source: https://twitter.com/vmorkevicius/status/1522061362243026945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. And this is also already described in news sources . Therefore, this page should be renamed to Genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maria Orsic for collecting all of the sources. At this time I concur, and a new move request ought to be made as soon as the one below is closed. —Michael Z. 18:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Collecting the sources is useful, but copy/pasting cv's of the authors is a distraction, and at least a big part is a copyright violation. Authors who are likely to be Wikipedia notable can have new articles made about them; those who already have articles can be intrawiki linked (as below). Boud (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are authors of the New Lines/Wallenberg report that have Wikipedia articles: Rayhan Asat, Hon. Irwin Cotler, Prof. David Crane (lawyer), Dato Param Cumaraswamy, Amb. Kelley Currie, Mark Ellis (lawyer), Prof. Steven T. Katz, Dr. Norman M. Naimark, Amb. Allan Rock, Michael Scharf, Amb. David J. Scheffer, Prof. Marci Shore, and Dr. Gregory H. Stanton. —Michael Z. 22:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Timofey Sergeytsev - A columnist?

 * https://ontrend.news/ukronazism-timofey-sergeytsev-wikipedia-twitter-age Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * http://zinovievclub.com/authors/timofey_sergeitsev/ Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/russia-ukraine-war-highlights-truths-about-global-capitalism-by-slavoj-zizek-2022-04 "Timofey Sergeytsev presents the full scope of the Kremlin’s genocidal project in Ukraine."Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.juancole.com/2022/04/anifesto-published-reflects.html journalist and Kremlin-aligned political operative Timofey Sergeytsev Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestions
This article still needs quite a bit of work based on the current sources. For anyone willing to have a go, some suggestions include: Boud (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Boud (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * add archives into the references;
 * prefer English-language references where available (though don't remove the non-English ones if they have relevant extra information);
 * check that the sources actually give the information claimed in the text (there's material that I moved around to make more sense, but I didn't check many of the matches between source and summary from the source; I found one source to a live feed that's no longer valid);
 * I didn't include statements by national leaders in the WP:LEAD, since I would assume that parliamentary statements are better checked than individual leaders' statements (although group think might suggest the opposite, so this is not a strong argument), but if someone wants to add the national leaders' statements, then it would be best to find a single reference for multiple leaders, to avoid putting too many references in the lead;
 * shift from :0, :1, :2, type (visual editor?) reference labels to more meaningful ones that make it easier for editors to remember which source they found which information in.
 * several of the names of scholars were guessed (by someone other than me) without checking - the Juan Méndez who made the comment is very likely Juan E. Méndez, not Juan Mendez (politician); and Rebecca Hamilton (politician) does not appear to be "Rebecca Hamilton, an international law professor at American University and a former lawyer in the ICC's prosecutor's office.";
 * check thoroughly for copy/pastes from sources; just because The Washington Post describes Rebecca Hamilton (lawyer) as "Rebecca Hamilton, an international law professor at American University and a former lawyer in the ICC's prosecutor's office" does not justify us making a WP:PARAPHRASE with American University professor of international law and former International Criminal Court attorney, which is a (minor) copyright violation, because there is no particular need to state both of these particular pieces of information about Hamilton. If she is notable enough, then someone should create Rebecca Hamilton (lawyer) and readers will then learn more about her.
 * Hamilton - associate professor https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/rehamilton/bio Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now . Boud (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

ICJ International Court of Justice
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/182/press-releases Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitions of genocide
There is not only one important definition of genocide. The term is a legal one, but also an analytical one in academic discourse (e.g.), and also a political one (as is tacitly recognized by inclusion of the “Legislative recognition” section in this article). But all three should be overtly recognized as valid.

It’s also important to note that international law requires states to prevent genocide, and so its possibility must be acknowledged prima facie, before investigators have finished gathering evidence, before researchers have completed their studies, and before international courts have been able to consider and rule. —Michael Z. 16:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2022

 * 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. If investigations come out, or this article is rescoped around them, the proposed title may be accepted later. Otherwise, maybe a third choice is possible. The one thing I can say is that the proposed title has been resoundingly rejected. Red  Slash  19:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Genocide investigations of 2022 Russian atrocities in Ukraine – There is a consensus that the current title is unsatisfactory, per discussion above, in talk:Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This title is better, it supports the five WP:CRITERIA as well as possible, and it reflects a WP:neutral point of view. It avoids loaded terms as described in WP:CLAIM. It defines the subject as the many ongoing investigations being conducted by legal and public entities, whose evidence will potentially inform the International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine or other legal cases, and can include the academic and legal questions over them.

Atrocity crimes is the umbrella term for military aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. At least some of those are accepted to exist, and using the umbrella term obviates the need to debate their specifics in accepting this title. —Michael Z. 14:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 何をしましたか？  那晚安啦.  07:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * support well reasoned nomination—blindlynx 15:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Stricken my support per the arguments below. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the majority of the article isn't about an investigation. Evidence ≠ investigation. Expert statements ≠ Investigation. Legislative recognition ≠ Investigation. The International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine is an investigation. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine is an investigation. I'm not sure what the best title for this article is, but it is not that. selfworm Talk ) 03:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The plural title is clearly not referring to an investigation. Evidence presented by journalists was gathered in their investigations. Expert statements are based on evidence from investigations and may contribute to other investigations. Legislative recognition couldn’t happen without legislators’ investigations. And all of these may impact the investigations you mentioned. —Michael Z. 15:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the title "Genocide investigations of 2022 Russian atrocities in Ukraine" very clearly refers to investigations (of a certain type). The noun in this title is "investigations" and any article titled "investigations" should be about investigations. Notice that all of the following articles are about investigations:
 * Investigations into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - It is primarily about investigations. It is NOT about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster itself.
 * Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack - It is primarily about investigations. It is NOT about the 2012 Benghazi attack itself.
 * Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - It is primarily about investigations. It is NOT about COVID itself.
 * Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) - It is primarily about the investigation. It is NOT about Russian interference itself.
 * Although these articles I've listed all mention evidence, expert opinions, etc., their contents are nevertheless true to their titles; that is, they are primarily about investigations.
 * This makes me wonder: are any of these genocide investigations even complete yet? selfworm Talk ) 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So you’re implying the subject is the possibly genocidal crimes, not their investigation. Would you favour 2022 Ukrainian genocide? Inserting “alleged” is problematic, as a signal of WP:DOUBT. —Michael Z. 22:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As it stands right now, this article is not about the investigations into genocide, which is why I oppose having the word "investigations" in the title (these investigations each seem to have their own articles anyway). Your proposed name "2022 Ukrainian genocide" would more accurately describe this article's content. selfworm Talk ) 00:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that a subject of study of genocide scholars should be called genocide, and this would be a better title. —Michael Z. 03:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. These are not investigations. Walrasiad (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps we could take some inspiration from Holodomor genocide question and follow that format. So a potential title would be 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine genocide question. That still feels a bit verbose, so I'd be open to ideas to shorten it further. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That article is a supplement to its main article Holodomor, its subject one aspect of the event: the decades-long debate over its genocidal nature. It doesn’t carry the same legal implications as this one, because the 1948 UN Genocide Convention does not apply retroactively.
 * This article is the main article about genocidal atrocities that have been committed, are being committed, have yet to be committed, or are intended. Even potential genocide is legally important right now (also academically and politically), because states have an obligation to prevent genocide before it occurs if possible, and an obligation to prosecute these crimes as such. —Michael Z. 16:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Modeling this article's title after other articles' titles is actually is good idea since it would introduce at least some objectivity/impartiality into the decision making process. Here are some articles about events that are sometimes or always considered to be genocides (along with some other, potentially relevant genocide-related articles):
 * Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
 * Nazi crimes against the Polish nation
 * Chetnik war crimes in World War II
 * Polish Operation of the NKVD
 * Srebrenica massacre
 * Holocaust victims
 * War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II
 * Generalplan Ost
 * Category:Genocides – This list might not be complete (hence why I gave some lists of massacres below).
 * Category:Genocides by continent
 * List of events named massacres - Many of these massacres are not considered genocide but some are, and so it might list articles not yet categorized under Category:Genocides
 * Category:Lists of massacres by country
 * Category:Wikipedia categories named after genocides
 * These were just the first articles/lists that I thought of or noticed. I'm sure that there are other relevant articles whose titles (and/or content) can inform this discussion. selfworm Talk ) 21:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The "investigations" (which are currently ongoing) is a more appropriate title and the scope for the page than just "claims". Of course any factual information about the atrocities, which were claimed to amount to the genocide, would also need to be included to the page. Yes, the scope of the page would partly change, but that would be an improvement. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine is responsible for only a small part of such investigations. If we could have Genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion, then the "investigations" would be a different additional page (just as in the example with COVID), but we are not there yet. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We are there already - . Move to Genocide of Ukrainians during Russian invasion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand. This article (as far as I can tell) is about the claims, or allegations, of "genocide". It is specifically about the conjectures and claims in the popular press, by politicians or intellectuals, about whether the word "genocide" (a big word) applies here.  It is not about war crimes or atrocities themselves (which have their own articles), it is about the chatter surrounding the use of the word "genocide". Walrasiad (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The title is a mouthful, and "claims" would be better than "investigations". ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is mainly about judgments or statements by parliaments, other organisations officials, and by scholars; only a small part is about investigations. The proposed title would be highly misleading about the current content, and removing/compressing 90% of the content to satisfy the new title wouldn't make sense (except if the compressed content were shifted to a new article with the current title, which would defeat the whole point of a rename). The investigations themselves, in terms of public RSd information, generally cover the full range of war crime types, including genocide, or also include human rights violations, so it's premature to create an article specifically on investigations into genocide: we don't (yet) have the sources to support it. Boud (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support I think this is an improvement, but not the best title we could have. I'd support something like Genocide allegations during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This could also expand the article's scope to include the Kremlin's delusion that Ukraine has been commiting genocide on Russians. Although that shouldn't be a priority for this RM. It could also be Genocidal intent of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. We could add a word like "potential" or "claimed" if necessary. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose after reading the comments of Selfworm and others, I am convinced "investigations" is not a satisfactory option. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:41, 23 May 2022 (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.

Source
  Volunteer Marek  17:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by statements from government leaders and heads of state and official resolutions and statements from legislative bodies
Micheál Martin, Prime-Minister of Ireland

"We utterly condemn the slaughter of innocent civilians at Kramatorsk train station today. The horrific attack is further evidence of the barbaric nature of Russia’s war on #Ukraine. This is genocide. And those responsible must be held to account".

Source: https://twitter.com/MichealMartinTD/status/1512534459085688838?s=20&t=epe2Zjxr7ej1vgHoYit-OQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Parliament of Portugal

On June 3, the Portuguese Parliament passed a resolution on Russian aggression. The resolution supports the prosecution of Putin and other Russian leaders for various international crimes, including genocide.

Sources:

https://app.parlamento.pt/webutils/docs/doc.pdf?path=6148523063484d364c793968636d356c6443397a6158526c63793959566b786c5a79394562324e31625756756447397a5357357059326c6864476c325953396b4d54466b5932453059533168596d59344c54526a595759744f5745324e79316d4f4455794e4441305a574d31595459755a47396a65413d3d&fich=d11dca4a-abf8-4caf-9a67-f852404ec5a6.docx&Inline=true

https://www.tsf.pt/portugal/politica/parlamento-aprova-resolucao-do-livre-pela-condenacao-da-guerra-na-ucrania-com-votos-contra-do-pcp-14913541.html

Open Letter
https://libmod.de/en/genocide-in-ukraine-and-german-historical-responsibility/ Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The report of the Ordo Iuris Institute
After the report by the New Lines Institute and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre, we have a second report that also qualifies the Russian aggression as genocide. This time, it was prepared by the jurists of The Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture, in Poland. For now, there is only the Polish version.

Source: https://ordoiuris.pl/wolnosci-obywatelskie/czy-mozna-uznac-dzialania-rosji-podczas-wojny-na-ukrainie-za-ludobojstwo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Professor Alexander Hinton recognizes the genocide
"Russia’s mass deportations, and especially its forced transfer of children, are central to the case that Russia has also committed genocide in Ukraine".

Source:

https://theconversation.com/russias-mass-kidnappings-of-ukrainians-are-a-page-out-of-a-wartime-playbook-and-evidence-of-genocide-187065 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Orsic (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sentence shifted from War crimes article
The sentence below is shifted here from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in case someone wants to integrate the info into this article. The info could be useful, but it would have to be integrated properly, and live pages are generally not good sources.''A report accuses Russia. '' Boud (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality issue
As of 2022, there is no judicial decision that atrocities committed by Russian armies qualify as genocide, and the nature of the massacres is up to debate. Most of the support here for "genocide" position is shown by legislative institutions and think-tanks, which are not definitive authorities on the subject. Even the Debate section is titled in a biased nature. The Evidence of genocidal intent proposed has not yet been analyzed by International Criminal Court. For example, the desire for an occupation or an annexation of a political entity does not constitute as genocide. It is possible that the quotes of Russian diplomats (which are dubiously presented as evidence for the "genocidal intent") were conveyed in such a context. Furthermore, those who oppose to use the term genocide are all lumped under an awkward title which suggest that it definitely is a genocide, but it is "too early" to use it. Lastly, Wikipedia editors should remember that much of the sources used here are Western sources, who want to galvanize support against a military invasion of a country they have friendly relations with. This means that Western sources will be more likely to exaggerate actions that violate the laws of war by Russia and more likely to tolerate the ones performed by Ukraine. Therefore, I am adding tags that show this article does not reflect neutral point of view. Madame Necker (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The title is Allegations. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is titled in a biased way, but I do think sub-headings (what I was originally referring with the word title) and the presentation of the evidence are. Madame Necker (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As the article title is Allegations, and everything seems to be attributed it would be redundant to then have every section headers say "allegations", we can expect our readers to figure out that this is all they are. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree we should avoid using that word to combat redundancy. Why don't we change 5.1. to "Arguments for the genocide claims" and 5.2. to "Arguments against the genocide claims"? This is not redundant. Madame Necker (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is more complex that genocide/not genocide. For one, the obligation on states to prevent. For another, Russia appears to be guilty of the separate crime under the convention of inciting genocide, and guilty of committing every one of the prohibited genocidal acts.
 * And the question of intent is laughable, as Russia has been openly stating its intent to destroy the Ukrainian state and nation for a long time. —Michael Z. 18:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide carries an obligation on signatory states to prevent and suppress genocide – so it’s not just an “innocent until proven guilty” situation. It is important that genocide or the risk of genocide is recognized and acknowledged, preferably before it even occurs, much less an “definitive authority,” which you haven’t defined, determines that it has already occurred.
 * It is exactly “legislative institutions” that are the obligated parties under the Genocide Convention, and it is their opinion that determines whether they will prevent and suppress. Fortunately, eight parties to the Convention have stated that genocide is being committed. So whether you want to admit the crime exists or not, the Convention’s obligations for genocide prevention and suppression are in play.
 * Punishment is a separate aspect, as the title implies, and that can wait for the courts to make their findings, which make take years after genocide is committed. By the way, Russia is party to the convention, but not to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, so is it a “definitive authority”? —Michael Z. 18:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Genocide is a crime defined in a legal context. Legislative bodies do not have judicial authority and are not eligible to determine whether an event is genocide; that is the duty of international courts. You argue that there is a "risk of genocide" and the need to eliminate it, but you are not taking into account that Western countries use humanitarian crises to justify their intervention in third-party conflicts as a part of their realpolitik strategy, and parliaments are seen as an easy way to circumnavigate the legal procedure. Madame Necker (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is notable and well-sourced, and that's all that matters. Your ramblings about "Western countries us[ing] humanitarian crises to justify their intervention in third-party conflicts" are irrelevant. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then, I suggest you to read WP:PILLARS; there are other fundamental aspects of Wikipedia you are ignoring apart from notability and reliability. Madame Necker (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that argument lacks factual and logical integrity, and it ignores what I’ve written above. Maybe if you backed it with reliable sources. —Michael Z. 20:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For a legal analysis of the term genocide, you can read Essays on Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention (2012) by Guenter Lewy. He tells about nuances of its legal application and puts it into a proper context. For a specific example of how a government uses war crimes as a mean to justify military intervention, you can read The Story Behind the Story of Ambassador Morgenthau (1990) by Heath Lowry. He explains how the US government used the massacres committed against Armenians as a war-time propaganda. Last but not least, you should read the article VI of the UN Genocide Convention. It states,
 * "Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction."
 * Here it states the authority to determine whether a genocide occurred is given to the competent courts and not to the parliaments, which only serve as a policy-legitimization tool for the governments. Madame Necker (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Same argument in more detail. Same problems. —Michael Z. 21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked for the sources, I cited the sources. The problems you perceive may be a result of your unfamiliarity with international law and war crimes, and your overconfidence in the subject-area. International Criminal Law Procedure (2007) by Robert Cryer et al. may be a good starting point for you. Madame Necker (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Clever, insulting me with a link to a Wikipedia article. I guess you’re not trying to convince me and get consensus. Please see WP:NOTCHAT, WP:BATTLEGROUND.
 * You haven’t addressed the obligation on states to prevent genocide. A state can’t prevent a genocodie if they wait for a court’s guilty verdict years later.
 * In fact definitions of genocide fall in legal, but also in academic and political realms. —Michael Z. 22:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, I would like to recite what the UN Secretary-General and the Representative of Canada said in September 2004 about the situation in Dafur. They cautioned that the debate over strict legal definitions should not precede the prevention of humanitarian crises. However, this does not necessarily mean that an event qualifies as genocide. Article VIII of the Genocide Convention states competent organs of the UN should be called to prevent and suppress the acts of genocide. This responsibility to provide an early warning mechanism against potential acts of genocide is undertaken by the The Special Advisor on Genocide. Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect by Larissa van den Herik in The Criminal Law of Genocide pp. 91-95 explains your question while taking into consideration the legal and non-legal approaches to the term. Madame Necker (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Article VIII says that any state party to the convention “may call upon” the UN to take action. In Article I parties agree they “undertake to prevent,” regardless of any actions by courts or UN.
 * Obviously, once genocide is proven to exist, then prevention has already failed. So the convention is a commitment to act before genocide is proven. This is self-evident from and integral to the convention. This means risk or evidence of genocide is significant, as it triggers the obligation. A report by 30 experts says that the crime under the convention of incitement to genocide has already been committed, and a risk of genocide exists.
 * Also note that the supposed naysayers are saying “we haven’t proved genocide yet,” not “it isn’t genocide.” Big difference. —Michael Z. 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article I does not say "regardless of any action by courts or UN". This is a statement you have fabricated yourself. If you had actually read the source I provided, you would know that the authority to determine whether a risk of genocide exists belongs to the Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide, not anyone else. Madame Necker (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here’s a source that discusses “who recognizes genocide”:
 * Recognition or labelling of an atrocity situation as genocide can be carried out by different entities: states (from a head of state, member of the executive, or parliament), domestic or international courts (in judgments), investigation and analysis by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) such as the UN (for example, UN fact-finding missions or Special Rapporteurs).
 * —Michael Z. 07:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The user initiating this section has been blocked indefinitely (User talk:Madame Necker). —Michael Z. 18:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Pilecki Institute paper
TODO: There's this paper (archive) by Tomasz Lachowski from the Pilecki Institute, where he says in his summary on intent that These acts [by Russian political leadership] bear all the hallmarks of cultural and political genocide as described by Lemkin. Under the current legislation in force, they can be used for the reconstruction of intent and for actions, that The actions of the Russian troops encompass virtually all genocidal acts set forth in Art. II of the Genocide Convention, from the killing of individual persons only because they belong to the Ukrainian national group (regardless of their ethnic origin) to causing serious bodily or mental harm and forcibly transferring children of the Ukrainian group to the Russian group. Could be usable in this article as an academic source published by a notable research institute. Boud (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Misleading sentence.
“Per the Russian Ministry of Defense, over 307,000 children were forcibly transferred to Russia from Feb 24 2022 to June 18 2022 alone.[18]”

Aren’t you guys supposed to be removing stuff like this out? The Russian Ministry of Defense did not admit to forcibly transferring 307,000 children. Now you could say that the Russian MoD said that 307,000 children were evacuated to Russia but that Ukraine is alleging that Russia forcibly transferred these children. 2600:1011:B19C:91FE:B0A6:6575:676D:370E (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Events of genocide versus genocidal intent
The current form of the article is mostly about debate, and neglects the key question of evidence for the events of genocide versus evidence of (or claims of) genocidal intent. Even if this is an article about debate about genocide rather than genocide itself, it would still be better to show a clear separation between events and genocidal intent. Boud (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Boud Belated reply - but absolutely agree with this distinction, which is important. I'll be making a series of edits to highlight this distinction, which is actually quite well canvassed in many of the academic sources cited. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to integrate two sections with duplicative content
The section on "Investigations" and on "International arrest warrant" which is a newly added section by duplicates substantial parts of their content. I propose to streamline these two sections into one section on "Response from the International Criminal Court", which is really what these two sections are about. Investigations is the initial phase, and the next phase is the issuance of the arrest warrant. Any oppositions to this? If not I'll proceed with this change. Thanks all HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I agree and made an edit to merge these sections. Welcome to improve or expand this further. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes Great. Let's do this. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a genocide
In the of the article, the  section has statements by five scholars, only two of whom are currently Wikipedia-notable: Juan E. Méndez and Alexander Laban Hinton, and their statements are mostly more nuanced than "not a genocide", so it's not easy to summarise their stance in a brief way. It's also quite likely that some or all may change their views as evidence accumulates, especially given the current content of what they say. Overall, my impression is that they say either "not yet a genocide" or "not necessarily a genocide", but also "it's clearly an atrocious event, whether or not it's a genocide". Boud (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. This needs to be fixed, re-titled, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2022

 * 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: moved to Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Risk of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – Remove the doubt word “WP:claim.” It is WP:NPOV to cast doubt since a reliable source found that violations of the Genocide Convention exist, an imminent risk of genocide exists, and an obligation on all states to prevent it exists.

Specifically, the New Lines/Wallenberg reportconcluded that there are “1) reasonable grounds to believe Russia is responsible for (i) direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and (ii) a pattern of atrocities from which an inference of an intent to destroy the Ukrainian national group in part can be drawn; and 2) the existence of a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine, triggering the legal obligation of all States to prevent genocide.” 

It is also important that the title is specific and unambiguous, not only per the WP:CRITERIA, but especially avoiding confusion with “Accusations of genocide in Donbas,” an article about Russian accusations in a mirror, and the issue covered better in “Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022).”

Another possible title is Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is inferior. The subject here is the actual acts of the Russian state which are thought to constitute genocide, and which have beef followed by allegations, warnings, accusations, investigations, or other responses. Consensus in the previous was that the subject is not “investigations.”  —Michael Z. 17:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposed title, like the current one, doesn't sound too natural. I was wondering if there could be some way of shortening the proposed title or make it sound more academic or elegant. Still I see it as an improvement so I give a weak support. I proposed Genocidal intent of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in the last RM and I still think it could be a valid alternative. I think "genocidal intent" is a legal term. Maybe it could be discussed a bit. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is not just about intent. It is about acts that were committed that could be genocide according to the Genocide Convention, about incitement of genocide, and about the possible existence of the crime of genocide (where intent is relevant) and punishable acts. —Michael Z. 15:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [Update: corrected the title of the article “Accusations of genocide in Donbas.” —Michael Z. 23:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)]


 * Support a move per WP:NPOV, though not necessarily this one. Super Dromaeosaurus' suggestion is a good one, but I am concerned that it also has NPOV issues - suggesting that it is a fact that there was genocidal intent, while to the best of my knowledge that this veracity of this statement has not been established. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This could be addressed with words like "proposed", "possible" or "alleged". Super   Ψ   Dro  07:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * “Risk of genocide” specifically means that intent may have not been established, although there is concrete evidence of it. The Genocide Convention’s obligation to prevent genocide kicks in now because of the strong evidence, regardless whether the genocide has been proven. —Michael Z. 15:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per well-reasoned nomination and per supportive elements indicated by Super Ψ Dro and BilledMammal. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But Super Ψ Dro and BilledMammal supported an alternative title, so are you saying you'd support Super Ψ Dro's proposal? Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also given support to the proposed move, despite proposing an alternative. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:45, 4 August 2022 (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.
 * Oppose, the article is about the claims and not about the risk, and we do not have reliable sources calling it a risk anyway. I would support "Allegations" though.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do.
 * The main source, the New Lines/Wallenberg report by 30 genocide and legal scholars, calls it a risk:
 * “the existence of a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine” (p 1)
 * “States have legal obligation . . . once they become aware of the serious risk of genocide” . . . “protecting vulnerable Ukrainian civilians from the imminent risk of genocide.” (3)
 * “The report also concludes that there exists undoubtedly a very serious risk of genocide (6)
 * Also twice in the “Introduction” (7), “Methodology” (8), quoting ICJ case law (9), asserting evidence of specific risk of genocide (15), several times about “The Duty to prevent Genocide” and “The Imminent Risk of Genocide” (37–38), and in the “Conclusion,” stating that “the report conclusively establishes the existence of a serious risk of genocide” (39).
 * It only uses the word “allegation” for something else: “President Putin delivered an address in which he accused Ukraine of genocide in the Donbas, a baseless allegation he has repeated for years, which has been echoed by senior Russian officials and State media” (p 15).
 * Out of sources currently cited in this article, we see:
 * “The risk of genocide is increasing due to that kind of talk, [Jonathan Leader Maynard, lecturer in international politics at King's College London] says” —BBC.
 * “The report concludes there is ‘a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine, triggering the legal obligation of all states to prevent genocide’ under the convention. States will not be able to say they were unaware of the risk, it warns,” and “The international court of justice ruled in 2007 that state parties to the Genocide Convention had an obligation to take preventive action when they learn of, or should have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.” —The Guardian.
 * “Their conclusions were damning. Russia is inciting genocide, and there is a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine.” —FP.
 * Some articles express the notion in different terms, like “evidence first must be gathered and examined to determine whether it occurred,” “we are not at a stage yet where enough evidence has been gathered to make a legal assessment of whether genocide is occurring,” “I think that is enough evidence,” “even as the physical evidence of genocide was emerging.”
 * I have only considered references to expert academic or legal opinions here, not political designations, which are also significant (didn’t bother because they are often poo-pooed and end up distracting in discussions).
 * But there are also a number of sources quoting experts saying that genocide is definitely being committed, so maybe we should move it to Genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Allegations" per Ymblanter. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The proposed title doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I went through all the accessible English-language sources cited in the article. I found “allegations of war crimes” (×2), “allegations of executions in Bucha,” “allegations of sexual violence by Russian soldiers,” “allegations of rape, including gang rape, attempted rape, forced nudity, threats of sexual violence against civilian women and girls, men and boys.”
 * There was only one occurrence of “allegations of genocide.” It is about the New Lines/Raoul Wallenberg “report we produced on the allegation of genocide,” but then goes on about the “team of more than 30 international legal specialists and scholars of genocide”: “their conclusions were damning. Russia is inciting genocide, and there is a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine.”
 * Its final paragraph also has a possibly useful characterization: “Something terrible is being done to Ukraine, above and beyond the ordinary crimes of an aggressive war. The evidence bears out Ukrainian claims that they are facing an actual or potential genocide.”
 * The significantly more WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources is “risk of genocide.” If we were to write a more precise but less concise title (see WP:CRITERIA), it would be Russian incitement to genocide and risk of genocide in Ukraine.
 * —Michael Z. 15:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I really don't see how "risk of genocide" makes any sense as an article title. It's being used out of context. Saying "there is a risk of genocide" within a sentence and titling an article "Risk of genocide" are two entirely different things. You either commit genocide or you don't. You don't risk it. It's just not good English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * “You do or you don’t” is a naïve analysis. It hasn’t been proven in an international court. But the law requires action to prevent, before it’s been proven or committed. So the existence of the risk is an extremely significant or critical fact.
 * Reliable sources do not tell us:
 * Genocide is not being committed
 * Only allegations of genocide exist
 * Genocide is being committed (well, some experts do specifically say so)
 * Genocide has been legally proven
 * RS’s do tell us these exist:
 * Incitement to genocide
 * Acts prohibited by the Genocide Convention
 * A risk or probability of genocide
 * An obligation on states to act to prevent genocide
 * These things belong to the general subject of genocide.
 * A reasonable title is “Risk of genocide . . . ,” “Genocidal acts . . . ,” or “Genocide . . .” —Michael Z. 00:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Necrothesp. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Risk of genocide ...". Although I sympathise, I think the proposed title has the opposite effect. It makes it sound as if nothing is going on and something could potentially happen. It also doesn't sound like natural English. I find 's proposal of "Genocidal intent of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" very interesting as it accurately represents most of the article text, so I would support that, though 's concern is valid. Perhaps "Genocidal intent as a factor of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"? Secondarily I would support the "Allegations" title although I must say I don't see how that's all that different from the current title. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:CLAIM: “To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence.”
 * MOS:ALLEGED, although it falls under the heading “Expressions of doubt,” is at least better: “Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.”
 * As I pointed out, the source does say that violations of Genocide Convention prohibitions have been committed, and that incitement to genocide, a distinct crime whether or not genocide follows, has been committed. They are alleged, but with the weight of confidence by thirty scholars. They are conclusions based on evidence. —Michael Z. 23:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proposal unconvincing. A "claim" or  allegation, assertion, accusation, is concretely what is being deal with in the content here. It accurately reflects the content. "Risk" is a number, which can be quite negligible. Not only is there no number offered up, it actually casts more doubt ("risk" allows for zero outcomes). To fix ideas, to say "I am at risk of being robbed" is quite more doubtful than saying "I was allegedly robbed".  The latter deals with a concrete accusation of an event, to be taken seriously that is asking for inquiry, the former throws up hoary probabilities and suggests likelihood of non-event, and even suggests not to react but to wait and see.  I investigate claims of robbery.  I don't investigate risks of robbery. To assert there is merely a "risk" is almost begging to be ignored. Walrasiad (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency of Genocide definition for this article
According to earlier discussions, it seems, that the main consensus is that genocide of Ukrainians can't be considered as a genocide, only because there has been no trial or UN declaration that would establish that this is a genocide. However, looking on list of genocides, Uyghur genocide did not had such requirements to be declared as a genocide. Frankly, this war requires much wider look on Russian actions, because what is happening to Crimean Tatars also is a part of this whole genocide what is happening in Ukraine, where their identity is being erased by Russians(again) and leaders of Crimean Tatars are being detained for life only for the sole reason of them being Crimean Tatars and because of their role in preserving Crimean Tatar identity and by simply refusing to betray their people. Also the drafting of predominantly nonRussian ethnicities(in bigger share even where Russians are absolute majority in the region) and utilization of them against Ukrainian forces also have genocidal practices to minorities in Russia. It can be compared to that if US Army would be drafting only black or other racial minorities to fight in wars and send them on a suicide missions, where they with great probability would die. In short: There are plenty of sources, that classyfy it as Ukrainian genocide, just like Uyghur genocide. The issue with trials is that in foreseable future that won't be happening(and only then with some great luck, that involves sudden change in Russian government, which would also be willing to cooperate, which has close to zero possibility)and hence the reason for UN to hesitate on declaration of a very political statement, in regards to members of United Nations Security Council.GrimDawn (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There are different core crimes for conflicts(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_law):
 * 1. War Crime
 * 2. Crime of Aggression
 * 3. Crimes against humanity
 * 4. Genocide
 * It seems, that people are unaware what is distinction between 3 and 4. on this topic and also why "War Crime" is not enough and there has been added 3 more crime definitions in last century or so. This might be confusing to some that it differs from Uygur genocide, where war is not part of the picture.GrimDawn (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Genocide Watch has declared Genocide Emergency for Ukraine
Hi, Genocide Watch has declared Genocide Emergency for Ukraine. See: https://www.genocidewatch.com/_files/ugd/b3be20_f94d49b6bf324793b8a63d4d67bdfb78.pdf --MoltoBene (talk) MoltoBene (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, article section about the organization Genocide Watch. Press release about the statement:
 * “Genocide Emergency: Ukraine,” Genocide Watch, 2022-09-04.
 * —Michael Z. 16:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Belarus
Belarus and the Belarusian Red Cross are implicated in the illegal forced deportation of Ukrainian children which has been linked to the risk of genocide, and is the reason that Putin’s a wanted atrocity criminal. Here are two sources that make the connection of Belarus and genocide in Ukraine: —Michael Z. 15:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maria Yeryoma, “Belarus Weekly: Minsk, Moscow abduct Ukrainian children,” Kyiv Independent, 2023-07-28.
 * Ivana Kottasová, “Belarus Red Cross says it helped deport Ukrainian children to Belarus,” CNN (MSN), 2023-07-20.
 * Ahh now that is better, yes I think we can add them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 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: No consensus. Both the !support and !oppose sides have strong arguments and evidence provided. However, none of the arguments nor evidence appear to have a consensus developed for them. I don't see a second relist resulting in a consensus either way. Because of that, this is a no consensus close. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine – Over a year ago New Lines Institute published a monumental report that concluded Russia had already committed a crime against the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide by its incitement to commit genocide, and that a risk of genocide already existed. Now they have published a follow-up report concluding 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.” It also concludes that there is now a legal obligation on states to stop the genocide.

In light of this, “allegations” in the title constitutes an inappropriate expression of doubt (WP:ALLEGED), implying that we disagree with the conclusions of reliable sources, and violating WP:NPOV. —Michael Z. 15:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If we do we can only then include proven examples, and not alleged ones. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe so. This article is about the subject of genocide in Ukraine, including discussions about it, investigations, allegations, atrocity crimes that are potentially genocidal, and so on. For example, Putin is a fugitive for kidnapping children: it isn’t named as genocide in the indictment, but it is part of an investigation into atrocity crimes explicitly including genocide, and it could potentially become part of a genocide case. Additionally, it’s the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: it inherently creates a legal obligation to act before there is a determination of genocide, as the above sources clearly describe, and so the subject of this article was genocide even going back to May 2022 when it was established that Russia violated the convention by incitement to genocide and also when it was established that the risk of genocide existed.
 * The updated title doesn’t change the article’s subject or scope, it only reflects the establishment of the fact that genocide has been committed within its scope and is definitely no longer only an allegation. —Michael Z. 15:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and it could potentially become part of a genocide case this is the definition of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is literally part of a genocide case. The mandate of the International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine under which Putin is charged is to prosecute “any past and present allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide committed on any part of the territory of Ukraine by any person.” —Michael Z. 18:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Putin is a fugitive “for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children).” If committed with intent, “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” is a genocidal act. Since the arrest warrant, Putin has continued to commit this atrocity. —Michael Z. 19:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To my understanding these investigations are still ongoing. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination. The cited exhaustive report by New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy / Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights does indeed confirm that Ukrainians are victims of an ongoing genocide. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. By this point this is the correct title.  Volunteer Marek   04:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this RM is proposing to do something as controversial as labelling something as a genocide, straight-up, based on one single source. I am not convinced that this is the majority view and there should be a more exhaustive analysis of sources presented on this RM. I also question that comitting a crime against the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is enough to qualify something as a genocide. There surely must be a higher threshold. Is there any academic analysis on what constitutes genocide, or a policy in Wikipedia recommending us what to do?
 * As I understood it the nominator proposed this title in the sense of it being about the subject of genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, however it is too vague and it looks that it is implying that a genocide is taking place in Ukraine, with no doubt, which is defintively controversial. If my previous assumption is right maybe Genocide and the Russian invasion of Ukraine might be an appropriate proposal.
 * Besides that I disagree on a personal level with calling this a genocide. This is not comparable to the Armenian or Rwandan genocides. Such a perception appears to me to be as a result of an emotional burst as a result of the invasion. There is no systematic persecution of Ukrainians as a result of their ethnicity with the aim of erasing them. Nationality and political ideology have more to do here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying, not just implying, that the Genocide Convention has been violated for over a year and genocide is being committed by Russia in Ukraine.
 * Such a perception appears to me to be as a result of an emotional burst
 * That’s quite condescending. Have you bothered to read the two New Lines reports linked in the OP above, or at least their executive summaries?
 * There is no systematic persecution of Ukrainians as a result of their ethnicity with the aim of erasing them. Nationality and political ideology have more to do here.
 * I guess not. By the way genocide can be “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”  —Michael Z. 18:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * “Genocide and the Russian invasion of Ukraine” would not be a terrible title for an article, but it is inferior because there’s no reason to compromise on the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and precision by beating around the bush. It represents a broader subject, including the Kremlin’s false accusations of genocide in Donbas. —Michael Z. 18:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * there should be a more exhaustive analysis of sources
 * Fair. Here are some.
 * Lemkin Institute, “Statement on Genocide in Ukraine,” 2022-03-20.
 * Timothy Snyder, “Putin has long fantasized about a world without Ukrainians. Now we see what that means,” Washington Post, 2022-03-23.
 * Eugene Finkel, “What’s happening in Ukraine is genocide. Period,” Washington Post, 2022-04-05.
 * Chris Brown, “In the wake of horrific civilian deaths, a Kremlin media outlet says erasing Ukrainian identity is necessary,” CBC, 2022-04-05.
 * Paul Goble, “Medvedev Makes It Clear Sergeytsev with His Call for Destroying Ukraine Speaks for the Kremlin,” Window on Eurasia (blog), 2022-04-12.
 * Andrew Roth, “Fears genocidal language in Russian media may prompt more war crimes,” The Guardian, 2022-04-27.
 * Timothy Snyder, “Russia’s Genocide Handbook,” Thinking About (blog), 2022-04-08.
 * Francine Hirsch, “‘De-Ukrainization’ is genocide — Biden was right to sound the alarm,” The Hill, 2022-04-14.
 * Nirit Anderman, “‘The Russians see Ukrainians the same way Nazis saw the Jews’,” Haaretz, 2022-04-17.
 * Philippe Sands, “What the Inventor of the Word ‘Genocide’ Might Have Said About Putin’s War,” New York Times, 2022-04-18.
 * Norman M. Naimark, “Ukraine And The Cloud Of Genocide,” Hoover Institution, 2022-05-10.
 * Alexander J. Motyl, “Is Putin Committing Genocide in Ukraine?,” Tablet, 2022-05-24
 * Julian Borger, “Russia is guilty of inciting genocide in Ukraine, expert report concludes,” The Guardian, 2022-05-27.
 * Yonah Diamond, Prof. John Packer, Erin Farrell Rosenberg, Prof. Susan Benesch, Rayhan Asat, Adejoké Babington-Ashaye, Christopher Atwood, Santiago A. Canton, Hon. Irwin Cotler, Prof. David Crane, Dato Param Cumaraswamy, Amb. Kelley Currie, Prof. Tanya L. Domi, Dr. Tatyana Eatwell, Mark Ellis, Zoe Gladstone, Prof. Max Hilaire, Mofidul Hoque, Prof. Steven T. Katz, Prof. Hiroaki Kuromiya Prof. Errol Mendes, Prof. Norman M. Naimark, Dr. Melanie O’Brien, Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab, Prof. Maxim Pensky, Emily Prey, Amb. Allan Rock, Dean Michael Scharf, Amb. David J. Scheffer, Prof. Marci Shore, Dr. David Simon, Prof. Timothy Snyder, Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, Chief Charles Taku, Dr. György Tatár, and Robert Tyler, “An Independent Legal Analysis of the Russian Federation's Breaches of the Genocide Convention in Ukraine and the Duty to Prevent,” New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy and Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, 2022-05.
 * Ivana Kottasová, “Exclusive: Leading experts accuse Russia of inciting genocide in Ukraine and intending to ‘destroy’ Ukrainian people,” CNN, 2022-05-27.
 * Kristina Hook, “Why Russia’s War in Ukraine Is a Genocide,” Foreign Affairs, 2022-07-28.
 * Genocide Watch, “Genocide Emergency: Ukraine,” 2022-09-05.
 * Peter Dickinson, “Vladimir Putin’s Ukrainian Genocide: Nobody can claim they did not know,” Atlantic Council, 2022-12-01.
 * Kristina Hook, John Packer, Erin Farrel Rosenberg, Yonah Diamond, and Christopher Atwood, “The Russian Federation’s Escalating Commission of Genocide in Ukraine: A Legal Analysis,” New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy and Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, 2023-07.
 * Azeem Ibrahim, “Other states have a legal and moral duty to stop Moscow,” FP, 2023-08-03.
 * —Michael Z. 03:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty more in a Google Scholar search. The results also include some about Moscow’s historical genocides like the Holodomor and deportation of Crimean Tatars, and many about the International Court of Justice case of Ukraine v. Russian Federation, the case where Ukraine challenged Russia’s false accusations of genocide in the Donbas as justification for international aggression, an example of accusation in a mirror and an important element of the legal case proving genocide by Russia in Ukraine.
 * Amir Attaran, “How can the international community respond to evidence of genocide in Ukraine?,” The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 2022-05-06.
 * Alexander Etkind, “Ukraine, Russia, and Genocide of Minor Differences,” Journal of Genocide Research, 2022-06-07.
 * Denis Azarov, Dmytro Koval, Gaiane Nuridzhanian, and Volodymyr Venher, “Genocide committed by the Russian Federation in Ukraine: Legal Reasoning And Historical Context,” SSRN, 2022-08-01.
 * David R. Marples, “Russia’s war goals in Ukraine,” Canadian Slavonic Papers, 2022-09-07. “Finally, the severity of the “operation,” including the executions of civilians in Bucha, Mariupol, and other centres, suggests that Russia has engaged in a ruthless campaign to destroy the Ukrainian state and its people, both by conquest and by depopulation through mortalities and emigration.”
 * Vladyslava Bakalchuk, “Cultural Genocide as International Crime Committed by the Russian Federation in Ukraine,” Strategic Panorama, 2022-11-15.
 * Alla Kravchenko, Iryna Kyzymenko, Nataliia Husieva, and Olena Krasilnikova, “Crime against memory or cultural genocide? On the destruction of the cultural heritage of Ukraine during Russian aggression in the ХХІ century,” European Journal of Transformation Studies, 2022-12-29.
 * Allegra Salvadori, “The Relationship between Ecocide and Genocide in the Current Russia-Ukraine War,” Humanities Honours Research Seminar, Utrecht University, 2022.
 * Martin Shaw, “Russia’s Genocidal War in Ukraine: Radicalization and Social Destruction,” Journal of Genocide Research, 2023-03-08.
 * Yulia Ioffe, “Forcibly Transferring Ukrainian Children to the Russian Federation: A Genocide?,” Journal of Genocide Research, 2023-07-10. “The systematic, deliberate, and large-scale nature of forcible transferring of Ukrainian children and their indoctrination, along with the broader context of the Russian invasion and the public statements of Russian state officials and state-owned media, strongly suggest that the genocide of the Ukrainian people is unfolding.”
 * —Michael Z. 15:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I went through a couple of those sources. The Lemkin Institute either says In the face of possible genocide. Snyder's The Washington Post talks about there potentially being conditions for a genocide in Ukraine but does not explicitly refer to a genocide undoubtedly taking place. Brown's CBC article only analyses the discussion of whether genocide is taking place and does not make any conclusions of its own. Genocide is not even mentioned in Goble's blog (not a reliable source in any case). Roth's The Guardian article does not mention genocide other than in the title. Snyder's blog (probably reliable as he's an authoritative source I'd say) talks about Sergeytsev's "What Russia Should Do with Ukraine" and not in general about the war.
 * It is true there's some sources openly calling the war a genocide. Finkel's TWP article does so. But it appears to me that most sources are beating around the bush rather than giving explicit conclusions and affirmations over whether a genocide is taking place in Ukraine. And if most sources are beating around the bush, so should we. The current scope of this article is not Russia's crimes in Ukraine, for that see War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but whether they constitute genocide, a closely related but different topic. I also disagree with the proposal favoring recognizability and precision because as I said, the scope of this article is not Russian crimes but the debate over them, and it is not more recognizable because most readers defintively do not know the war as a genocide.
 * And again there is not a genocide by nationality under the definition that I used, whether it is correct or not (you followed it in any case). Russian soldiers are not being ordered to systematically go around occupied Ukrainian cities and shoot at civilians with Ukrainian citizenship. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The examples you reviewed are only from the first few weeks of the invasion. What they show is that Russia’s genocidal language and genocidal actions were recognized immediately after its invasion, contrary to your rather apologetic interpretation of them. The same and other authors have since written that Russia has systematically continued and escalated its crimes against the Genocide Convention, including the crime of incitement to genocide and all five genocidal criminal acts.
 * I certainly did not follow your definition, which is contrary to that of international law, and designed to give legal genocidaires a pass. Your conclusion is out of touch with reality to a degree that’s completely beyond the pale. Russian operators of ballistic and cruise missiles, kamikaze drones, and Russian artillerymen using cluster munitions are literally being ordered to systematically go around cities all over Ukraine and shoot at civilians with Ukrainian citizenship. Russian soldiers and intelligence servicemen are literally systematically torturing and shooting civilians with Ukrainian citizenship in the back of the head. Russian soldiers are literally being ordered to read literature that dehumanizes and demonizes the people inhabiting the cities they’re occupying, and they’re literally torturing, raping, mutilating, and murdering them as a direct result. This, and other systematic genocidal acts have been well documented over seventeen months, and are well attested in the sources I linked above. You appear to be wilfully ignoring what you’re looking at. —Michael Z. 14:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Parham wiki (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Related discussion: Talk:List of genocides. —Michael Z. 15:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I do not see any new arguments compared to . A lot of people giving their personal opinions, a lot of people not giving the opposite opinion, zero court decisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There doesn’t need to be a new argument if consensus changed over the last year (WP:CCC).
 * But there is a new argument, based on the findings of experts that have been studying Russia’s genocide for a further year:
 * This report – an updated independent inquiry into the Russian Federation's involvement in Ukraine – extends beyond incitement to the question of actual commission of genocide, separate crimes under Art. III (c) of the Genocide Convention. 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.
 * The Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide inherently recognizes that the prevention of genocide obligates its prima facie recognition, and cannot be accomplished by waiting years for court decisions. It “is a binding agreement; it requires states to prevent genocide once they become aware of the risk of it or should have become aware of the risk of it. All the more so, logically, states should stop the commission of genocide. In what follows, we demonstrate and underline the legal obligation of states to act with urgency and sufficiency.” —Michael Z. 18:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Although we could also reconsider that move request, to Risk of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There were some RS’s in early 2022 saying that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide, but none that I’m aware of saying there was no risk of genocide being committed after Russia’s genocidal rhetoric combined with the invasion and atrocities. —Michael Z. 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd agree with that title. The already existing Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia has a similar scope. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we have War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article that sufficiently covers the criminal activity of Russia in Ukraine. This article's scope is somewhat different it seems. I would advise rather move to Recognition of the genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine Marcelus (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, such a move would immediately bring about a huge amount of controversy and is largely based on a single source, it'd be wrong to call it an outright genocide based on one report and some others that may not even fully conclude that there is genocide. Plus a ton of the sources that were brought to say that there was a genocide were, in fact, opinion articles, which shouldn't have a basis here. There continues an investigation into the possibility of genocide, so we shouldn't move it until there's a clear, overwhelming push to do so - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 13:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They’re labelled “opinion” by news media because they’re expert assessments and not written by journalists. These people are reliable sources, collectively indicating a majority consensus among legal and genocide experts, and they are not contradicted by a corresponding body of dissenting RS. WP:DUE WEIGHT says we are to fairly represent such consensus on a subject. —Michael Z. 14:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. No demonstration that this is a majority POV. Mellk (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any recent dissenting sources at all? —Michael Z. 02:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a UN report not long ago. Mellk (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. The head investigator only said in some press conference that there is evidence of genocide that they need to investigate further.
 * The actual report doesn’t say there’s no genocide, and it doesn’t even mention it, apart from noting that the ICC is investigating genocide. The commission’s mandate doesn’t mention genocide either. It gives no opinion either way in its official materials, as far as I can tell. —Michael Z. 03:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this is what the secondary source states. Mellk (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is “this”? The journalistic reporting does not say there is no genocide. The quoted official does not say there is no genocide, but his investigation is not complete anyway, since it was extended to 2024. It doesn’t dispute the majority POV.
 * Back in spring and summer 2022 there were some sources that said “there is not enough evidence yet,” which is not disputing the majority POV, but I don’t even see that today. —Michael Z. 04:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is there. If you are just going to twist what it says, then so be it. Mellk (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You twisted it when you said it disagrees genocide is taking place. It’s like Trump claiming he was TOTALLY EXONERATED. —Michael Z. 19:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy. Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography,  WikiProject Death,  WikiProject Discrimination,  WikiProject Ethnic groups,  WikiProject Human rights,  WikiProject International relations,  WikiProject Russia,  WikiProject Ukraine,  WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Supported by RS, hopefully the usual suspects attempts at censorship do not get in the way of Wikipedia growing a spine. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the above statement.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by usual suspects? Please, tell us more. Mellk (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think they know exactly who they are, so there is no need. TylerBurden (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are going to cast aspersions, please specify. Are these all those who are opposed? Not everyone who you hold grudges against necessarily know this. Mellk (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't reviewed the additional sources provided in the thread and therefore will not cast a vote now, but the New Lines Institute (whose report triggered this move request) does not look like a particularly reliable institution. It was founded as a division of Fairfax University of America which was on the verge of losing its license and had to discontinue its online education. The connection between FUA and NLI is now a bit murky but for sure we are not talking about an organisation of the Human Rights Watch calibre. Alaexis¿question? 16:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How do old problems with running undergraduate courses make the New Lines institute “not particularly reliable”? Do reliable sources on Russian genocide in Ukraine talk about Fairfax University’s accreditation, or is this grasping at WP:SYNTH straws to find anything at all to discredit a widely cited source?
 * The university’s schedule shows 18 online courses running in the Summer II and Fall terms, if that were in any way relevant to this report. Maybe Alaexis is just not a particularly reliable accreditor of universities. I suggest they go to WP:RSN for consensus for or against these theories. —Michael Z. 17:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Super D, Marcelus and a dislike of badgering. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per some of the reasons already given above. I have nothing to add. Yue 🌙 20:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Completely baseless claim about Iran
the claim about Iran being a perpetrator of the alleged genocide is completely baseless. There is no reference at all. None will seriously make that claim. How can this be allowed on Wikipedia? 143.58.150.65 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It has been deleted. Parham wiki (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)