Talk:Igor Kirillov (general)

Ukrainian Security source

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/two-people-killed-explosion-moscow-russian-media-report-2024-12-17/

A source in the SBU has claimed their agency was behind the killing. Would this be a relevant inclusion in the article, or should we wait for an official press statement from Ukraine? 675930s (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We can say it if it is backed up by reliable reporting, for example https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2ek388yxzo -- Y not? 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Chloropicrin

Can someone undo this edit? This is the second time this user has added this text. I'm the last one to defend the guy, but neither of the current sources cited support use of the word 'facilitated'. https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Igor_Kirillov_(general)&diff=prev&oldid=1263795640 Patternbuffered (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I made the language more precise with an additional ref. Cononsense (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Patternbuffered (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Article biased-wording

This Wikipedia page contains what I believe to be biased wording employed by whomever made the edits user Patternbuffered highlighted (Igor Kirillov (general): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia)

Specifically, in the first sentence of this article, the text "and war criminal." was added, most likely by a biased faction. Igor Kirillov was never proven guilty of committing a warcrime, and there is no evidence, solely accusations, as is the case if you inspect the articles cited..

I propose that the text "and war criminal." in the sentence "was a Russian lieutenant general and war criminal." be removed due to an unproven allegation/biased writing. Crusievulnerable (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have removed that mention as you are correct in noting that Kirillov was never convicted of anything. Please remember to assume good faith of other editors, though. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you AntiDionysius, and I will be sure to in the future. Crusievulnerable (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, him being accused of war crimes is an important part of the story here. I would suggest the information is put back in the lead, with the qualifier that he was accused of being a war criminal. Removing any reference to suggested war crimes from this article to me looks like we're trying to wash the article to make it more palatable for the Kremlin. Yakikaki (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The lead section still contains reference to the accusation of chemical weapons use, which is then expanded upon further in the body. AntiDionysius (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It says that units under his command used chloropicrin. It does not say that this constitutes a war crime. Why withhold the information that he was considered a war criminal by the people who had him killed? In my view that's very central to the whole article. Yakikaki (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have re-added a clause at the end of the last sentence of the lead which I removed in one of my previous edits (I can't remember why - I shouldn't have, anyway), which notes that the use of chloropicrin is banned internationally and in Russia. Do you think that's enough for the lead section? AntiDionysius (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's great, thanks. Yakikaki (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Great! AntiDionysius (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: WP:SUSPECT states that someone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction; this is BLP policy, which also applies to those who have recently died.

This is basically a similar case to Netanyahu and Gallant in Israel; people who have been indicted but not convicted of war crimes. Netanyahu is in Category:Fugitives wanted on crimes against humanity charges, but not any category referring to him as a war criminal. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Make sense; I'd say the three articles in the main category ought to be removed. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll go take a look at them now - thanks for the tip. I did some clean-up on other articles from the category yesterday but didn't get to them all. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree 2001:4BB8:192:A231:F139:8AEC:3A09:4FC4 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential rephrasing

In the interest of maintaining a neutral stance, this article could benefit from additional rephrasing.

See: Neutral point of view - Wikipedia

Under Kirillov's Biography section, subsection titled "Russian invasion of Ukraine", when referring to Kirillov's accusations against the US and Ukraine, the following is stated:

Kirillov appeared regularly on Russian television during the war, where he accused the US of helping Ukraine build secret laboratories for biological weapons and claimed Ukraine was developing a dirty bomb. There is no evidence for any of these claims.

The disclaimer at the end of this sentence, "There is no evidence for any of these claims.", whilst not untrue, may imply a non-neutral tone if compared to the beginning of the article, when referring to US & Ukrainian accusations against Russia, where the sentence "Kirillov's military unit has been accused by the US and Ukraine of having used the chemical weapon chloropicrin." is written.

In the sentence "Kirillov's military unit has been accused by the US and Ukraine of having used the chemical weapon chloropicrin.", the phrase "there is no evidence for any of these claims" is not included as a disclaimer at the end.

In the interest of maintaining a neutral tone throughout the article, I recommend either one of two changes:

1) For the sentence "Kirillov appeared regularly on Russian television during the war, where he accused the US of helping Ukraine build secret laboratories for biological weapons and claimed Ukraine was developing a dirty bomb. There is no evidence for any of these claims.", remove the disclaimer "There is no evidence for any of these claims."

Or

2) For the sentence "Kirillov's military unit has been accused by the US and Ukraine of having used the chemical weapon chloropicrin.", add the disclaimer "There is no evidence for any of these claims." Crusievulnerable (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Explanation Section

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source. Crusievulnerable (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says something like "There is no evidence for any of these claims" for the chloropicrin allegation?

The Economist, which was cited, does say the Ukrainian/US biolabs claim is "baseless" (which is synonymous with no evidence), but I replaced the the current language with a wikilink to Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory. Cononsense (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a source for the chloropicrin allegation, my argument was that the chloropicrin claim was just an allegation made by the US and Ukraine with no evidence. Nonetheless, the edit you have made to the article is perfect and ensures neutrality throughout the article. Crusievulnerable (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Also here I think this should be put back in the article. There is no evidence for any of these claims, and by simply parroting that he claimed so we are giving implicit undue weight to what is clearly a fringe theory. Yakikaki (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reintroducing a short phrase noting that there is no evidence for these outlandish claims. I quote from WP:FRINGELEVEL: "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere." Yakikaki (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

By adding back the clause "claims for which there is no evidence" when referring to Kirillov's accusations that the U.S. is helping Ukraine build secret laboratories, whilst not adding that same clause to US and Ukrainian accusations that Kirillov used the chemical weapon chloropicrin, a tone of judgmental language can be detected by a reader.

In the interest of maintaining a neutral tone I once again recommend either stating that there is no evidence for both Kirillov's accusations AND the US and Ukrainian accusations, or entirely removing the clause.

When you read the article, it sounds like Kirillov's accusations are being discredited/contested, whilst the US accusations are not. (even if Kirillov's accusations are false, there is no direct evidence disproving them, just as there is no evidence regarding his alleged war crimes, so why is there no clause on the war crimes as well?)

Perhaps @Cononsense or @AntiDionysius could chime in? Crusievulnerable (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out how I find it interesting that "there is no evidence for these outlandish claims" in the context of Kirillov's accusations, yet nobody says the same about US and Ukrainian accusations against Kirillov, which are not backed by any evidence. Would you call them outlandish claims too? Crusievulnerable (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that Kirillov's claims constitute a well-known and discredited conspiracy theory, and Wikipedia should be crystal clear about that. The US and Ukrainian claims are not. They are claims that may or may not be (fully) supported by accesible evidence, like any factual claim, and hence referred to in the article; they are not part of any conspiracy theory. I hope you understand the difference. Yakikaki (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Citation

Under the subsection Reactions, the statement A spokesman for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said London was "not going to mourn" Kirillov's death, saying he had "imposed suffering and death on the Ukrainian people". does not have a citation.

The following news articles include the Spokespersons statement, and can be used as a citation:

BBC - Ukraine says it killed Russian general Igor Kirillov in Moscow

Moscow Times - Who Was Igor Kirillov, the Highest-Ranking Assassinated Russian General? Crusievulnerable (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Extremely loud embedded video

Is it possible to reupload the embedded assassination video with lowered sound? Its way too loud and scared the hell out of me 142.231.84.217 (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)