Wikipedia

Talk:Human rights in Russia/Archive 3

< Talk:Human rights in Russia
Latest comment: 7 years ago by John Crowfoot in topic This article needs an overhaul and an update to, say, 2012
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Human rights in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080219125042/http://www.amnesty.org:80/russia/chechnya.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20090516061641/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR46/014/2006

http://web.archive.org/web/20080410144557/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR46/004/1997

http://web.archive.org/web/20061227015703/http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/12/22/006.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20070504001654/http://cursiv.ru:80/news/

http://web.archive.org/web/20090306210631/http://www.rsf.org:80/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

http://web.archive.org/web/20140210012659/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR46/001/2014/en/b8bbbfbb-bbaa-4e95-aa9b-da276ea002f8/eur460012014en.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20070611061429/http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities/2._framework_convention_%28monitoring%29/2._monitoring_mechanism/6._resolutions_of_the_committee_of_ministers/1._country%2Dspecific_resolutions/2._second_cycle/PDF_2nd_CM_Res_RussianFederation_eng.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20070814234947/http://churchworldservice.org/Immigration/archives/2005/09/74.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20061012224959/http://www.kremlin.ru/appears/2006/10

http://web.archive.org/web/20080221002510/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/info/EUR46/018/2006

http://web.archive.org/web/20070930165041/http://www.spcm.org/Journal/spip.php?article4786

http://web.archive.org/web/20080310015511/http://www.catwinternational.org:80/factbook/Russia.php

http://web.archive.org/web/20070928131810/http://www.humanrightsfirst.com/defenders/pdf/new-dis-russia-021605.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20040703063147/http://www.rienner.com:80/viewbook.cfm?BOOKID=1405

http://web.archive.org/web/20061211072057/http://www.press.uchicago.edu:80/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/16135.ctl

http://web.archive.org/web/20061121055524/http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue1/0106p27.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20051208053004/http://www.ifex.org:80/en/content/view/full/212/

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110814041426/http://strana.ru/stories/02/01/22/2386/308150.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20110708070744/http://todayintheuk.blogspot.com/

http://web.archive.org/web/20141228112805/http://www.fms.gov.ru/press/publications/news_detail.php?ID=9792

http://web.archive.org/web/20150402131234/http://www.fms.gov.ru/press/publications/news_detail.php?ID=9420

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Reconstruction of Chechnya - up to 2010

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To be written or removed.Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The judicial system as a means of oppression?

Latest comment: 8 years ago33 comments4 people in discussion

On the 4th of April, I read the folowing allegation on the "Judicial system" section: "Among the more recent examples of the Government using a court system as a tool of political oppression are the cases of Pussy Riot, Alexei Navalny, and Zarema Bagavutdinova." Since no references were provided, and the allegation was very serious, I removed it. I was then reverted by an experienced editor who advised me to ask for other editors' opinions on the tak page. Since then, that editor has attached 7 references to the allegation. Unfortunately, none of them support the claim. It might be true that Russian courts take orders from the government, but I strongly believe that Wikipedia cannot present this as fact without strong evidence. If someone provides such evidence I will be very happy to keep the sentence, otherwise I will delete it. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. If anything, it is more pertinent to the analysis and criticism section of the "Judiciary of Russia" if it belongs anywhere. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I am very happy to see that we agree, and I will remove it. All the best! Ardhanarishvara (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I just saw that you have removed it yourself and I thank you for it. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
What it tells is merely the fact that there are political prisoners in Russia. It is a variety of oppression, and it is well sourced. One only need to change the wording. My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome to suggest a change to the wording, My very best wishes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! This user just reverted our recent edits with misleading edit summary [1]. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I have the strange impression that you are following me. First on Media freedom in Turkey and then here. I am sure that this is a wrong impression. What does "This user just reverted our recent edits" mean? Who are you talking to? Do you make edits in collaboration with other editors? I am sorry if I reverted one of your edits, I am not interested in the author. My only criterion is whether the edit is supported by sources or not. In my humble opinion, allegations starting with "it is said that.." should be deleted on sight. They are damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. I never suggested that the claim that the Government (is) using a court system as a tool merely needed rewording. It has to be substantiated. So, please, find a source that specificallly asserts this or do not reinsert the allegation. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Current text tells: "The court system has been widely used to suppress political opposition [44] [45][46] as in the cases of Pussy Riot,[47][48] Alexei Navalny,[48][49] and Zarema Bagavutdinova[50]" As you can see, the supporting sources have been provided. Are you saying that they do not support the statement? My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

While I was on the fence regarding the inclusion of this content, I don't actually think that it is WP:SYNTH (please see WP:NOTSYNTH). Given that I found multiple sources attesting to the veracity of the content, it does not "...combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", but is a reflection of what reliable sources say on the matter. It is also directly related to the subject of the article as it is directly related to human rights abuses via the judiciary system (i.e., not UNDUE).

If it comes to the point, I'd hardly touched the surface in terms of the number of academic sources examining the unhealthy relationship between the state and the judiciary, but WP:CITEOVERKILL is strongly discouraged. If there are enough reliable sources stating that such a relationship does not exist, these can be used to counter the predominant scholarship in the section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, you said in a previous comment that you agreed that the allegation should be removed. This is why I did it. Now another user, who has followed me on different articles, and seems foolishly intent on thwarting me, has appeared on this page too. He strangely seems to scold you for agreeing with me and has threatened me of a block for edit warring on my talk page (I returned his warning, since he is the one doing the edit warring). I hate confrontation, therefore I will leave the edit as it is. However, it is my belief that such unsubstantiated claims are detrimental to Wikipedia. If the allegation is documented by scholarly publications, then it deserves an article in itself. Otherwise we cannot present it as fact, we should clearly attribute it to the sources (if any) in the text of the article itself. I hope that you will find some merit in my argumentation. Cheers! Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not anything exceptional. People are unjustly persecuted in courts in many countries. However, in Putin's Russia there is already a specific expression about this, "Basmanny Justice" (see article on ruwiki about it ru:Басманное правосудие). Some good refs, perhaps to be used on this page: [2], [3], books by different authors [4], [5], even by a pro-Putin historian Sakwa [6]. There is no problem to sources this. This is obviously related to cases of Savchenko, Khodorkovsky, Magnitsky, etc., and I am only telling about most internationally famous cases... My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • If you have sufficient reliable sources, why don't you write an article? But, please, don't add sources that are manifestly biased. I hope you see that their use is counterproductive. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You said in your previous comment that you "will leave the edit as it is". That's fine. Matter resolved. My very best wishes (talk)
(edit conflict)@Ardhanarishvara: 'Manifestly biased' is your own personal point of view, and Wikipedia doesn't function on personal opinion. I had asked you to bring this to the article's talk page several times on my own talk page. Consensus isn't formed on individual editor's talk pages, it is formed on the article's talk page.
As long standing, referenced content, it becomes CONSENSUS by default. The removal of consensus content is considered WP:BOLD, therefore we follow the WP:BRD process.
I had no particular opinion as to whether the content should or shouldn't be here, however I have been swayed by the argument to retain the content. The change to the wording is satisfactory, and WP:BURDEN has been met.
I had not read the Judiciary of Russia article properly, but I have now. Essentially, that article is dedicated to how the judicial system is structured, and the content here is not a summary of that as the main article (so I'll be changing the hatnote to 'see also' instead of 'main article'). If the section on the judicial system of the RF - as directly pertaining to human rights - is developed further in this article, there may be reason to create a WP:SPINOFF article. In such a case, the main article will be the spin-off article. As there isn't such an article, you cannot ask another editor to create it because your objection to the content is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You may look here for perspective. It's not exactly the same in modern Russia (yet), however all "political" cases are decided in advance from the "above", and there are tens thousands fabricated criminal cases where people are convicted to take over their property. This is a criminal takeover when judges are bribed or ordered to convict people by "superiors", not to be confused with Corporate raids in other countries. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that I didn't bookmark it for myself, but I found an excellent book on the subject of the continuation of the Soviet-style judicial system as being entrenched in the new RF (and in Ukraine, but to a marginally lesser extent) written in about 2010. I'll have to look for it again. Essentially, it's a balanced account as it discusses the post-Soviet nation-states as being young democracies with inherent problems in their understanding of the importance of separating the processes. I'm a terrible bookmark hoarder, and I have so much peripheral rubbish bookmarked that I can't figure out how I missed keeping this. Oh, well, I'm going to have to seek it out again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Iryna, my objections are based on principle. I am not objecting to the content, I am only objecting to Wikpedia endorsing it and presenting it as fact. The blunt assertion: "The court system has been widely used to suppress political opposition" is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. I added the phrase "According to some sources" to have a more neutral formulation. While you called that "weasel", I call it neutrality. I believe that Wikipedia should report noteworthy allegations, while keeping a non-committal approach. For instance, I have read in a respected newspaper that "David Cameron should be sent to prison". While I believe that we could cite this opinion, if we clearly attribute it to its author in the text, we should not give the impression that we endorse it. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The matter is far from being "resolved". The fact that I don't want to engage in edit warring does not mean that I think you are right. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not call it 'weasel': I was pointing to a best practice guideline. The shortcut is WP:WEASEL. The use of such qualifiers is not always 'weasel', but the fact that multiple sources state this as fact means that it is not even 'some', it's 'the majority'. "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view." Changing 'majority' to 'some' is interpretation. It's better to avoid enumeration in this instance because I would be compelled to change it to 'majority'. I fully understand that there will always be concerns with principles on numerous articles, but we must be guided by policies and guidelines rather than our own objections or discomfort with the presentation of information. If we censored all articles in this manner, there would be no encyclopaedic resource known as Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Iryna, I am in no way suggesting that we should censor anything, only clearly attribute serious allegations to their authors. It is simply not true that the majority of publications on the legal system of the Russian Federation describe it as a tool for oppression. Here[1], for instance, not a word about it, and I could cite dozens of scholarly articles which don't mention the fact that the Judiciary is not independent of the executive branch. It would be a strange omission for such a serious infringement of the constitution. It may be true, but I believe that we should be cautious and remain non-committal. As concerns the "Pussy Riot" case, I don't think that the Government had to give any order to the court, the outrage among the orthodox population was sufficient pressure; this is obvious. If they had done in a New York synagogue what they did in an orthodox church, do you think they would have been congratulated? I wouldn't bet the house on it. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Russian Federation's Legal System". The Catholic University of America. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
The link you've provided isn't working. Note, also, that this is an article talk page, not a forum. Speculation and comparisons to things that haven't happened in other countries is not appropriate here... particularly in light of the fact that you might be surprised at the constitutionally upheld level of separation between the judiciary and government in the US (see Fred Phelps to get the feel for parallels). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The link works but the text seems to be obsolete and no author is mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Xx236: It was rectified by the user, but the user has been identified as a SOCK of this user. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The question under discussion is the use of "courts" and "judges" in Russia for oppression and the lack of rule of law in general. This problem has many faces. One of them is that a lot of decisions are taken personally on the very top. Speaking of Pussy Riot, no one familiar with the subject really doubts that decision was taken personally by Putin. He said very openly that they should not be judged "too harshly," and that he hopes the court will make "the right decision." (ref 47 on this page). This is all personal because there is no law. They singed: "Mother Mary, please drive Putin away" (same ref.) Some political analysts believe that War in Georgia started because Saakashvili called Putin "LilliPutean". Some think that Crimea was annexed because P. felt personally offended by dismissal of his protegee Y. during his triumph in Sochi. Some think that he started bombing the civilian infrastructure in Syria because foreign leaders ignored him on international meetings. And of course many critics were killed (you should probably add Nemtsov on this page). My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
irrelevant discussion collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Dear Iryna please accept my apologies, the link ideed was not working. It's fixed now. Please, do not use aggressive jargon, like "forum", I was addressing you and only wanted to illutrate my point. While I enjoy exchanging views, I have no taste for foil fencing. Let's keep on friendly terms Ardhanarishvara (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, I appreciate the fact that you have softened your tone. However, it seeems to me that you have a Manichean view of the Russian body politic. In a typically American way, you reduce an entire people to a single man, who is then an easier target for demonization. We have already had Castro, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Kadhafi, Bashar al Assad... And what have the American archangels achieved in their fight against these dragons? The new western generation is getting tired of all this. These fabricated monsters abroad are a very convenient tool for oppression at home by the .7 percent who own more than 50 percent of the wealth (It will not have ecaped your attention that the use of the phrase "tool for oppression" was not accidental). Ardhanarishvara (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not my opinion, but something published in multiple RS. I could provide some refs if needed when I have more time, but some of them would go beyond this page and probably would be out of place. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ardhanarishvara: My apologies if my observation came off as being unnecessarily curt. This was meant as a reminder to all three of us that discussions here are proscribed, and the link features on every talk page for good reason. I have no doubt that we could conduct an interesting discussion of this topic as pertains to painting equally bleak pictures of Western human rights issues but, as sorely tempting as it may be to continue on a general analysis of world politics, we've already gone seriously WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do see a problem. Talking about Castro, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Kadhafi, Bashar al Assad and "the American archangels" on this page is an example of blatant WP:SOAP. This is something that user did on similar pages. I hope you are not him? My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I am no one but myself. You are the second editor to tell me this. The first was Volunteer marek, with whom you seem to share almost identical views. I don't know any of the users you linked to. This is starting to look like a cabal to intimidate me and stop me from editing articles in a way you don't like. Are people going to endure your groundless accusations each time they mention Castro, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Kadhafi or Bashar al Assad. Is this list too embarassing? On the other hand, I have noted that your behaviour on your talk page is very strange indeed. You blank it each day and place what looks like an obituary saying that "Due to certain personal issues, My very best wishes will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time". Despite of which you seem to go on editing frantically. Also, you complain on Iryna's talk page that your "anonymity has been blown". What are you? A spy? In any case, I am not interested. I just want you to know that I am a much simpler person than you, and with much less personality problems (if any). Therefore, please, stick to the content and the debate of ideas instead of rehashing your morbid thoughts. That will make you feel better too. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. I still do not agree with your formulation, I won't touch it since I said so, but I would very much appreciate it if you tried to make it more neutral an cut down the plethora of irrelevant sources which makes it look very ugly. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human rights in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Human rights in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This article needs an overhaul and an update to, say, 2012

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This was a comprehensive entry on the subject, but it is now seriously out of date.

For example, it mentions the 2006 Law about all NGOs, but not the later 2012 Law about "Foreign Agent" NGOs or that about "undesirable organisations".

Any takers?

I have had a go at the External References section (see a similar comment I made about the general content in October last year).

The links in that section were sorted into three simple categories: relevant today, of historic value (referring to pre-2012 situation), and now apparently defunct. The list of Russian NGOs was expanded from one (!) to the present more respectable and representative entries.

John Crowfoot (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Russia/Archive_3&oldid=1125085765"