Talk:Human rights in Ukraine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Avril 2010 Amnesty International report

New (Avril 2010) Amnesty International report about Ukraine can be found here. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper put on presure?

Some news of could be presure on newspaper. Not sure if it is important (yet). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It never was listed as 'Free' by Freedom House

As I explained here Ukraine was never was listed as 'Free' by Freedom House. The people of Freedom House don't read there past report it seems... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad, is was listed down not as Freedom of the press in Ukraine but in it's total freedom... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why the f### do we need to speak about Russia in the lead of this article?

Ukraine is not a part of Russia... Get used to it! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs..........

but the Ukrainian parliament has adopted a new law on public organizations. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

mention Law No. 3879

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/01/17/ukraine-stifles-freedom-of-speech-peaceful-protest-with-new-law/ <-- reference on Law No. 3879, I believe it falls under the freedom of expression section. 104.34.250.89 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Poroshenko's decree banning western journalists

Volunteer Marek, Lute88, stop stalking me. You magically appear on every article I happen to edit and revert me without discussion. Like on this one, which you had never edited before. I have added relevant and well sourced mention of Poroshenko's decree banning BBC journalists, and others, from Ukraine. This is a notable event which has provoked an international outcry. It is also perfectly relevant to the section 'media freedom and freedom of information'. If you disagree, please discuss your reasons here instead of simply reverting. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. FOREIGN JOURNALIST blacklisting is not a NUMAN RIGHT violation. Goodbye.Lute88 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

By the same reasoning you could as well blank the whole section. Freedom of the press is a human right. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of the DOMESTIC press. The forein reporters in question crossed the border illegally as well.`Lute88 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

irrelevant discussion collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lute88, just out of curiosity, do you support the banning of foreign journalists? Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Our personal opinions are irrelevant here, and they are easily overridden by Common Sense.--Lute88 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC) This is a very strange conception of press freedom that I have never seen defended (apart by VM and you). Moreover, you subsequently made a number of clearly biased and unsourced edits to the article like "Human rights situation greatly improved in the aftermath of the Euromaidan revolution in 2014.". You will have noted that I refrained from reverting you, even though there is clear POV pushing and lack of sources. I am waiting for your explanations. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC) For you, "In april 2015 two opposition journalists, Oles Buzina And Sergey Sukhobok were murdered in Kiev. The United Nations Human Rights Commission described this murder and others as disturbing and demanded quick and decisive investigation" is an insinuation that Poroshenko is to blame, while you find "The assassination of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian statesman and politician opposed to the government of Vladimir Putin" perfectly alright. This is mind-boggling. Since the history of your edits sufficiently shows how neutral they are, I won't elaborate on the subject. Let's say it is the logic of your argumentation that I fail to grasp. Anyway, could you please refrain from reverting without a prior proper discussion on the talk page? This would be at once more polite and more in keeping with WP policies. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Who are you talking to? Yourself?  Volunteer Marek  19:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Haha --Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything Againstdisinformation says. This article has serious pro-Kiev bias and I've noticed that it doesn't talk about the human rights situation in Donetsk or Luhansk at all.

P.S. Volunteer Marek, Reaganomics88, this isn't a YouTube comments section. Let's keep it mature. Charles Essie (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

irrelevant discussion collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No it doesn't. You, and AD are complaining about the fact that it LACKS bias. If you want to shit on a country you don't like or for political reasons, find another place to do it on the internet. Please articulate any specific instances where this article fails POV. Whining about how you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient to either change the article to your POV or to disrupt it with spurious tags. Volunteer Marek  22:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC) And please refrain from trying to lecture me. It's obnoxious and a passive aggressive incivility. Volunteer Marek  22:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Lute88, since you seem to be a yawning expert on human rights, this question is for you. Has the statement "Our children will go to schools and kindergartens, while theirs will be holed up in basements!" really been made by Poroshenko, or is it a forgery? If it is real, how does it fit with your statement on the article that "The human rights situation greatly improved in the aftermath of the Euromaidan revolution in 2014"? Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Please stop trying to derail the discussion. Volunteer Marek  22:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC) I am not derailing anything, I am right on point, we are discussing human rights in Ukraine and my question is quite relevant. I would like an answer before adding a link on the article. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Yes you are. What does this question have to do with anything? And nice to see you using a crazy conspiracy website for your sources (and one which has been accused of making antisemitic attacks at that too). Volunteer Marek  00:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC) The source is irrelvant, I just want you to tell me, as specialists, whether the statement is authentic or not. After that we can discuss the sources. Don't worry if you don't like the one I provided, there are others which are crystal clean and say exactly the same thing. Please respond on content. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

1. This article is in a poor condition, but not outright "pro-Kiev". For example it tells: "The ongoing crisis in Ukraine has resulted in a major threat to press freedom in recent months. A May 2014 report from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) found approximately 300 instances of violent attacks on the media in Ukraine since November 2013."
2. The situation on the rebel-occupied territory is terrible, but it is not controlled by Kiev and de facto does not belong to Ukraine. Therefore, it probably does not belong here.
3. I think the info about killed Ukrainian journalists should be included.
4. The list by Poroshenko should probably be noted, and it is highly controversial, but not necessarily a human right violation. This is because of the ongoing warfare and the fact that at least some of the Russian "journalists" are simply not journalists, but should rather be described as PSYOP agents or political propagandists. My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Agree
2. We need an info on the separatist-contorlled territories and on Crimea. Most probably in separate articles and a brief summary here. WP:SOFIXIT
3. The murdered journalists are certainly notable and deserve their own articles on enwiki. As far as we do not have reliable sources directly linking killing of the journalists and the Ukrainian Government the info of their murder do not belongs here. E.g. Murder of Boris Nemtsov is not included in Human rights in Russia.
4. Banning of some foreign nationals in Ukraine is probably notable but not for this article. There is no recognized right for foreign nationals to enter any country, being the nationals journalists or not. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not exactly. Murders, deportations, and even denying visa must be included if they are directly connected by RS to the human rights situation in a certain country. It is another matter that such connection by sources has not been demonstrated in the edits by Againstdisinformation such as here. Much worse, his edit misrepresented the quoted source [1] because it does not tell anything about the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Therefore, his edit has been correctly reverted by VM and Lute88. P.S. We have already pages about these journalists and situation with human rights in Donbass. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Agree.
2. Disagree. The Donetsk and Louhansk Republics are not internationally recognized and must therefore be considered part of Ukraine.
3. Agree. I strongly disagree with “As far as we do not have reliable sources directly linking killing of the journalists and the Ukrainian Government the info of their murder do not belongs here. E.g. Murder of Boris Nemtsov is not included in Human rights in Russia." In the Press freedom section of Human rights in Russia, attacks on journalists, including murder, are amply documented. Boris Nemtsov was not a journalist. The point is that, irrespective of the authorities involvement, any obstacle to freedom of expression must be reported in an article on human rights.
4. Strongly disagree. Poroshenko’s decree is highly relevant to the attitude of the authorities towards press freedom. It is not a simple anecdote. Where is the source stating that journalists banned “should rather be described as PSYOP agents or political propagandists”?
5. Last point by My very best wishes is a personal attack and, as such, needs not be addressed. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Personal attack? How come? This is your edit. It tells: The United Nations Human Rights Commission described this murder and others as disturbing and demanded quick and decisive investigation [ref]. I am looking at the actual quoted source and do not see anything about "United Nations Human Rights Commission". This looks to me as a straight up misinterpretation. Where am I wrong? My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• The source for the quote, word for word, is in German "Die Vereinten Nationen forderten eine schnelle Aufklärung der Attentate. Die Verbrechen seien beunruhigend, sagte eine Sprecherin des UN-Hochkommissars für Menschenrechte, Seid Raad al-Hussein. Nötig seien eine "schnelle, unabhängige und glaubwürdige Untersuchung" sowie die Bestrafung der Verantwortlichen." Die Zeit is, as far as I know, a reliable source. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as clear from the diff above [2], you included the following text which did not use Die Zeit as as source:

In april 2015 two opposition journalists, Oles Buzina And Sergey Sukhobok were murdered in Kiev. The United Nations Human Rights Commission described this murder and others as disturbing and demanded quick and decisive investigation. [ref to ibitimes.com]

My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I may have forgotten to provide a link to Die Zeit, I don't have time to check right now, but anyway, it shouldn't be hard to fix. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Torture and conditions in detention

It is stated in the above mentioned section that "Reports of torture and ill-treatment by police persisted during the tenure of ousted president Viktor Yanukovych" Two sources are cited:IHF REPORT 2007 and UNHR. 2007. Since Viktor Yanukovych was elected president in 2010, one is left to wonder whether these venerable institutions are endowed with the gift of Precognition. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No it was editor with this gift. Institutions didn't mention him. Cathry (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Greatly improved" in the lead

I think that the fragment:

The human rights situation greatly improved in the aftermath of the Euromaidan revolution in 2014.

misrepresents the source:

Ukraine’s political rights rating rose from 4 to 3 due to improvements in political pluralism, parliamentary elections, and government transparency following the departure of President Viktor Yanukovych.

While improvements from 4 to 3 (there 1 is the best and 7 is the worst) are significant, especially for the country in the midst of the war, labeling it as "great" is misleading. The ratings are still lower than in 2009. Also Freedom House is a respected authority in human rights but not an absolute judge. I have attributed and expanded the info so to make it more neutral. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this is good fix. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ere

Freedom House is not independent source, and there are many reports by more reliable organizations (UN) about violations of human rights during "ATO" Cathry (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Freedom House is an NGO, bearing in mind that a lot of NGOs are primarily funded by governments, but this does not translate into their somehow being government propaganda machines. In fact, they are no less likely to be 'think tanks' than privately funded NGOs. Yes, it certainly has had some (erhem) illustrious right wing 'thinkers' involved, but by the same token it has also had 'thinkers' very much to the left of centre involved. They're an eclectic mix. The ranking has been qualified by intext attribution. If, however, you believe that it is not an RS, I suggest that you take it to the RSN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2016

Two users kept removing text for no real reason. First one claimed that WP:NOTNEWS applies, but it has been established that it does not. Today, the other user claimed that "we need good sourcing here" but the sources are The Times, NY Times, Newsweek and the UN. So these are completely bogus excuses to delete the material. An admin agreed with me that the information should be added, just without the details (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=724486069&oldid=724477983), so the last removal of text should be undone. Usr lI (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Done The article was protected until 12 June 2016. No reverts to 'previous' text until the manner in which to present the content has been discussed, and consensus has been reached on what is significant per sources. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction: 1RR, Eastern Europe

Please note the new edit notice: this page is now WP:1RR until July 17, 2016 (WP:ARBEE). --slakr^\ talk / 07:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources to be used for Torture

I would like to stop getting notifications for random stuff so I will spend a little time trying to solve this by seeking consensus on the sources first, if needed post them on the reliable sources noticeboard. Then writing with a Neutral point of view and seeking consensus with that.

Please state support for or reasons why these sources should not be used:(I have not actually read them yet, reading them now. )

• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/world/europe/un-suspends-torture-inquiry-in-ukraine.html?_r=0
• http://www.newsweek.com/no-salve-eastern-ukraine-victims-detention-torture-463514?rx=us
• http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20017&LangID=E#sthash.aBdHD5jq.dpuf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

All these sources qualify as RS. There are literally hundreds other RS on the subject. This is not the question. The question is: since we are talking about the recent events, how exactly this should be described in context of still ungoing warfare? We have already a separate page Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass, so we do not want content forks. We also probably want to describe this as violations by both sides of the conflict like here, but this is just a couple of randomly selected sources, and we must fairly summarize what multiple sources tell about this. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This summarises why I see a need to provide a context - there's a war - for the reader, rather than simply tacking on content like this which, in a few years time, won't inform the reader of what it's about. We're not writing a list of forms of torture/what a handful of individuals are reporting in RS, but the fact that torture has been alleged to have been deployed and investigated, and the context in which it has been deployed. Articles like this are worked on sporadically and, hence, are seriously prone to convoluted information that ends up being tagged for 'clarification' because, as editors come and go, content becomes more and more convoluted to the point of becoming esoteric. We are aware of the circumstances at this moment in time, but Wikipedia is an ongoing project meaning that we're obliged to pick content carefully, qualify it clearly, and follow WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as faithfully as is humanly possible. As noted by My very best wishes, it isn't simply a matter of whether RS are being used. Information on the Kiev government's non cooperation is valid, but not without working out the overlaps between main articles and which information belongs in an umbrella article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I am back. So add context. Is it so hard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The content you have just re-added has not added 'context' as your edit summary claims. Submit proposed content here, on this talk page, instead of edit warring content back into the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You mean for your approval? What is there to discuss? These are facts that must be in the article. You can argue about how the text should be worded and removing details, but not deleting it altogether. Modify the text, but don't remove everything. I added that this happened during the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI (talk • contribs) 06:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For starters, try reading the surrounding articles like War in Donbass. This is not regarded as, nor referred to as being a "civil war". Secondly, I am not talking about 'my' preference for wording as neither you nor I WP:OWN the article. Pay attention to what other editors have to say and, equally as importantly, pay attention to the NPOV terminology being used for the major articles on the subject matter. What you have reverted back to is still WP:UNDUE and badly formulated. I'm not interested in what you believe to be WP:THETRUTH, and neither is Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I am fixing the POV now. Everybody is welcome to join. I see no single reason why the UN report on torture should not be mentioned in this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• The reason for not including this particular report is very simple: it does not tell anything of substance about torture on Ukraine (which certainly happen!). Other cited sources also tell very little about it. The report only tells that inspectors were not allowed on the site(s). This might be mentioned, but only in a context of a good detailed description of the problems, which is not there. As it stands right now, the claims are sweeping, but the supporting referencing tells little on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• How exactly are you fixing the POV by writing. "both Ukrainian authorities and the authorities of separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics allow torture and run secret jails" when the exact quote from the Times is "Ivan Simonovic, UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, said that in some areas Kiev’s “disregard for human rights” had become entrenched and systemic and needed to be urgently addressed." and the title is "Kiev allows torture and runs secret jails, says UN"? They must have used invisible ink, because I can't find any mention of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. Unless I am mistaken I would be grateful if you could please self-revert. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing with sockpuppets of blocked users. I would prefer reaction of users in good standings, which does not refer to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• I am not going to fall into your trap, so I will not address your accusations. What is very interesting is that by not answering a straightforward question you are implicitly admitting that the first statement of your edit is is an outright fabrication. The question could have been asked by Satan himself, it would still be a valid question. Any person with some brains and a modicum of intellectual honesty will see through this dodge. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indef per clear WP:NOTTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Good! Here is last report by UN agency we are talking about... My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the report, MVBW. That's the touchstone for the content in keeping with all of the articles on human rights issues surrounding events in Ukraine and other areas of the world in a state of war. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In my version, there is no reference to the report, there is only reference to Šimonović as documented in the Times. I have right now no time to read the report as it is 53 pages, but if there is smth of substance there, we can obviously include it.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This UN report is mostly about human rights violations related to the war on the both sides and to the situation on LPR and DPR territories controlled by Russia. This info should be described on the separate page we have, Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass and only be briefly mentioned here. Speaking about LPR and DPR, not only this is a zone of war, but this is basically a "black hole" for any law enforcement where kidnappers from Russia bring their victims to dump their bodies (there were such publications). Everything unrelated to the war should be described on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would not object mentioning on this page that there are massive human right violations from both sides during the war in Donbass, may be with a reference to the UN report and to the Times article, and further referencing to the dedicated page. But I would not be fine with completely omitting this info here.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I said above this should be briefly mentioned here. What should be mentioned, exactly? As usually in such cases, this should be a very brief summary (just a few phrases) of the content provided on the main page we refer to, i.e. Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass. I do not think current text is a perfect summary of this page, although yes, "both sides" should be mentioned. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Introduction of WP:NOTNEWS content

Would the new editor/s reintroducing this content by editor warring instead of following WP:BRD please stop. Content discussions take place on the article's talk page, not by edit warring content using edit summaries or, more prominently, using no edit summaries.

Content is discussed on its merits according to policies and guidelines, not according to personal arguments which are simply WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The content in question is not only subject to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, it is also contingent on WP:WEIGHT and the use of loaded language and protracted and unnecessary detail. Any relevant facts (i.e., if the content is deemed to be WP:DUE) is to be presented in a succinct manner, and in a neutral voice as befits an encyclopaedic resource. Bear in mind, also, that Wikipedia articles are not lists of every piece of information to ever appear in the media. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The information is from the UN and reported by major sources like the NY Times. How is this irrelevant and unimportant? This is not some sensational news that will be forgotten soon. Sounds to me like you just don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It does read like a story but all of the issues listed by Iryna Harpy do not apply. Maybe you can write it a little better after looking at some of the rules listed and I could support the edit. Jadeslair (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jadeslair: There are a plethora of problems with the added content including WP:CHERRY and WP:SYNTH. Firstly, the Times article states that, "The Times states that "Most of the accusations of rights abuses in the war have involved the rebels.". There are only a couple of issues that would merit inclusion, and these are not details of the torture over and above the government's lack of co-operation, so WP:NOTNEWS most certainly applies (see WP:NOT#JOURNALISM as it is exactly the same thing at 'What Wikipedia is not'). Further to that, it's been tacked onto a section just named 'Torture' looking at events under previous governments prior the outbreak of war, therefore this content lurches straight into a new subject that would qualify as needing it's own subsection under 'Torture'. In fact, it is far more relevant to the Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass article than this one. At best, it should be presented in the "See also", or as a subheader entitled "War in Donbass" with a WP:HATNOTE to the main article. It's intentionally WP:POINTy and has no place in its current format in an umbrella article. Ukraine's human rights record has been (and still is) bad enough without conflating (i.e., SYNTH) different epochs in a single article... and you can't tell me that being at war doesn't change the context into being another era of history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to the whole statement, torture is not something that is a standard announcement. It certainly is a long standing item. I believe this is the appropriate page to put torture into. Human rights have been violated. I am not really sure what the argument is, I see that it could be improved but not removed completely as you have done.Jadeslair (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Check my notifications to both the users involved in introducing the content, as well as my ES in the article history: I made it very, very clear that this is for discussion on this talk page per WP:BRD. I was perfectly amenable to discussion of the sources and their relevance to this article, but it is contingent on WP:CON as to the presentation. Why do you think I kept asking that it be brought to this talk page? Please read up on how WP:BRD works. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no excuse for completely removing it as Jadeslair said. As for consensus, there is consensus to keep it, or are you going to accuse Jadeslair of being a puppet too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, per BRD, removing it seems fair, pending this discussion. Selected details of individual torture seem WP:UNDUE (at least in this article). It may be a bit early to add this content, but I assume that by the end of this discussion in a few days that won't be an issue. Beyond that, however, I don't think NOTNEWS applies. Also, this content's position in the section is appropriate, and needed to balance the previous para that implies everything's been fine since 2007. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that WP:BRD and WP:Consensus apply. After quickly looking at the currently quoted sources, it appears that most important of them [3] does not really support the statement, but another one (NYT) does support a part of the statement, however this is just a single case of abuse. I think something about torture by SBU should be included, but should be described as a systematic trend, not a single cases, and this must be strongly sourced. Until this is done, I would oppose such change. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the SBU content is due for inclusion (particularly the government's lack of co-operation being the final straw), but I'm still convinced that it needs to be made clear that it pertains to an escalation of human rights violations since the beginning of the Ukrainian crises from Euromaidan onwards.

Having taken a stab at cleaning the refs (dead and broken links in abundance) and cite checking them only recently, I became highly aware of the leaping around from pre-2000 to 2007 to around 2010, and nothing between that and the crisis, so it is in need of a little further development. As noted by A D Monroe III, by the time we've reached a consensus on what is salient for the article, NOTNEWS will be a non-contender, and there is likely to be more in the way of RS. If it is to go directly under the 'Torture' section, I think there needs to be at least a little more on the situation between 2007 and 2013. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Add that if you want but don't use that as an excuse to delete the existing information. NOTNEWS was never applicable. You can modify the text but don't remove everything for bogus reasons. There is no need to "reach consensus" for adding perfectly relevant and well sourced information. That sounds like another bogus excuse to leave it out. There actually is consensus here to add it. You can discuss how the text can be changed and improved, but not whether it should be added altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usr lI (talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

One of sources you used tells this: "The UN report documents hundreds of cases of illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment of detainees — both by pro-Russian armed groups and by government agencies." OK. Which report (ref?) and which exactly hundreds of cases by government agencies (refs)? Your other sources do not explain it. We need good sourcing here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? The Times is not a good enough source for you, as well as NY Times, Newsweek and the UN? Another terrible excuse to remove text. This is just silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.71.58 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is your edit. It tells: "New evidence of torture has come to light since may 2016. According to the UN, Kiev allows torture and runs secret jails". Here is source [4] used to support such assertion, but this is not enough; it does not provide any detail. Publication in NYT does not really makes such claim. Unless you can provide additional sources to support the claim, your edit is going to be reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:, it's amazing to see that I've only been away a few days and in the meantime all hell has been breaking loose. Not only did you revert my edit in breach of WP:STATUSQUO, which requires you to go to the talk page first, but you accused me of being a puppet of Usr II in clear violation of WP:Assume Good Faith. Now, you are arguing in your latest revert that my edit is WP:UNDUE and that there is an agreement on this point. Your position is supported only by My very best wishes, whereas mine has the support of Usr II, Jadeslair, A D Monroe III and EdJohnston. So, how can you say that the consensus is going your way? The only user supporting you claims that the sources are not good enough: "We need good sourcing here". Well, if The Times, NYT, Newsweek and the UN are not "good sources", 90% of the articles on current affairs will have to go. This is not serious. If you don't want this information to appear you'd better find a compelling argument, other than WP:I just don't like it. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What status quo? The status quo was the version prior the introduction of your content. You are Usr II/Usr lI, which is why your accounts have been merged. Others are are arguing that the content is not appropriate in the form you introduced it in... so where does the "I've only been away a few days..." come from, and what is this "... all hell has been breaking loose." in reference to? Do you have any idea as to how Wikipedia works? As for EdJohnston's intervention, he asked you to self revert instead of starting an edit war. As your delay made it evident that you had no intention of doing so, I took the initiative and reverted on your behalf.

There has been no definitive conclusions drawn as to how the information should be presented, so please stop reverting to exactly the same content (verbatim) as is under discussion here. Read through what has been said on the subject and try to engage in productively discussing which sourced is relevant... and NPOV fashion, not as an emotive, WP:CHERRY selection of individuals 'limping away', etc., etc., etc. If you are not clear on what the problems with your string of allegations picked from this source and that is, try reading the comment by MVBW directly above yours. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you should rewrite the text you want to use Usr II adhering to wikipedias rules, then post it here in a new thread so we can discuss it. Reintroducing the same text is not the way to go. Forgive me if you entered different text, I did not go through all of the edits. Jadeslair (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The inserted text makes a claim of wide-spread torture on Ukraine, however such general claim is not supported by quoted sources. This should be either much better sourced or be rewritten. However if this will be only about one minor episode (with inspectors), such info may be simply undue. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I protest in the strongest possible terms about the merger of my account with that of Usr II, I am not Usr II !!! I don't know how you managed to do this, but I demand that you restore the two accounts as separate accounts and in the meantime, I advise you to read the excellent article Paranoia. Your actions go beyond personal attack and you are unjustifyably harming two users just because they happen to both disagree with you. I don't know how I will be able to collaborate with you on this article. Instead of making positive suggestions, you are just throwing a tantrum. May I inquire what upsets you so much about my edit? --Théophile de Viau (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I see! Let's just dismiss the whole thing. Now, we are not going to take those arrogant inspectors seriously, are we? --Théophile de Viau (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Even though we could all use a bit more AGF and NPA, this discussion has made definite progress. It seems we agree that *something* will be included in the torture section on events coming to light in the past few weeks, as NOTNEWS won't prevent this. Being a touchy subject, we need to be careful to precisely follow the RSs. That may mean that the additions are spotty, in that together they may not paint a single cohesive picture from pre-2000 to present; that's okay. We report what facts are verified, and the reader can decide if torture seems systemic or not. Agreed? --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This user must post here what exactly he/she wants to be included, with supporting refs. Otherwise, this is talk about nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, My very best wishes, "this user" does not want to include anything. I just added an information that can be found everywhere in the mainstream media and on the UN website. I am not going to subtract anything, I suggest instead that you write the final version yourself. If you prefer to cover up the truth, be my guest. I have already lost enough time. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you did not want to include anything, why did you edit war on this page to include this material [5]? OK, I believe you. But it means that you came to the project only to complain about certain other contributors. Because except edit warring on this page, you did only one thing in the project so far: you complained to an admin who you think would be sympathetic to your cause (you even said above that he supports your edits). My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: I think the discussion is continuing in the section below where My very best wishes has expressed my own dominant concerns succinctly. UNDUE lists of descriptions of "what evil things they did" have been following around articles on the Ukrainian crisis, Ukraine related articles, and Russia related Wikipedia articles for the last few years in particular. Multiple articles have become dumping grounds for POV pushing from both sides. It's a long, slow process trying to clean these articles up and identify POVFORK articles for merging and deletion. As you've noted, it's an area where we need to tread with sensitivity, particularly as this content overlaps with entire articles. I do believe that there is some relevant material for this article, but I'm not convinced that "let the reader decide" is a valid method for presenting it in this article. As with other articles, anything other than carefully presented content is heavily prone to being treated as WP:TROJAN/WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a fairly obvious sock puppet of User:Againstidsinformation (+ the entire sock farm). Same interests. Same obsession with Iryna. Similar choice of user name (The Theophile guy) until he caught himself and quickly tried to change it to something less obvious. In depth knowledge of esoteric policies and guidelines. Same tone and writing style.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It's definitely User:Γνῶθι σεαυτόν/Againstidsinformation... all the way down to UserI1 who is the typical foil to his Théophile persona. It's the more articulate character who appears along with a less articulate character (I think the second character is supposed to be a non-native speaker?), the problem being that he can't sustain the differentiation between the two. I was rather hoping that he'd just go away... but he can't help himself. I seem to have become alluring to at least a couple of evaders. It must be my charm and sweet talking that does it. Cherchez la femme. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

And now another sock puppet, of a different user (Lokalkosmopolit) has joined in [6]. Probably need to protect this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Je später der Abend, desto schöner die Gäste, lol! While it's true that your gang has been playing with the system most cunningly, leading to many constructive editors leaving or getting even banned, the next ArbCom will do away with at least the more obnoxious part of you, mark my words. Surely including you.
It is true that some of the notorious Wikiphants have seemingly survived any counteractions, I mean Molobo (it has all been going on for at least since 2005!) is an example here, but not everyone is *so* fortunate... 77.93.29.14 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I have struck through all comments by Théophile de Viau, who has been confirmed to be a SOCK of Γνῶθι σεαυτόν/Againstidsinformation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in Ukraine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124050702/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150930230930/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2009,1001.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2009,1001.html

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) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to be updated

This article is very hard to read. It is not easy to determine whether some reported facts happened before Yanukovich's fall or after. What's more, the language used is very often biased. The crackdown on the press was not merely "perceived", it was real. --Mlc1968 (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Lute88:. Are we supposed to ignore this [[7]] too?

@Mlc1968: Firstly, you stated the obvious as a section title: the fact that the article needs updating was announced loudly by me last year. That's what the 'update' tag at the top of the article is for. Secondly, you seem to be overlooking what you, yourself, have observed about the article being, "It is not easy to determine whether some reported facts happened before Yanukovich's fall or after." Despite this, you are trying to develop content without content by tacking it onto generalised information which, in itself, doesn't address changes in governance over a number or epochs, nor something which is going to tend to change the entire complexion of the functioning of a country: a war. That's why a section for the "War in Donbass" was added.

What needs to be sorted out, first and foremost, is the structure of the article. Personally, I think that the basic structure is there, but sections need to be broken down further using political landmarks since Independence would be a logical method of presenting content. Per WP:WEIGHT, using this article to detail human rights issues since 2014 strikes me as being WP:UNDUE. Simultaneously, I'm not sure that the scope of Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass can (or should be changed), or whether there's a justifiable WP:SPINOFF article in this (something I'd prefer not to happen). I'm going to ping RGloucester to see whether they have any ideas or opinions on this issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My general thinking is that this must remain a summary article, and I agree entirely with the idea that filling this article with post-2014 events would be WP:UNDUE. Generally, a brief summary should be given here, but I tend to believe that the bulk should be in the above mentioned 'humanitarian situation' article, which has been the home of such stuff until now. The scope of that article is sufficiently broad to house such content, but I don't doubt that another spinoff might be possible. However, I think that such would likely result in a POV lightning rod that we don't particularly need. This article is a bit of a mess, undoubtedly, but the focus should be on making it work, not filling it will every news report on the post-2014 events. RGloucester — ☎ 02:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I am not trying to "develop content without content (sic) by tacking it onto generalised information". I merely erased the POV qualifier "perceived" which, for some reason, you kept putting back, taking turns with Lute88. If you were the first to note that the article needs updating, I congratulate you. Maybe it's time to do something about it now. I do agree with RGloucester that the focus should be on clearing the mess in order to get a more readable article. However, I cannot agree with the conception that post-2014 events should be kept out. One thing we could do is post draft revisions on the talk page and amend them until we reach consensus. Cheers. Mlc1968 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you can't agree that the human rights issues surrounding the war in Donbass actually belongs in the Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass article (where else, and over what else are these events taking place if not in direct reaction to the war/as a direct consequence of the war?), and that the section on the Donbass war needs to be a précis of the main article, I don't think we'll manage to have a fruitful collaborative relationship in tidying up the article. Essentially, you're saying that you agree with RGloucester and myself, but you don't agree: let's post draft revisions of our entirely disparate take on the structure of the article.

As for the 'perceived' business, the content it's appended to is WP:UNDUE in the "Media freedom and freedom of information". Given that the main article is Freedom of the press in Ukraine, in no way does the section serve as a summary of the main article, but leaps from 2009 and 2010 content on Yanukovych to a third of the section being dedicated to a messy regurgitation of an op-ed piece by one minor journalist in the Christian Monitor. The two other sources you introduced were WP:CHERRY. The Nemstsova article actually offers a far more intelligent appraisal on media conditions... but not for this broad scope article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Allow me to politely ask you to refrain from using aggressive rhetoric and also from posting warnings on my talk page for edit warring, threatening me with blocking my account. I note that you have yourself systematically reverted me. Are there rules that apply to me but not to you? Your argument that the facts under consideration belong to the Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass article makes no sense. Ukraine is not a part of Dombass and there is no valid reason not to mention events occurring in Kiev without mentioning Dombass. Finally, I deeply regret that you reject any collaboration on the article. Wikipedia is a place where you have to collaborate with people you do not necessarily agree with. --Mlc1968 (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mlc1968: I'm sorry, but do you actually have any grasp of the subject matter? I sincerely think you are confused as to what and where the country/nation-state known as Ukraine is, and what has being going on there since Euromaidan - although that was predominantly a carry-over of political and economic issues beleaguering Ukraine since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, with entrenched corruption carrying on, the advent of a new era of opportunity for more oligarchs to plunder the coffers of the state, etc. I would suggest that you do some serious research into Eastern Europe for at least the period covering the 20th century in order to familiarise yourself with the region before tackling any more articles in this region of the world.

If, however, you believe that you understand the subject area and have responded fully comprehending what you're talking about, could you please clarify what you mean by "Ukraine is not a part of Dombass and there is no valid reason not to mention events occurring in Kiev without mentioning Dombass" [my emphasis]. Firstly, it's Donbass, not Dombass. Secondly, Donbass is a part of Ukraine, and there is a war on in the that region of Ukraine. There are two prominent areas being held by pro-Russian rebel separatists, but these areas are not recognised by any sovereign states in the world as being independent from Ukraine, and that includes no official recognition by the Russian Federation (despite the fact that the RF has been rendering aid and support including personnel and military equipment to the separatists)... So, please explain how you've come to the conclusion that "Ukraine is not part of Dombass". [sic] --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Is this the level of discussion you wish to have? I'm pretty sure you are perfectly aware that "Dombass" was a typo. I'm not going to answer your wall of text point by point but I will make two remarks. First, by "Ukraine is not part of Dombass", I mean that the situation in Donbass cannot be considered as an excuse for the crackdown on the press in Kiev. Second, my only action has been to remove the strongly biased qualifier "perceived" before "crackdown". The crackdown on the press is an established fact and claiming that it is merely perceived is, well, not objective. My knowledge (and interest in) eastern Europe certainly doesn't match yours, but I know propaganda when I see it --Mlc1968 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've had to revert one of your edits here because you turned two separate sentences that made perfect sense into a single sentence that reads as an incomprehensible mess. Now I am asking that you please self-revert this content you have been edit warring since your first foray into editing this article (particularly bizarre as you haven't been interested in editing any other Wikipedia articles at all). This is not even addressing the issue of whether 'perceived' does or doesn't belong in the content: you have repeatedly removed templates requesting the clarification of content and have been asked not to do so here. Why are you removing them? In what manner have they been addressed and corrected? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Iryna Harpy:"I've had to revert one of your edits". In fact you have been edit warring since my first edit, erasing each edit I make, while pretending I'm the one who is edit warring and posting warning upon warning on my talk page. You say that you find it "particularly bizarre" that I have not edited other articles. Strange reasoning! You have to start with one article and I am not prepared to move on to another one until you give me a good reason to justify keeping the biased qualifier "perceived". Do so and You will see that Ukraine is far from being one of my main centers of interest. However, you will not frighten me into submission, as hard as you try. --Mlc1968 (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • PS: the tags were undue, since the sources are cited just below. I can add others if needed. --Mlc1968 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in Ukraine. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010%2C1034.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001051756/http://en.rsf.org/ukraine-local-newspaper-editor-badly-31-03-2010%2C36900 to http://en.rsf.org/ukraine-local-newspaper-editor-badly-31-03-2010%2C36900
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2009%2C1001.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007025235/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2002%2C297.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2002%2C297.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/66616/

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

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) 12:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR

 Administrator note With immediate effect I have placed this article under WP:1RR editing restrictions per WP:ACDS. No one may make more than one revert on this article page within a 24hr period. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, @Masebrock:. Masebrock you just broke 1RR by removing the “failed verification” tags I added. Here is your previous revert on 17:43 yesterday [8]. Here’s your second revert just now [9] at 0:21 today. That’s what, 6 hour difference?

And just in case this gets brought up - not that it’s relevant since 1RR is 1RR - but no, the second revert did NOT fix the verification issue. The New York Times article says nothing about “special hidden prisons” but it doesn’t say anything about “secret prisons” either - the word “secret” doesn’t even appear in the source. It does use the word “prison”, once, but in reference to a prison ran by Russians, not Ukrainians. So the misrepresentation of this source was not fixed. Volunteer Marek 00:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixing the wording issue you brought up isn't a revert, its an attempt at collaboration. Did you want the wording used fixed here or not? For reference, the source I added [10] says verbatim "Justice needed for former secret prison detainees". I attempted to solve the problem you pointed out, and now you accuse me of edit warring. Please. Masebrock (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You DIDNT fix the wording issue. The New York Times source is still there and it is still being misrepresented. The tag is “failed verification” not “is there some other source out there”? Volunteer Marek 01:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see. I can add the tag back as a sign of good faith, if you like. But this feels like an easily resolvable problem of simply where the refs are placed in the sentence, when we have sources that show three things 1. Secret prisons 2. Torture, 3. Torture at secret prisons. This can be resolved by placing the references in the appropriate part of the sentence instead of all at the end. Masebrock (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If I made this fix, would you consider it a revert? Masebrock (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course not. But there are further problems with that sentence. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have made the proposed change. Let me know if you would like for me to still insert the failed verification tag, and I will self-revert my removal of it. Masebrock (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That’ll work for that source. The second problem is the phrase “ widespread torture and human rights abuses” which also does not appear in the source - in particular the “widespread”. The source references 9 possible cases. It does talk about “hundreds” of cases but, again, that’s a reference to the Russian separatists (info on which is still missing here). Volunteer Marek 03:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Times source uses the word "systematically" to describe the torture. Should we replace the word "widespread" with "systematic"? Masebrock (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, with attribution please. Also can you remove the New York Times as a source here since it doesn't support this sentence.

NYT is a strong source, so I would hate to see it removed. I feel like the better option would be a sentance split like I did earlier, in order to better show what source says what. For now, I have simply dropped the word "widepsread" which should solve the sourcing issue. Do you think adding a seperate sentance for the "entrenched and systemic" comment from the UN secretary is appropriate, or should we leave as is (with the word "widepsread" dropped) for now? 18:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a strong source but it is not a strong source for this sentence Volunteer Marek 23:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you expand on your reasoning, perhaps in a new section on the talk page? Masebrock (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, onto UNDUE issues. The last sentence in that section is solely about SBU. Majority of the source however is about torture and abuse by Russians. That too needs to be fixed. Volunteer Marek 16:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a new section on the talk page where we discuss how to best include torture by Russia? Masebrock (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek @Masebrock As I did not apply the 1RR edit notice until 21:28, 29 Nov, I am going to cut some slack here. But everybody needs to be careful about this restriction. I do not want a bunch of reverting going on. Editors should seek consensus before making major and potentially controversial changes to the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

With a bit of understanding and common sense, I'm sure we'll survive this torment. Thanks for showing tact, Ad Orientem Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)