Talk:Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian War

there should be a balanced statement -

The ICC's warrant has very little chance of ever being acted on. That could provoke a general war. Several RS op-ed's already out on this issue. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova into Child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to not merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I begin by summarizing the arguments for and against, and I then provide my reasoning.

Arguments in support:

• Per WP:NOPAGE, Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has needed context regarding the issuance of arrest warrants, and the arrest warrants are only notable in that broader context; ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova is a content fork.
• Per WP:NOTNEWS, the warrants are not notable enough unless a trial occurs and the article amounts to presentism.
• The ICC has issued arrest warrants for other world leaders, and none of those warrants have individual articles.
• A merge would be easy.
• The warrant article is poorly written.

Argument in opposition:

• The ICC issuing an arrest warrant against the head of state of a permanent United Nations Security Council member is notable in itself. Media has reported on the warrant separately from the issue of child abductions in Ukraine and world leaders have treated the issuance of the warrant as a world-historical event. Reliable sources have written about the implications of the arrest warrant for the war and the future of Russia/Ukraine relations.

My reasoning

• I have rejected the following arguments:
  • Support per WP:NOTNEWS: NOTNEWS provides that "[e]ditors are encouraged ... to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". An arrest warrant being issued against the head of state of a permanent UN Security Council member is certainly a "significant event". Moreover, the arrest warrants article does not appear to violate any of the NOTNEWS criteria. The sources cited on that page are not primary sources; an ICC arrest warrant on its own—let alone in the context of an ongoing war and against a sitting head of state—is not a routine occurrence; and WP:NOTWHOSWHO and WP:NOTGOSSIP clearly don't apply.
  • Support per no other articles on individual ICC warrants: WP:OTHERCONTENT.
  • Support per a merge would be easy: This argument does not go to the merits of the WP:NOTABILITY dispute that is at the core of this discussion.
  • Support per the arrest warrants article is poorly written: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Quality of writing.
• Thus, this discussion boils down to whether the arrest warrant article is notable on its own.
• Per WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS, we go by whether independent reliable sources have offered significant coverage of the subject.
• As an initial matter, the notability of the arrest warrants are not inherited from the notability of child abductions in Ukraine. Indeed, those arguing in support of the merge have not contested that the issuance of the arrest warrants is a significant event in the War in Ukraine, a position supported by the sources in the arrest warrants article.
  • The argument that the warrant against Putin is notable because he is the sitting head of state of a permanent member of the UN Security Council is slightly weak. Nobody has pointed to any sources that take that position and none of the sources cited in the arrest warrants article appear to take that position. However, that claim of significance is plausible and sources may exist providing that point of view (cf. WP:CCOS).
• To be sure, the context of this article is important to the reason that the warrants were issued, but that context is not the sole reason that the arrest warrants are or may be notable.
• Finally, the contention that the arrest warrants would only be notable in a standalone article on a potential prosecution of Putin lacks merit as no arguments have been advanced in support of that point.

References

---

WP:NOPAGE. This seems to be better covered within the context of the larger article, and I don't see a reason to WP:CFORK at this point. Merging would make for better, more wholesale coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support From a NOT:NEWS perspective, the warrant is 100% contained by the Child abductions page. Should a trial actually happen (doubtful) then a page for the trial would make sense. Masem (t) 01:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Though these warrants are currently the subject of the most high-profile ITN entry we have, the article isn't even linked and the content is better served up in a few sentences than along with multiple redundant sections of Background. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk, Since your comment, "... the article isn't even linked..." on 18 March, there are now many links, as seen here: https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=ICC+arrest+warrants+for+Vladimir+Putin+and+Maria+Lvova-Belova

  I was just curious, however, these results show a natural progression of linking by Wikipedians who apparently value this useful separate article. For this reason and as I previously wrote below, I am opposed. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I meant it wasn't linked in the ITN entry. It still isn't. Every article ever written on Wikipedia is linked thousands or millions of times across the web because they're free and content farmers (human and otherwise) find that availability automatically and irresistibly valuable. If we changed the target, they'd still copy and paste it, finding the same. You can oppose if you want, but you shouldn't bold it both times, lest you appear to vote twice to a less discerning closer. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  What is "ITN entry?" -- Ooligan (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  A sentence in the "In The News" box. Upper right side of the main page. It's now been replaced by one about an earthquake, but used to try and drive traffic to the wider article, not the warrants article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Agree with above, if a trial or any 'real' consequences come from this then it could warrant its own article, but at the moment it can all be utilized in this main article. Yeoutie (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: This can definitely be easily merged. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: per all of above. Pretty cut-and-dry case. All of the material in the arrests article can fit in the abductions article. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Easy merge, as the arrest warrant article is actually a subtopic of the child abduction article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support The arrest warrants article fits well w/this article & there isn’t a size issue. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support As previously mentioned, this article is the main topic and the warrants are just a singular event in this saga. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support As someone who edited this page, I think this page doesn't have enough going on to warrant its own page. I don't blame the editors who made this page, this was and is a big event. However, it isn't very substantive. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom - Jjpachano (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Kjerish (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with what has already been mentioned here, it can easily be merged. AverageLogic (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with a lot of the rationale being stated here. I think the 2 incidents are very much related, and frankly, they really don't each warrant their own article. It's very much easy to do, and I think with a pretty much unanimous consensus, the merge can be done soon. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine may be a better target? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  perhaps? idk. Great Mercian (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC) (also please use Comment.)

  I thought the same. Rootcragsar (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Same here. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also be fine with that, though we're going to have to copy some of the content here regardless. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge into International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  Oppose – This is most definitely notable enough to be it's own article. – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose — I'm not totally opposed to merging the two pages, but I find an arrest warrant for the head of state of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to be particularly notable. The arrest warrant may not have an impact now, but it certainly has impact on how Putin will travel and the steps he'll take, including if ICC nations will offer immunity in the event he takes a visit outside Russia. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose — I agree with the above statement that the arrest warrant of a head of state that is also part of the United Nations is notable enough to warrant :) its own article. User:StrawWord298944 00:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - There has never been an ICC arrest warrant for the leader of a nuclear power, let alone a permanent member of the UNSC. This is significant in of itself. --Plumber (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for two reasons. First, the ICC arrest warrant is a well defined separate subject and notable enough to have its own page. Secondly, Pu will inevitably be charged for something else. Besides, a similar warrant (not for child abduction) is already prepared for one of Russian generals. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reminder that the page's focus has now been narrowed to two people through retitling and may not suit a general slapped with unrelated charges. It's also still just a bit of background and three reactions. Nothing about the warrants themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The indictment of Putin as a war criminal has far-reaching consequences beyond the scope of the proposed merge target. Reliable sources are already discussing its implications on the war and Russia and Ukraine’s future.  —Michael Z. 07:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Red-tailed hawk's reasoning. Daydreamers (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Per Michael's rationale.Et0048 (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The subjects are related but both are very unique in their own way. Child kidnapping accusations are quite serious and the arrest warrant on Putin is unprecedented. Content and efforts here should be enough to keep two articles of good quality. Lappspira (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unprecedented event, plus the reasoning of Michael Z. - L'Mainerque - (Talk - Signbook) - 14:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  There have been three arrest warrants issued by the ICC for sitting heads of state; we do not cover any of the rest in their own standalone articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  But maybe we should. Not a valid analogy per se. Lappspira (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Hopefully now, and any future "arrest warrants issued by the ICC" will have "their own standalone articles" for all "heads of state" anywhere in the world. --

  Ooligan (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support. I find the arguments that the article should be merged "because the subject is very notable" to be weak. Just because something is "unprecedented" does not mean that we need a separate article on it, and all this material could easily be included under Vladimir Putin in addition to the proposed merge target. There is no need for a WP:CFORK, and the policy WP:NOTNEWS may also apply here, as ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova reads more like a news report rather than a subject that needs an article on its own. The Night Watch (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Covered enough in the target article. No need for extra page. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support We don't need two articles on what is basically the same thing. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The notability of the warrant is independent from the notability of the child abductions, as indicated by the fact that the warrant was covered by all major news media. The article about the warrant is present on Wikipedia in 8 languages. The warrant is of a major historical importance, as it's the first arrest warrant against the leader of an UN Security Council country. Leaders of the US, EU, UN issued official statements regarding the warrant. If they think the warrant is notable by itself, we should agree with them. Thereisnous (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The arrest warrant is what the effect of the child abductions and both are equally as important. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. both are small articles as it is, and are closely related subjects. Tantomile (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. They look to me to be two different events, although related. Just like WWI and the Battle of Verdun are related. That the head of state of one of the permanent United Nations Security Council members is wanted is also very notable and should not be "buried" in this article/another article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The arrest warrant is quite notable in its own right and sets a strong precedent for future actions and a possible arrest. This is very distinct from the actual child abductions themselves.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I understand the Oppose rational, but I think it is too soon for a stand alone article. As it stands I think this is an unnecesssy CFORK which only fragments the content and serves no purpose for the reader. Create a redirect and hopefully when the time comes it can also be included in the Trial of Vlad the Child Abductor.  // Timothy :: talk  03:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense on why it should by merged. Ollieisanerd (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As Thereisnous argued, the warrant itself is notable.  selfworm^Talk) 06:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Support, per nom. WikiHelper0830 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sure why not for now. I don't see any of the issues that objectors raise as too damaging to the project, and the arrest warrant can be incorporated into this article. If a trial does happen, the content on the arrest warrant can be moved into that article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support The warrants article is not well written, with WAY too much background and history that is not directly related to the ICC and these particular charges. Yeah Putin's done a lot of horrible shit, but what do MH17 and his essay have to do with this in specifically? What remains as relevant is somewhat duplicative of this article and does not need a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 05:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Certainly Putin’s July 2021 essay and his war speeches have been widely cited as statements of genocidal intent. If the article doesn’t make that clear, it should be improved.  —Michael Z. 21:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose The article could be reworked into being substantive by going more in-depth on the geopolitical ramifications of the ICC's warrants and the potential legal validity of them, right now it feels like editors haven't been sure what to write. That history section in particular is very clunky, you'd expect an article for such an important topic to be a little more professional than the "On MonthDayYear, this happened. On MonthDayYear, that happened." format you see on small music artist pages. 51.37.31.161 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion has gone on for too long. Red-tailed hawk or any other users, make your choice: merge or keep. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I was fairly explicit in my statement above that I prefer merging. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what I tried to say was that this discussion needs to be closed. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I posted a WP:closure request. —Michael Z. 21:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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

See also section should be expanded with:

The following discussion 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.

---

• Operation Babylift
• Operation Peter Pan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6871:4E00:BDE3:67A2:AFAD:75BC (talk) 1:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: topics obviously have nothing in common.  // Timothy :: talk  03:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Editing disagreement

Hi,

I would like to ask you to review a series of changes to this article enacted by InedibleHulk that significantly remove or alter content I've added to the article - in my opinion often without justification:

After my revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_abductions_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1145282829&oldid=1145270749

Original: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_abductions_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1145262395&oldid=1145259242

I believe the user has removed some content without reason, changed or reorganised other content so as to significantly alter it's meaning (including from what is originally stated in the cited sources), and degraded the structure of the content. To just list a few examples:

• "Some of the children have experienced verbal abuse, poor living conditions, and inadequate care while living under the custody of the Russian state. Some children have experienced sexual abuse after being forcibly relocated to Russia." changed to "Some of the children were verbally or sexually abused in generally poor living conditions of inadequate care." (changed meaning, no further context provided)

  Same meaning in fewer words; we know which children this article is about (those forcibly relocated to Russia and living under the custody of the Russian state) because it's all been explained already. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Section /* Overview */ dismantled, content scattered.

  It wasn't a real section, it was an extra level to about a dozen sections that more cleanly stand alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Section /* State-run institutions */ about abductions from Ukrainians state institutions renamed to /* Places of origin */, sentence "The vast majority were taken from southern and eastern Ukraine (Kherson, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk and Mykolaiv regions)." appended here even though it refers to abductions in general (including of children not abducted from state-run institutions).

  This section also contains a summer camps subsection, and these aren't Ukrainian state institutions; referring back to "abductions" is against WP:NOBACKREF. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The United Nations has recognised these forced deportations as constituting a war crime." changed to "The United Nations believes these are deportations which constitute war crimes."

  Deportation constituting a war crime is an unproven charge against two people; prejudicial and contrary to WP:BLPCRIME/WP:YESPOV to say "has recognised these deportations as", which suggests these are deportations and illegal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Some of the children have experienced maltreatment while under the custody of the Russian authorities." changed to "Some were maltreated." (without further context)

  Again, we know the context, this whole article provides it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• "In addition to being given Russian citizenship and foster parents, abducted children have also been given "patriotic education"; according to The New York Times, "Russian officials have made clear that their goal is to replace any childhood attachment to home with a love for Russia"; raising children of war in a foreign nation and culture may constitute an act of genocide if intended to erase their national identity." changed to "They receive a Russian patriotic education."

  The "finger quote" is catty snark and the real quote is in a better place now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have made some mistakes while editing and acknowledge some of my changes should be amended (e.g. in /* Reactions */ section made /* Nation states */ and /* International organizations */ subsections when the subsections should have been named /* Countries */ and /* Intergovernmental organizations */ or perhaps better yet just omitted, etc.).

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I to agree that these, what seem to be, attempts at summarising larger pieces of text are removing important context. The context should be reintroduced. BeŻet (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The context is obvious, from the title to the lead to the infobox on down, and repeating it at every other opportunity doesn't make it more obvious, it just slows down reading of the finer points. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk I have tried to be careful not to deviate from what is actually stated in the cited sources - I doubt you have even checked them. Moreover, you do not even seem to understand that many of your edits have not only made the meaning/context unclear, but even changed the meaning to something other than what is actually the case (i.e. actually stated in cited source). If you do not care to engage in the subject enough to even comprehend the result of your changes, I would ask you to please refrain from editing this article.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I do care to engage and won't refrain. I'll ask to you stop assuming I have shit motives or am stupid, and bring up any instances where I've actually changed meaning or misrepresented a fact (not opinion) of a source. Be specific, please, otherwise I'll miss your point. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk Look, this isn't going anywhere, so I don't intend to bang my head against a brick wall, especially since you don't even seem to care to engage with the subject enough to understand what the quite clear objections to your edits are referring to. I await input other editors.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Let me just provide one example:

Deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia is war crime - UN

Russia's forced deportation of Ukrainian children to areas under its control amounts to a war crime, UN investigators have said.

The UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine said there was evidence of the illegal transfer of hundreds of Ukrainian children to Russia.

The Commission's report is categorical that Russia also committed other war crimes in Ukraine.[1]

But I'm sure you know better ...

-J Jay Hodec (talk) Jay Hodec (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You see how that reliable source attributes the opinion, in headline and body? That's what we should do with opinions (not to be confused with opinion pieces), follow the source. If that's what the UN believes, say that's what the UN, in fact, believes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk That is the conclusion of a UN investigation. I should think UN investigators are competent in discerning what is evidence of war crimes.

Anyway, just one further point: the quotation marks around "patriotic education" are already present in source (apparently what Russia calls it) - changing this distorts the original meaning (just one of many instances).

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That's your prerogative. The RS that report on the UN's conclusion might also share its viewpoint. But they still don't say it in their own voices, as they do with facts, they attribute it. We're allowed to paraphrase on Wikipedia, especially if it's toward an NPOV. The writer of that "quote" wasn't actually quoting anyone (Russia calls things in Russian), the intent is clearly to ridicule Russian patriotism. In a feature piece, whichever one of the three credited is certainly allowed to convey her opinion. As editors, we can ridicule a lot of things for a lot of reasons with impunity. But not in article space, in Wikipedia's voice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk Has any war crime ever been established as a fact, or is it all just opinion and conjecture? "Some claim that Nazi Germany [...]", "ISIS has allegedly [...]"

Not calling Russian ultranationalist state indoctrination/re-education and forcible Russification "patriotic education" is not ridiculing Russian patriotism, rather the opposite. That's a bit like saying that e.g. children kidnapped by Nazi Germany for their "Aryan traits" received "German patriotic education" because the German state called it that, and saying anything else is ridicule.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

In absolute terms, nobody knows anything for sure. On Wikipedia, we do have a list of convicted war criminals who are BLPCRIME exempt. Would it be OK with you if we just said the kids are being Russified? Because that'd be OK with me. Easier than assuming readers will agree on whatever we're "suggesting" with our "fingers". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk This is not a negotiation about what reliable source ought to have said, but what they do say.

The fact of child abductions by Russian authorities is and established fact. Whether or not Putin or any other Russian official is ever convicted for it is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of this article, since it does not seek to ascribe blame to any single individual but describe the misconduct of the Russian occupation authorities and Russian state in general.

I sincerely hope some other editors intervene here because this page and talk page needs some parental supervision.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Setting aside the fact that NYT reporting goes through an editorial process and is therefore not the "writer's opinion" (as per wiki guidelines), the "Russian officials have made clear [...]" quote is not even from the article by Mark Landler, but instead from the one by Emma Bubola, Anastasia Kuznietsova, Alina Lobzina, and Maria Varenikova. It was properly referenced until you misplaced the inline citation.

Look, I gotta ask, are just this careless, or are you intentionally trying to mangle and scuttle this wiki article (since you have clearly stated that you dimiss the whole premise of the article - that forced child transfers have been occurring)?

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, fix the attribution, I fucked up. But I don't dismiss the premise of the article and you're a liar to say I've ever stated otherwise. Reread what I've already wrote and take it or leave it, but don't ping me again, this article is yours to improve or continue ruining. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You've repeatedly asserted that since no officials have been convicted of war crimes (apparently your condition is a conviction by Russian courts - see bold text in your statement cited below), and since the forced transfers described in the sources clearly indicate war crimes, all reports and investigations from secondary sources should be considered as "columns" and "opinion", so you're basically claiming these are not reliable sources for the purposes of this article (and should therefore not be used in the article and the content removed, as per wiki guidelines). In light of this, I wonder whether your disregard in editing such content may be predicated on a wish to whittle away such factual reporting and eventually scuttle the sections.

The ICC warrants specifically allege deportation, transfer and hostage-taking, which the prosecutor himself makes sure to call "alleged crimes". They don't allege child abduction or forceful relocation. Many reporters or columnists might, in which cases the qualifier to use is "reported", since their "charges" carry even less weight than accusations from an outsider court.

It's not a ruling, it's an allegation. Reliable secondary sources have covered the warrants, and we do have a section for them in this article. The UN belief that such crimes have occurred and these two are the perpetrators is a common one, shared with the ICC (the Pre-Trial Chamber has confirmed that there are reasonable grounds to believe) and many Western columnists, but it's not been proven in court and should not be presented as factual until it is, per WP:BLPCRIME. State opinions as opinions and attribute them per WP:YESPOV.

I'm not complaining about this one instance, hell, I've clearly made some editing mistakes too; I'm complaining about the pattern of your edits which persistently shift the meaning and/or context of the content to something other than what is originally stated and/or claimed in cited sources, thus opening it to further erosion by subsequent editors (a future editor would presumably just remove the misattributed quote after checking the source and failing to find the claim in it).

Anyway, I take it from your comment that the dispute is resolved.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop politicizing Wikipedia

The article is citing several UK and US sources to support the claims of child abduction. Both the US and the UK are active belligerents in the War in Ukraine, they are sending weapons, training ukrainian soldiers and their heads of state are firmly backing the current ukrainian government.

In such circumstances we cannot expect that any such source will be neutral. Therefore this thread should be renamed to "Allegations of child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" and the content adapted accordingly. ValterUdarnik (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

ValterUdarnik Much of the content is referenced with English-language U.S.- and U.K.-based publications that are recognised as reliable sources. The positions of the respective governments of these countries have no bearing on the reliability of these publications. If/where sources actually cite government claims that have not been independently verified by referenced source, this can be mentioned in the wiki article itself (inline attribution). However, the transfers of children on the whole are an established fact - the Russian government itself has (quite proudly) admitted to this practice.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The transfer of children is not at dispute here. We are talking about alleged forceful relocations i.e. abductions which have yet to be approved. Considering Wikipedia is striving to present a non-biased view on events it would make a lot of sense to keep the language in line with mentioned ideals. ValterUdarnik (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The ICC warrants specifically allege deportation, transfer and hostage-taking, which the prosecutor himself makes sure to call "alleged crimes". They don't allege child abduction or forceful relocation. Many reporters or columnists might, in which cases the qualifier to use is "reported", since their "charges" carry even less weight than accusations from an outsider court. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

ValterUdarnik It is clear that Russia has engaged in forced transfers of Ukrainian children from conquered terrotories with the intent of preventing their repatriation, erasing their national identity and incorporating them into the Russian nation. This much is beyond dispute. As for whether this constitutes a war crime (or even genocide) - Russia of course denies Ukrainian sovereignty and nationhood, and has illegally annexed its territory. So I guess you're working of this premise in your line of argumentation.

InedibleHulk Wiki article is based on reporting from reliable secondary sources, not court rulings. What you seem to be arguing (likewise with changing "perpetrator" to "suspect" in infobox and basically saying the UN issued a hot take) is a non-sequitur when it comes to wiki reliable sources guidelines.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a ruling, it's an allegation. Reliable secondary sources have covered the warrants, and we do have a section for them in this article. The UN belief that such crimes have occurred and these two are the perpetrators is a common one, shared with the ICC (the Pre-Trial Chamber has confirmed that there are reasonable grounds to believe) and many Western columnists, but it's not been proven in court and should not be presented as factual until it is, per WP:BLPCRIME. State opinions as opinions and attribute them per WP:YESPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk You two seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works. If publications recognised as reliable sources have widely documented the forced transfers, than we can present these as fact here. I would ask you to observe the distinction between factual reporting and opinion pieces.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There's only one of me and publications recognized as reliable sources are clear that the ICC has alleged unlawful transfer against two living people. If you want to say Russia acted forcefully or forcibly in some other act(s), that's probably fine, because it's not an alleged crime. But deportation, transfer and hostage-taking are to be treated as up-to-date reliable sources say they are, criminal charges. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If it is "clear", what do we need the court for? Proving the desired outcome?

As for the "reliable sources" argument, may I remind you all that back in June 2022 the Washington Post, a source for the kidnapping allegation, stated that Russia would run out of steam very "soon" ?

It is very obvious that the big names of western media are all participants of a consolidated effort whose goal it is to uphold morale and therefore support for Ukraine in western societies.

Such circumstances raise the question if any current report in western media concerning Ukraine can be considered a factful and valid source for basing such allegations upon.

Also, the ICC's conclusions are of questionable relevance here since the biggest geopolitical entities of this conflict, both the US and Russia, have withdrawn their signature from the Rome Statute, indicating severe distrust towards this judicial institution.

Further questions of credibility arise if we take a look at past attempts of the court to exert power over the US which ended in open threatening of the court members by US representatives after which the court ceased all such attempts.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/6/icc-prosecutor-defends-dropping-us-from-afghan-investigation

A court that subdues to threats from one party cannot be considered fair and neutral. ValterUdarnik (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What are you two even saying? That if a Reuters reporter films soldiers executing civilians, we can't state it in the article if they don't get convicted? Because this is basically what you two are arguing.

And what ValterUdarnik is saying just flies straight in the face of all fundamental wiki rules on reliable sources.

I hope we're finished here. Anyway, I'll let you get back to changing the names of Ukrainian cities to the Russian spelling, Valter.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If those hypothetical soldiers were charged with murder, you'd have to phrase things carefully, as reliable sources themselves would. Say the video "appears to show" and stuff like that, or not name names. If you wanted to not be prejudicial, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The ICC's allegations are of questionable relevance here, you might say. It hasn't reached a conclusion yet, reportedly never will and still plans to "investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally". But that's nothing compared to all you've understood correctly (in my opinion). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The court would - if it were given the chance - pass judgement on those indicted. The fact that a nuclear wall exists to protect Putin & his cronies - unless there is a regime change that would hand them over - convict and sentence them. The weight of the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. Some will always choose to not believe/side with evil in the claim of NPOV. The history books will show Putin to be the biggest mass-murdering dictator since Mao and Hitler. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Much of the content is referenced with English-language U.S.- and U.K.-based publications that are recognised as reliable sources. The positions of the respective governments of these countries have no bearing on the reliability of these publications

This is a wildly naive belief with no basis in reality. Are we supposed to believe all the major Anglo pulpits just magically happen to all converge on positions on foreign policy effectively identical to those of the US State Department? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No sure what you mean by "active belligerents" - they supply arms so that Ukraine - a country ruthlessly invaded/attacked by a murderous dictatorship - can defend itself. The entire world with the exception of two or three other such states have condemned Putin's unwarranted, bloody aggression. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Who disputes that their have been child abductions? Not even Russia.  // Timothy :: talk  03:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, this article reads as strident and emotionally overwrought. I am not saying its content isn't "true" or "reliable", I am saying the tone is wrong for a Wikipedia article, especially one that is appearing on the main page as a link and therefore drawing a lot of traffic. "Won't somebody think of the children??!" We can still do that, without wringing our hands. It reads like it is meant to shock the reader. If the basic, dispassionate facts are presented, then this should become clear while reading the piece. Right now it just feels like it is hitting people over the head. But the text is already far along, and I certainly don't have the patience to rewrite it at this point, though that is clearly what it needs. A loose necktie (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk The commission of war crimes is not contingent on whether anyone has been convicted for these acts. Same as with regular crimes: a robbery has occurred even if the perpetrator has not been identified or convicted. If reliable sources state that there is evidence that acts (that may (or may not) constitute war crimes) have been committed, the wiki article should say so and describe them. Even if Putin is/were not (recognised as) personally responsible, or if no perpetrator is ever identified and brough to justice (see my example of reliable sources stating unidentified soldiers have committed war crimes). How is this so hard to understand?

A loose necktie Which part of the article are you referring to? If any content is not true to the cited sources or presented matter-of-factly, please, point it out.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the abductions occured. There is absolutely no reason to include the word "alleged". BeŻet (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I am repeating past concerns, but - while Russia might have moved Children outside the Ukraine - do not claims of forced abductions indicate that there is/might be some kind of unwelcome political agenda be at work here? To void the risk of POV Pushing, might not the term 'abduction' be avoided? 2.29.103.96 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"Sexual abuse" not corroborated by cited sources.

Under Living Conditions

"Some of the children were verbally or sexually abused in generally poor living conditions of inadequate care."

Neither cited source mentions sexual abuse; thus, it is purely sensational and should be removed. 68.111.7.219 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Verbal abuse wasn't sourced, either, so now the whole line's gone and the section's called Russification. Anyone looking for Parental separation can find that bit in Places of origin. It's not a great section name, and I'm open to alternatives. I'll also suggest that children are (generally speaking) reunited with their families, not reunified. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A lot is now consolidated under Rehoming, which may or may not be the right word for humans, but kind of gets the point across. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: 68.111.7.219

In some cases, parents or children told the Commission that once in Russia-controlled areas, transferred children were made to wear "dirty clothes, were screamed at, and called names." They also said that "some children with disabilities did not receive adequate care and medication."[2]

Ukraine’s government recently claimed that more than 14,700 children had been deported to Russia, where some had been sexually exploited.[3]

The process of reuniting families is called "family reunification".

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

In immigration contexts, sure. But in kidnapping contexts, such as the one developed here, children are reunited with their parents (if they're lucky). My parents screamed at me and called me names sometimes, too, neither they nor I nor our friends, police and neighbours considered it abuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really follow what the argument is here - that it should be called family reunion instead??

-J Jay Hodec (talk) Jay Hodec (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Oh, and see verbal abuse.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why was the images of the babies crying removed?

It fitted the article perfectly and showed the mas kidnapping of Ukrainian children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.235.146.42 (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it was unnecessarily dramatic? See my comment above. A loose necktie (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

About as weirdly dramatic as that one guy posing as a cheap Putin clone? Seriously, why is that picture even there? 68.111.7.219 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

True though, literally the only pic in the article is of that Putin-suit guy. This article doesn't need any picture at all to enhance enhance what it means to convey. 22pi7 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Crying babies is not an odd photo, as infants cry a lot. However, a verified photo of older kids being transported would certainly enhance the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

In the Re-education camps section there is a typo, "Russia-occpupied" is incorrectly spelled, the correct spelling should be "Russia-occupied" 12.97.219.162 (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory tag in the Adoptions section

The tag is about the apparent contradiction between the text about the law and the text about Putin's decree. This report from Amnesty International explains that the decree simplified the process for obtaining Russian citizenship to facilitate the adoption into Russian families. A Russian citizenship would mean that the children are no longer from a third country and thus resolves the apparent contradiction. I'll put it here for others to decide if it should be included in the article. Sjö (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sjö Yes, great, thank you. I will incorporate the clarification into the article shortly.

Kind regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Deaths vs. Died or disappeared numbers

The infobox give a flat number of 800 deaths, while the actual source and the body of the article states that 800 have died or disappeared, with separate numbers for each in one of the sources, this makes the current number of seemingly confirmed deaths in the infobox exaggerated, if others agree that number should be corrected. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but the numbers are fixed. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No proof that it is happening

They have no evidence actual kidnappings are taking place. 162.205.240.223 (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Who is "they"? There is an abundance of evidence which you can find referenced in the article. The United Nations, Amnesty International and The International Criminal Court all assessed the abductions as war crimes based on this evidence. Dozens of groups and organizations collected the evidence, including CCTV footage, witness testimonials, communications, confessions etc. Finally, Russia herself admitted to deporting children, but of course characterises the move in a different way. BeŻet (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I don't know that it makes sense attempting to rebut this assertion in the article itself (otherwise, this would also be justified/called for in every article on any comparably controversial subject), and it also screws up the flow of the intro. If the abductions weren't extensively documented in reliable sources, we obviously wouldn't have presented them as fact in the article. To be honest, this talk page section should've just been deleted and ignored since it basically amounts to either trolling or gibberish.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrators

In "Perpetrators" only Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova are written. Surely they did not steal so many children alone. Parham wiki (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Putin and Lvova-Belova were the ones who started this campaign, set up "summer schools", and pressured parents into sending their children into these camps. Logically, they are the only perpetrators here. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

They're the only people (so far) named by the ICC for this case. During the trial itself (who knows, could be in 5 years, could be in 22 or 52 years' time; Demjanjuk was convicted at the age of 91; Lvova-Belova will be 90 years, 6 months and 7 days old on 2 May 2075, 52 years from now; Putin will be 92 years, 6 months and 25 days old on 2 May 2045, 22 years from now), other names might be added to the case. There is no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity or war crimes. Boud (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There are more of them, and they were named: [4],[5]. Original source with details: [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Should probably be added to "Reactions": Council of Europe says Russian-forced deportation of children from Ukraine is 'genocide'. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Don't just give a source. Lightoil (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

There's a minor word repetition mistake in line 3 of Allegations of Mistreatment: "Some returned children have attested to harsh punishments and restrictive living conditions while in while Russia." RayanWP (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Prolog (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

In the section "Re-education camps", remove the part where it says (described to them as children's "summer camps"). It's already told in in the section "Summer camp stays" that the re-education camps are lied about as "summer camps" by Russian authorities. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I think the scenario of someone skipping ahead to the "re-education camps" subsection and just reading from there is not too uncommon, and in that case, it makes sense to repeat it there. The article mentions it quite a few times, which in my opinion is necessary to ensure it's present in every place where it's relevant. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

New Russian identity = Child laundering

Please add a link to the article Child laundering either in the "See also" section or in the article itself. These kids are systematically being given new "Russian" identities, including new names and new ID documents to try to erase their past. Thank you! 94.252.1.34 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet another questionable term that someone has upload. If it appears that someone is attempting to use this article to push an agenda, then should not the dodgy term 'Child Laundering' be deleted? 2.29.103.96 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2024

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian War → Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian War and Russian invasion of Ukraine – The current title is confusing, suggesting the article only relates to the Russo-Ukrainian war, when it is actually about both the Russo-Ukrainian war and the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. I clicked onto a wikilink directing me to an article on abductions in the Russian invasion, but found myself here and thought the link was incorrect. I also considered suggesting the title "Child abductions by Russia in Ukraine," as it's briefer, but it's also broader, and perhaps that isn't ideal for this article. – Primium (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose redundant. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is part of the Russo-Ukranian war. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per * Pppery *. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2024 (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.

"Ukrainian authorities identified"

@Rsk6400 You recently reverted my edit, so I am bringing this to the talk page to discuss. Stating that "X identified Y" is a simple statement of affirmation without any epistemic hedges of the sort required by WP:NPOV when citing an impartial or non-neutral source. You have only to compare literally the very next sentence, which starts with Russian authorities have claimed. And this juxtaposition itself is especially and flagrantly non-neutral. Brusquedandelion (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that‘s a misunderstanding of our NPOV. It says neutrally reporting what RS say, not being neutral between two sides. Ukraine is a democratic state with a certain level of freedom of the press (although by far not sufficient), so its authorities can normally be trusted. If a reader decides not to trust them, it is enough to name the authorities as subject of the identification in order to help that reader to choose whether to believe them or not. Russian authorities, on the other hand, are qualified by many RS as simply lying. They have no problem with lying, since there is no free press left in Russia that might control them. All this is stated by RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, your claim that the Ukraine has a free press is flatly untrue— we have a whole page about this Freedom of the press in Ukraine; the Ukraine is not even remotely close to having a free press and in recent years that has gotten better, not worse. But more to the point, nothing you said has any actual relation to our neutrality policy. The only thing technically true about your argument is that, according to certain sources, Russia has worse press freedom than the Ukraine. But can you cite the specific line in a Wikipedia policy that says when writing a Wikipedia article about two countries, we get to take the country with a slightly higher high freedom of press metric at their word, while those bad, mean countries (translation: those which score very slightly lower on a press freedom metric) must always be distrusted? I am not aware of any such policy. In fact I am not even aware of any policy that would permit such an understanding of neutrality even if the Ukraine had the world's freest press. You are injecting your own geopolitical preferences into a reading of the stated neutrality policy, which is at odds with NPOV writing. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian civilians detained in Russia: which article?

Do we have an article or subsection covering the detention of Ukrainian adult civilians in Russia during the invasion of Ukraine? Please reply here or at Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Ukrainian civilians detained in Russia: which article? Boud (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Recovered children?

One piece of information that is regretfully missing is any mention of the children who have been brought out of Russia & returned to their parents in Ukraine or abroad. A few have been rescued, & there are news stories about these rescues. -- llywrch (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)