User:Gitz6666/sources

Katchanovski
The analysis in this paper was cited favourably by scholars including Free University of Berlin's Volodymyr Ishchenko, Richard Sakwa, Cambridge University’s David Lane, Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, UQAM's David Mandel, and Stephen F. Cohen, and by former diplomat Jack Matlock as well as The Nation, Jacobin, and Jyllands-Posten.

Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by scholars David R. Marples (who called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"), University of Calgary's Bohdan Harasymiw, Taras Kuzio and Serhiy Kvit, as well as media outlet The Bulwark. Marples also stated that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable" and "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."

[...]

In 2018, Katchanovski promoted a false theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot maidan protestors. This theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin.

I don't have access to this article either:



However, in 2014 David R. Marples criticised Katchanovski's paper here. As you'll see, he mentions Ishchenko's positive assessment, describes the paper as "unpublished research paper that has not yet been peer reviewed", poorly written, difficult to follow, "politically driven", "based on preconceived conclusion", and apparently self-contradictory. However, he also says the following:

Editors acrive on the talk page (not me) have compiled a list of sources and also written a paragraph, later removed, on the reception of K's theory. For your convinience, I post it here:

Among those who apparently accepted K.'s theory, the most surprising is Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and an academic at Princeton. Amon the notable authors: Richard Sakwa (Emeritus Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent), Stephen F. Cohen (Professor Emeritus of Politics at Princeton University and New York University) and Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira (Professor of Political Science at São Paulo University, named "Brazilian Intellectual of 2005" by the Unión Brasileña de Escritores, awarded the Order of Rio Branco, the Order of May, and the German Cross of Merit), plus a few non-notable readers at Cambridge and Frei Univerisitaet Berlin (Ishchenko).

My personal view is that Katchanovski's theory is minor but not WP:FRINGE. Sooner or later a discussion at FG/N could be necessary, because we cannot leave the main articles Euromaidan and Revolution of Dignity in the poor conditions they are in now: with regard to the massacre they are a disorderly and unintelligible collection of news reports, all published in the immediate aftermath of the event (i.e., in 2014). We don't even report the findings of the 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel on its review of the Maidan Investigations. An excerpt of the report is revealing because it helps to explain the proliferation of FRINGE/not so FRINGE theories in the after-Maidan:

Somewhere in my sandboxes I believe I have a few notes/sources on this (I should ask VM's help to find them ). Anyway, in re-writing the section I believe we should follow and expand on the balanced approach of

Final note. I believe all this is off-topic here. Katchanovski's theory is that the shooting were coming from the Maidan-controlled buildings. If he is right, the question "who was in those buildings?" remains open. One possible answer is "Georgian snipers". The text of the article now says that he in 2018 he "promoted" the theory of the Georgian snipers by sharing a tweet that Oliver Stone re-twitted and a newspaper published. It is nonsense and should be removed.

Euromaidan massacre
This continues the discussion at Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski.

In the article we say Thousands of protesters advanced towards parliament … and were fired on by police snipers. The same sentence also appears in Euromaidan. However, the 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel on its review of the Maidan Investigations says that

Then in this article we have the Speculation on snipers section, which is completely incomprehensible, overly complicated and full of details, and is based exclusively on news reports published in the immediate aftermath of the events. On the Euromaidan article the situation is identical: we have the Snipers deployed during the climax of the protests, which, if possible, is even more complicated and less comprehensible. Probably the right thing to do would be to blown it up and start over, using the best available secondary sources. Here below you will find some sources in chronological order


 * 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel on its review of the Maidan Investigations






 * New York Times 2018. A forensic investigation hosted by the The Center for Human Rights Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and conducted by SITU (an architecture firm and research lab in Brooklyn) and independent Ukrainian researchers claims that Berkut officers can be seen aiming and firing their rifles during the moments leading to the victims' deaths



War crimes committed by civilians

 * "Special attention should be paid to crimes committed by civilians against other civilians. They may constitute war crimes, provided there is a link or connection between the offence and the armed conflict."
 * "Anyone can be a perpetrator of a war crime, not only soldiers and other persons in official duties, but also civilians. This already follows from the wording of the Common Articles 49/50/129/146 GC I-IV, according to which the member states are obliged to impose penal sanction upon ‘persons’ who commit grave breaches"
 * "Not all crimes committed during an armed conflict constitute war crimes. It is widely held in the case law and legal literature, that in order to qualify as a war crime, the criminal conduct must be closely related to the hostilities, ie it must have a ‘nexus’ with the armed conflict. The nexus between the criminal conduct and the armed conflict is also demanded by the Elements of Crimes of the ICC, for each war crime listed in Article 8 of the Rome Statute. The requirement of such a nexus clearly serves to distinguish between war crimes and ‘ordinary’ criminal conduct that falls under the law applicable in the relevant territory. It applies in particular to offences committed by civilians against other civilians or against combatants"
 * "Moreover, the restriction of war crimes to the particular status of individuals seems to be inconsistent with the wordings of the common Arts 49/50/129/146 of the four Geneva Conventions (1949) requiring the Member States to prosecute and punish all ‘persons’ who commit grave breaches (Ambos [2014] 146). Accordingly, the Elements of Crimes of the ICC Statute do not provide an explicit note for the category of perpetrators as there was no dissent during the negotiations at the Rome Conference that war crimes can be committed by both members of armed forces and civilians"

Transwoman
Transwoman. A person assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman or in similar terms" is the most authoritative and common definition,   and departing from it requires some justification.

Language policy in Ukraine
Language policy in Ukraine