Talk:Yaroslav Hunka scandal/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Extradition" section

You two are just edit warring and calling it CE, not cool.

Personally I vote for my original edit of "Possible extradition", as saying there isn't a possibility of it happening is POV when the sources seem to treat the topic as something of typical severity. Besides, this isn't empty threats, this is a significant government figure consulting genuine legal possibilities in the case of Poland and the nation's foremost legal agency openly charging a foreign citizen with genocide in the case of Russia, dismissing it as "rhetoric" really cheapens the weight of the issue in my opinion. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to talk.

Saying “possible extradition” in wiki voice is wrong, violating BLP, unless we cite reliable sources that says Hunka’s extradition is possible.

There is no indication that this is possible. Hunka has not been credibly accused of any crime except membership in the Galicia Division (membership in a criminal organization was amnestied in Germany in the late 40s or 50s, and I’m not sure whether it was a crime elsewhere; Hunka was not accused of anything by the Canadian Deschênes Commission). Czarnek says he asked his government to determine whether Hunka is wanted for anything, according to his tweet and the attached image of a letter.[1]

Need I explain why the politically motivated charge from Russia is not credible, and why no one says Canada is likely to extradite anyone, ever to Russia, much less over its accusation about a supposed crime committed in Poland or Ukraine?

So please change “possible extradition” to Extradition rhetoric or something else, unless you can show that RS say extradition is possible.  —Michael Z. 18:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"A Polish government minister said this week he had 'taken steps' toward the possible extradition of Yaroslav Hunka..."[2]. "Rhetoric" is unsupported by RS and this looks like a WP:POINTY edit. Mellk (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought I made this clear above.

Keep reading the source[3] and you’ll see what steps. The same article further along quotes the minister: “‘In view of the scandalous events in the Canadian Parliament, which involved honoring, in the presence of President Zelensky, a member of the criminal Nazi SS Galician formation, I have taken steps toward the possible extradition of this man to Poland,’” and links to the source tweet,[4] which contains a facsimile of the letter in which the steps are outlined. Copy-pasted Google translation of the relevant part of the letter’s body: “I am appealing to the President to urgently examine the documents whether Jarosław Hunke is wanted for crimes against the Polish Nation and Poles of Jewish origin. The features of such crimes constitute the basis for applying to Canada for his extradition.”

There’s no application to Canada for extradition. There are no charges against Hunka. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunka. There is no investigation against Hunka or any crimes he is suspected of. There is no crime identified. There is only a request to the Polish president, and to the Polish Institute of National Remembrance. There is no source stating either the Polish government or the institute has started any action or made any response or acknowledgment. (The source also says there is no Canada–Poland extradition treaty.)

The source’s lead states “A Polish government minister said this week he had ‘taken steps’ toward the possible extradition of Yaroslav Hunka . . .” So name the section “‘Steps taken’ toward possible extradition.” The subject of this paragraph is a tweet and a letter, not the possibility of extradition, which no one has assessed.  —Michael Z. 23:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The secondary source mentions possible extradition without quoting, so this is much closer to the sources compared to "rhetoric", which is based on your own OR. Mellk (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Only when it’s paraphrasing the minister.  —Michael Z. 03:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think if a government figure states something is happening we just have to essentially take their word for it, at least without a tertiary analysis. Everything is already qualified appropriately in the text so I don't believe misleading readers is that big of a concern for the title.

The term "rhetoric" is still the main thing that irks me, I for one associate it very strongly with sophism and propaganda. Perhaps "Discussion of extradition" would be better? Orchastrattor (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

He stated he is taking steps. The heading text says extradition is possible. Do you see the disconnect between what the government figure said and what you have us saying? He can speculate and make political statements, yet we are the ones going farther into unfounded speculation here.

Sure, change it to discussion of extradition.  —Michael Z. 05:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of extradition is okay. —Alalch E. 22:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2023

Irwin Cotler welcomed the findings of the Deschenes Commission when they were released in March 1987. His recent comments about the Galicia Division, which Mr Justice Deschenes clearly stated could not be indicted as a unit, while adding that "mere membership" in the Division was not sufficient to warrant proseuction (in the absence of any evidence of an individual's criminal wrongdoing) are therefore either forgetful or misleading. 2001:1970:4000:80:595C:B1CA:5C87:7929 (talk) 12:57, 24 December 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. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)