Talk:List of damaged cultural sites during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Russian-language requirement

@Stuartyeates:, which Wikipedia guideline is fulfilled by the demand “If there's going to be a 'In Ukrainian' column there also needs to be a 'In Russian' column”?[1] Which requirement of Articles for Creation is this supposed to satisfy? —Michael Z. 15:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It's about NPOV and allowing editors to find sources in all three of the relevant languages here. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There’s no lapse of NPOV by including Ukrainian names in a Ukrainian subject. In fact your requirement is not NPOV: we don’t require Ukrainian names in articles on Russia either.

Whatever’s helpful for editors belongs on the talk page, not in encyclopedic copy, but editors can find articles in any other Wikipedia through interlanguage links anyway. Please remove this requirement from the review. —Michael Z. 22:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates:, the article can satisfactorily be moved from draft to main space now. What say you? —Michael Z. 18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I understand the sensitive situation in Ukraine, but, the last time I checked, the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. Thus, by trying to include a 'In Russian' column, it appears as if we are presenting NPOV, but it actually favors a particular POV, in this case Russian POV, in the name of "allowing editors to find sources."

I see a lot of lists at enwiki, and I don't see a "In Spanish" column for the lists about the US despite the fact that there are a lot of Spanish speakers in the US. Isn't this the double standard? I guess that the official language does not mean anything at enwiki, just like many New Zealand-related lists at enwiki do not include descriptions in Māori.

Anyway, what Stuartyeates wrote was "If there's going to be a 'In Ukrainian' column there also needs to be a 'In Russian' column." It's easy to be fixed, though. I'll just remove the 'In Ukrainian' column. After all, this is the Wikipedia in English. RottenApple777 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I don't believe that the current sourcing is sufficient. The 'In Russian' column suggestion was an attempt to improve the sourcing situation. Other approaches to improve the sourcing situation are also more than welcome. It's also possible that sources don't exist yet, but will soon, as per WP:TOOSOON. You're also welcome to re-submit the Draft and see whether another editor has a different opinion. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, for the sourcing issue, please discuss it under the section below "Is the UNESCO list a reliable source to be used in this way?" You listed two reasons originally for the denial. Can I consider that one of the reasons you've listed for the denial was solved, before you are adding another one? One at a time please. RottenApple777 (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I just add the following statements before moving on to another issue with the draft that was presented by the reviewer.

The List of cities in Ukraine includes an "In Ukrainian" column and lists pro-Russian/Russian-controlled cities such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Sevastopol and Simferopol. Yet, no one seems to have required to add an "In Russian" column to the list in order to maintain NPOV. As for the claim of assisting to find sources by adding a "In Russian" column, people can use interlanguage links as Mzajac pointed out. I also would like to point out that the reviewer wrote that "If there's going to be a 'In Ukrainian' column there also needs to be a 'In Russian' column." The condition to add an "In Russian" column was the existence of the "In Ukrainian" column in the draft.

Nevertheless, I have removed the "In Ukrainian" column from the draft. --RottenApple777 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Useful links

Ukrainian Wikipedia has an article at uk:Українська культурна спадщина під час російського вторгнення 2022 року (“Ukrainian cultural heritage during the 2022 Russian invasion”), but no equivalent list. —Michael Z. 15:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the UNESCO list a reliable source to be used in this way?

The UNESCO list says all the items are covered under "Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention" (which seems like a sensible demarcation) but contains items such as "Residential buildings in Mariupol (1930-41) – (Donetsk region)" There is nothing about this list item which allows it to be independent identified or verified (it seems like thousands or maybe tens of thousands of buildings could meet this description) and nothing which suggests is actually covered by Article 1, or why. I'm not sure that the UNESCO list is reliable for building the wikipedia list on. Similarly with "Residential historical building in Kharkiv – (Kharkiv)" and "Historic residential building of the XIXth century (Kharkiv)" Note that the list is prefaced by "UNESCO is conducting a preliminary damage assessment for cultural properties." I don't believe that every item on the UNESCO list should automatically be included on the wikipedia list. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

UNESCO is the global authority on the subject and presumably it coordinates with sources of primary information and experts. How could we possibly improve on its published work, apart from second-guessing or original research? We could only find additional sources to clarify or get more detail (e.g., identify which specific residential buildings or suite of them it refers to—if it’s even defined that way, considering that over 1,600 buildings in the city are damaged or destroyed).[2] —Michael Z. 00:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The fog of war won't last forever and a non-preliminary list will presumably be forthcoming. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

New destruction can occur as long as the war is ongoing, and then assessment will continue for weeks, months, or even years afterwards. After damage is identified, someone has to assess the possibility of mitigation, then the costs, then whether it will happen. And then these resources may be written off, demolished, preserved, repaired, renovated, or replaced. So this list will continue to be updated. —Michael Z. 17:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn’t really address the original comment. As far as I can tell, you are concerned that the press release summarizing the cultural heritage sites that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization says it has verified might not be a WP:reliable source because 1) we can’t independently verify them, and 2) because there’s no indication these objects are covered by Article 1 of The Hague convention. I believe it is a reliable source, because:

1. WP:RS doesn’t require us to independently verify facts. It only wants us to use independent sources, and both UNESCO and the cited news media reporting on this are independent sources.
2. There is exactly such an indication in the light blue box near the top of the article.

Forgive me, but I think you’re missing that we merely need to verify that an independent secondary source reports this encyclopedic knowledge. We are not required to confirm the facts ourselves (which would constitute WP:original research).

So in my opinion UNESCO is a reliable source on this. By definition, as the UN8s global body tasked to define this information, it is the definitive source. It’s time to move this article into main space. —Michael Z. 02:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it too soon?

The original reviewer brought WP:TOOSOON up if this is too soon to publish the list.

I just want to point out that there are lists of things and people that are related to ongoing 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on enwiki including, but not limited to, the List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Keep in mind that the Russian generals' list actually involves human lives.

This cultural sites list is "preliminarily" in the sense that those info might be used for prosecuting possible war crimes, but damages themselves have been verified in accordance with the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the 1954 Hague Convention) with which both Ukraine and Russia have signed. The damage assessment is not "preliminarily." --RottenApple777 (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to add one more thing: with this list UNESCO is simply verifying destruction and/or damage of cultural sites within Ukraine but not indicating who have actually perpetrated them for now. --RottenApple777 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s an issue with the status of UNESCO’s list, whether it’s preliminary or not: as a maintained list, there will likely always be information based on various levels of evidence on it.

The subject of this list article is the cultural resources that are listed by UNESCO. There is no requirement for us to verify whether these buildings are damaged, only whether they are on the list. The possible issue is, if you consider UNESCO to be an unreliable primary source, whether secondary sources report on UNESCO’s list. I don’t think that’s necessary, but I think the article has that anyway. —Michael Z. 22:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all. Now it is published. Special thanks to @Mzajac:. for the valuable support. --RottenApple777 (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)