Misplaced Pages

Talk:Torture in Ukraine: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:43, 26 November 2022 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,171 edits →Volunteer battalions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:58, 27 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,951,822 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(147 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice |e-e |style=long |1RR=yes}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=17 May 2022 |result='''keep''' |page=Torture in Ukraine}} {{Old AfD multi |date=17 May 2022 |result='''keep''' |page=Torture in Ukraine}}
{{Merged-to|Human rights in Ukraine|3 December 2022}}

{{Talk page of redirect}}
{{ds/talk notice|e-e|style=long}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|1= {{WikiProject banner shell |collapsed=yes |1=
{{WikiProject Crime|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=NA}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Human rights |importance=NA}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=Start|importance=Low|ethics=y |social-and-political=y}} {{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=NA |ethics=y |social-and-political=y}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Psychology |importance=NA}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Ukraine |importance=NA}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Torture in Ukraine/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 125K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}} }}
{{reqimage|in=Ukraine}}
{{Annual readership|scale=sqrt}}

==Untitled==
Article seems to be heavily sensationalised with severe lack of sources. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)</small>

== Heavily sensationalised? ==

The article lacks citation and seems to be heavily sensationalised. ] (]) 15:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

== Lack of sources and written with bias ==

Many of the claims made are not cited or cited incorrectly. Persuasive language is also used excessively throughout the article often with broad claims. ] (]) 17:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


== Russian propaganda ==

Article seems like Russian propaganda
] (]) 20:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

:Absolutely, it was created for Propaganda!
:I found at least 10 tweets referring to this low quality article created within ~4 months.
:It's very misleading, it's taking about crimes committed before 2014 and after 2014 with making a distinction between the Yanukovych regime (<2014, pro-Russian & authoritarian) and the post revolution Ukraine.
:Basically this article helps spread misinformation.
:It must be deleted, because its existence insinuates that Ukraine has a torture problem on a scale that doesn't exist in other countries (which don't have such articles), and that's just not true. ] (]) 03:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

== Torture in Ukraine is incorrectly reference ==

A long passage is quoted as being from a der Speigel article, however the reference (number 12) is not to the primary source, but to a secondary one “Human Rights”. ] (]) 16:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

== I have removed links to victims of Russia ==

I am not sure if the HRW external link should be used. ] (]) 07:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

:This article is incomplete and as a result places ] on Ukrainian government issues while completely ignoring the torture by Russian occupiers and Russian proxies. Please refer to the content tags at the top of the article.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
::I understand the problem, but the page does not describe Russian crimes, so a selected fact misinforms. I do not know if the page is needed, there ia a page about War crimes.] (]) 06:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

== Move to draft, merge, or delete ==

This article has been flagged for serious problems for six months. I can see three possible remedies:

* '''Move to draft: space''', anticipating a rewrite or addition of material
* '''Merge''' any useful sourced material to ], ], and ]
* '''Delete'''

&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

:Not sure yet what to do. But the sourcing is raising suspicions. Why is so much sourced to books that are difficult to check? Why does one of the books have an intro saying that the Western media have the conflict wrong? Why is one claim (about OPCAT) in apparent contradiction to an easy-to-check authoritative source? ] (]) 20:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
:None of the three suggestions are valid topics for RfC; see ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 21:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|Redrose64}} yet the article clearly has a desperate need of outside input. I just put notices on some related talk pages. Can you help further? ] (]) 22:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
::The RFC is not for one of those topics. It is to decide which process to start. If you prefer, we can just file an RFD and be done with it. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:::For the moment, I am content with the collaborative process we have started. Come to agreement on the value (or lack thereof) of a source, then act on that consensus. ] (]) 01:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The article was some awful garbage with pretty blatant misrepresentation of sources and obviously willful POV pushing if not outright lying about what sources actually say. I tried to clean it up, but yeah, probably best to '''Merge''' to the ] article.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:This is such a weird stubby little article. I'd agree to merge, whatever well referenced materiel it has, or frankly just delete it. ] (]) 07:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have laughed at this sourcing before. Is this a spinoff of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, maybe? I lean heavily to *delete* but if somebody thinks there is useful stuff here I am willing to listen. For a start: that 2015 source. It just isn't fair to rely on a source that old, and that's before I start asking who that author and that publisher are. I am absolutely positive that I have said this before. Definitely have think these thoughts.For anyone who may be unfamiliar: seven years ago Ukraine was just barely independent and still in the grip of oligarchs. Any book published in 2015 will largely be dealing with Ukraine when it it was de facto a Russian client state. There is a case to be made that nonetheless these events (assuming they are true) took place on Ukrainian soil. If we decide this is the case, then we need to be clear about the time element, and make it clear who was running these institutions at the time ] (]) 08:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes, it's pretty obvious this was created as a ]. Oh, screw it, I'll just redirect it.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Any of the choices above would probably be acceptable to me but the sooner the better in my humble opinion. Otherwise why even have an encyclopedia if it says things that that probably aren't true and that it does not source? ] (]) 12:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::I can't believe we still have this article. It was indeed worse when I laughed at it before. I don't claim that every Ukrainian policeman or soldier has clean hands, but the referencing here is appalling and absolutely unacceptable. How can we go on for three sentences about some Der Spiegel article and then not provide a reference? I dropped some cn tags but couldn't get all the way through the article. Has anybody nominated this for deletion yet? Who wrote this article? ] (]) 08:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::] did. ] (]) 08:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

::: (answering my own question) Somebody named RaiderQ made 21 of his/her 27 total edits to this page and disappeared. I mean. AGF is a fine policy and all but. How long are we going to take to disprove all these claims one by one while the article stays up? And was RaiderQ competent to remove the original redirect in the first place? I need a nice cup of tea and a lie-down. ] (]) 08:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

::: Answering my own other question: Aha, when I come out of mobile view I see that yes, somebody nominated it for deletion, and it was me. No wonder I had déja vu. And I'm an inclusionist, mind you, and never nominate anything for deletion.

::: I stand by my earlier position that sure, such things did arguably happen, but if they are "documented" we definitely don't show that here. The overall article is POINTY garbage that we have hosted for seven years. The more people verify it, the more problems they find. Possibly one or two or three of the sources may be salvageable. I have no objection to anyone using them to rewrite this into an article that does not misrepresent its sources, if somebody wants to do that ] (]) 09:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to ] in my humble opinion as this looks like a ] - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 22:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
: It does look like a POV fork. And yet, according to ], the second article is a POV fork of this. Which would actually make ] the POV fork. Which is crazy, because that article has some relation to ], while this one does not, or at least did not until recently. The definitions are tidier than the reality. I don't have a good answer to it. ] (]) 23:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::The policy ] trumps that content guideline. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 23:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)



.

== Ukraine over the Edge -- reliable or not? ==

A look at one of the sources for the article leaves me concerned.

Here, the preface is publicly available. . I'll quote a portion of the first paragraph. If a source is saying the West misrepresented the whole thing, that's an indication there might be a problem.

''Having studied the nature of terrorism in Russia's North Caucasus, the causes and courses of the 2008 Georgian-Russian war, and other events involving Russia, I had seen a pattern of misrepresentation of these events by by most Western, especially American, media, academic, and Government sources. There was a clear sense that this pattern was being repeated with regard to the events on the Maidan. Hence, I decided to investigate matters for myself and have come to a distinctly different conclusion regarding them than that imparted on the Western public.''

The book says it is published by ]. A brief look at their Misplaced Pages article does not show any red flags. But the intro quoted above does. ] (]) 19:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

:I found two academic reviews. (I have not read the book.)
: by a doctoral student at a ''faculty of biochemical engineering'' at the time. It describes a geopolitical approach to the views, citing Russian fascist ] (!) among others.
: is by Ukraine expert ]. It describes the book as following a “five-point template on the Ukraine–Russia crisis deferential to Russia and first developed by ] and Nicolai Pedro .&nbsp;.&nbsp;. The template includes blaming the West and the Ukrainian authorities for the crisis; describing Crimea as always ‘Russian’; depicting Ukraine as an artificial, regionally divided and failed state; downplaying Russian military intervention and describing the conflict as a ‘civil war’; and exaggerating Ukrainian nationalism while downplaying Russian nationalism.”
:Hahn is not a Ukraine expert. His own statement quoted above puts him at odds with mainstream media, academic, and government sources. The source can be objectively classified as borderline ] according to our guidelines. It should not be used to support statements that can be supported by clearly reliable sources, and is only suitable if used with attribution as an opinion. It is not needed to source the (too-vague and context-free) statements that it is used for in the text of the article and the citation should be removed. It should not be included in the “References” section without a caveat, or at all. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 16:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::Elsewhere Kuzio goes into more depth about Hahn (2018) and other similar sources’ pro-Kremlin misinterpretations, and says the book “includes so many mistakes that it would require a separate chapter to discuss them.” &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::: The source had been used as the only source for assertions of crimes. You don't seem to think that's appropriate, and I also have serious misgivings about the source. So I just deleted it from the article. ] (]) 01:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::::This is not what WP:FRINGE means. One critical review of Kuzio (why should we trust him, btw?) does not mean it's an unreliable source. Even in the quote you've cited Kuzio doesn't accuse Hahn of publishing falsehoods. The proper venue for the reliability discussions is WP:RSN. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::]: “in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.”
:::::Hahn literally defines his own views as “a distinctly different conclusion” from that “imparted on the Western public” by “most Western, especially American, media, academic, and Government sources.”
:::::Kuzio offers a framework of major themes that let us identify a group of writers that occupy this particular fringe, and confirm this with reference to their statements. I haven’t read Hahn’s book, but his main theses are pretty obvious after skimming over the contents and a few pages inside.
:::::I described it as “borderline fringe” because there are some prominent figures that advocate the “Russia is defending itself against the only real empire by violently colonizing Ukraine” view. But that was a mistake. This is an example of a worldview absolutely contrary to the academic consensus. Precisely WP:fringe.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


== Partial hoax? == == Partial hoax? ==
Line 111: Line 24:
Not sure what to make of the paragraph starting with "On many occasions, the European Committee . . ." in the current version. At least one portion of it fails a rather obvious check. The last sentence says "Currently, Belarus and Ukraine are the only European nations that have not implemented the independent torture prevention system OPCAT (Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture)". However, when I go to https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CAT-OP&Lang=en, it shows that Belarus and Russia have not ratified OPCAT. Russia is a partly European country. Furthermore, it shows that Ukraine signed in 2005 and ratified in 2006. I don't know what "implemented" means. But it is concerning that the text is at variance with a presumably-authoritative source. ] (]) 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Not sure what to make of the paragraph starting with "On many occasions, the European Committee . . ." in the current version. At least one portion of it fails a rather obvious check. The last sentence says "Currently, Belarus and Ukraine are the only European nations that have not implemented the independent torture prevention system OPCAT (Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture)". However, when I go to https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CAT-OP&Lang=en, it shows that Belarus and Russia have not ratified OPCAT. Russia is a partly European country. Furthermore, it shows that Ukraine signed in 2005 and ratified in 2006. I don't know what "implemented" means. But it is concerning that the text is at variance with a presumably-authoritative source. ] (]) 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


:Sorry, @], I missed this thread. I noticed it now because I'm reviewing the discussions for the thread at ANI. The source is Kuzio 2015, p. 482, which has been misquoted, as you rightly noted. This is not a hoax, it's just the usual sloppy treatment of sources; the author of the article wrongly added {{tq|Currently}} to Kuzio and changed "EU’s Eastern Partnership" with {{tq|European nations}}. Here's the full quotation by Kuzio: {{tqb|In April 2010, Amnesty International called upon President Yanukovych and his government to ensure accountability for human rights abuses by bringing the country’s law and practices into line with international standards. Ukraine and Belarus were the only countries in the EU’s Eastern Partnership that have not implemented the independent national torture prevention mechanism (OPCAT Protocol), the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Four other Eastern Partnership countries – Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, and even authoritarian Azerbaijan – had taken this step. Amnesty outlined recommendations …}}. "Failed implementation" means that as 2010 Ukraine had failed to up the so-called National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) for the prevention of torture. ] (]) (]) 12:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
==Redirect needed==
::Ukraine informed the UN OHCHR that it had designated an agency as NPM in December 2012. I’m no expert, but I think that means the passage was outdated and misleading. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 14:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This must redirect to ].--] (]) 22:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Absolutely, both outdated and misleading. No one reverted Adoring nanny when they removed it. ] (]) (]) 14:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


== Please stop using false edit summaries ==
:Please contribute in ], above. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


{{ping|Gitz6666}} please don't use fall and dishonest edit summaries like you did . Neither I, nor all the other people that objected to this material, did NOT claim that "Amnesty International, Voice of America, The Times, the UN monitoring mission, Human Rights Watch and Der Spiegel" are unreliable. I, and others, have pointed out that these sources '''have been misrepresented'''.
== Source broken link, overreliance on single source ==


This has been pointed out to you like half a dozen times by now. The fact that you make this completely false claim in your edit summary really bespeaks to your good faith here.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Many of the most serious allegations in the article (volunteer unit war crimes, SBU prisons, etc) rely on a single source - de Ploeg, Chris (2017) ''Ukraine in the Crossfire'', Atlanta Clarity Press ISBN 978-9978965-4-1. The link on the source, however, points to the next one, and does not actually link to the source. In fact, based on a google search, the ISBN is also wrong. Based on the author's personal blog it seems like the source is likely to be inherently biased, and has no inherent qualification to write on such a subject ("investigative journalist") and/or OR concerns. I have not been able to find any English language criticism of it to directly show that it is an unreliable source, but also the fact that there is no mention probably means that most RS consider it of so little value to be barely worth a mention.


:So what are you objecting to, then? ] (]) (]) 22:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
As many other people have pointed out above, this entire article is quite contentious. I will be notifying the author of the page on their talk page, and if there is no reply here or there in 24 hours, I'll ] blank the page. ] (]) 22:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::You using false edit summaries. I thought I was clear. Do you want me to put it in more explicit terms? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes please, more explicit terms. Tell us which source was misrepresented and/or where is the lie. ] (]) (]) 23:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Already did. Multiple times. . . . . . . . How many freakin' more times can I explain it? You're simply engaging in ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::I hear very well, and your emphasis cannot hide what is there for all to see. After a failed AfD and against the reasoned opposition of at least three editors, a decent and well-sourced article on a notable topic, an article that had been here for years, was repeatedly wiped out without necessity, as the points you raised (past tense/present tense, the Tornado battalion not "infamous", etc.) were in fact very minor and easily manageable with a bit of cooperation. I said from the beginning that the article needed to be improved and balanced, but your overly contentious way of doing makes everything more difficult. By now we could have easily written a section on torture by pro-Russian forces without all this edit warring. ] (]) (]) 01:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::Apparently not, since:
::::::*The AfD was "keep" but almost all keep votes also said the article needed to be rewritten and cleaned up. This has been already pointed out to you by, among others, the very people who voted keep in the discussion. . . (quote: ''"I would like to note (...) that I think we all agree that pretty much the entirety of the content of the article as it was should be thrown out. That part, I think, is consensus."'') You have been and are ignoring this. ].
::::::*There was no "reasoned opposition" by three editors. There's you and Masebrock who keep restoring false citations of sources which simply do not say what you claim they say. OTOH, before you two showed up, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and myself all expressed the view that the article should either be redirected or completely rewritten. That's NINE users against the two of you. There's your consensus. And it's not with you. False claims of having consensus are also an example of ]
::::::*The points I raised were NOT "in fact very minor". Unless you happen to think that a text that lies about what a source says is a "minor point". They were NOT "easily manageable" since the two of you are edit warring so hard to keep restoring these blatant falsifications.
::::::*If you really think that of the article, as created by its original author (an ] account with barely 20 edits, all of them over the top POV) even though it was chuck full of lying about what sources said and other types of ] POV pushing, that that version was ... "decent", then I'm sorry but you have no business editing not just this topic (as other people have pointed out several times to you already) but an encyclopedia overall. ] is required.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::: You haven't been able to point out any lies in the text but some very minor mistakes that anyone could fix if they were concerned about the quality of the article rather than the reputation of the Ukrainian government. This is not an article on Ukraine vs Russia, but on torturers vs tortured, and sources include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Ukrainian NGOs, the OHCHR, The Times, Der Spiegel, VOA, NYT and more; these sources are not misrepresented. We shouldn't wipe it out but add other contents, so as to have if not the full picture, a more balanced and complete account. We all know that the text was improvable, and it still can improve, if you stop removing big chunks of text from it.
:::::::: Re consensus, the integrity of the article has been defended recently not only by ] and me, but also by ]; in the past also ], ], ] have remverted similar attempts to undermine the article; at the AfD ], ], ], ], ] and ] wanted this article to survive and improve rather than be deleted or merged. This article has been here for years and the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a good reason for getting rid of it. You beheve as if you have a strong consensus behind but I doubt that you do. ] (]) (]) 09:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Okay, hang on there just a sec. Don't put words in my mouth here. My only comment on the AfD discussion was that I believe the subject of the article is ''noteworthy enough'' for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. That's not an immutable case of me "wanting the article to survive." I tend to dislike any article being deleted when the topic is noteworthy, but I said ''even in the AFD discussion'' that the only way this article could meet the standards of inclusion (and I was not alone in this thinking) was that it's a ] situation, and that means that huge sections of the article (and possibly the ''entire'' article) are going to be removed and later rewritten. In my view, sourcing an article reliably takes precedence over its noteworthiness, and if the sources are in question, then we're not hurting anything by removing contentious material until it can be properly sourced. ] My comments on the AFD discussion shouldn't be taken as any kind of "consensus" on the contents of the article - my only opinion is that ''the article should exist.'' Anything AT ALL beyond that is a misrepresentation of what I said in AFD. ] (]) 21:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::No, do not misrepresent me. I changed my mind when it was 1) clear no one had improved the article ] for weeks, and 2) I looked closer and realized the content wasn’t just one-sided but reflecting a strong agenda.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 23:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Yup to Volunteer Marek. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


{{od}} DECENT AND WELL-SOURCED ARTICLE. DECENT AND WELL-SOURCED ARTICLE???? Look, Michael '''told''' you that AfD relates to the notability of the topic. Only. No shame in not knowing that; I didn't either when I nominated the article for deletion. I nominated because it was a cynical and I will say it, '''evil''' piece of disinformation and it revolted me. That is apparently the wrong reason to AfD; live and learn. I agree that the topic is notable. I also agree that the article as written was almost entirely false. What sends my blood pressure skyrocketing here is that you know you know you know that, you have been told that on this very page, and there is no way you could not have seen that point made. Do you giggle when you write this stuff???? ] (]) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:Never mind, the author's user page seems to be deleted and inactive, and the rest of the major contributors that aren't removing content are all IPs. ] (]) 22:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:I agree, the article is extremely incomplete and extremely biased. Welcome to improve. Unfortunately, I can not help much because I am busy and uncomfortable with editing such subjects. ] (]) 03:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:], who doesn’t mince words, names Ploeg among “'']'' scholars” in “,” giving examples of Ploeg using anti-Ukrainian tropes.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 00:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::Good, we have a source for that then. Thank you. ] (]) 05:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::Chris Kaspar de Ploeg is Writer – Speaker – Organizer https://www.chrisdeploeg.com/
::He does not claim to be a scholar. ] (]) 08:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::Google Scholar shows 38 quotations, 4 of them by Kuzio. ] (]) 09:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Please feel free to be bold and delete it. ] (]) 07:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Bias is not a sufficient reason to dismiss a source (per ]). Academics criticise each other all the time, the existence of such criticism doesn't mean we need to purge everything from the article. The proper venue for the reliability discussion is WP:RSN. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Bias doesn't even come into play for the simple reason that whoever wrote this piece of shit article was straight up lying about what's in the sources. For example, the Amnesty International source that was in here states explicitly that it was Russian militias in Donbass who murdered prisoners yet the author of this garbage wrote that it was Ukrainian police. You keep on insisting on restoring that kind of stuff... yeah, discretionary sanctions and all. Consider this a formal notification of DS.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::::As much as I agree with you it's probably a good idea to AGF, for now. ] (]) 09:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::Except this isn't ordinary criticism. Kuzio is essentially accusing de Ploeg (corroborated by de Ploeg's own blog) of being a crackpot/POV pusher. Granted, Putinversteher can also mean someone like Mearsheimer, but this is clearly not the case with de Ploeg. It falls squarely within ] (and I thought ] was for news sources not individual academics anyways). Nobody would, for example, consider using Grover Furr as a serious source on Stalin even though he has "only" been "criticised by some academics". ] (]) 07:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Feel free to open an RSN discussion if you feel that is the right place to have this discussion. ] (]) 07:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I would direct you to Chotiner’s remarkable recent interview of Mearsheimer in ''The New Yorker''. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Based on the discussion, I feel like we have consensus to blank. Doing it now ] (]) 09:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


::Oh wait. Who redirected it? I feel like torture in Ukraine does encompass more than just 2022. ] (]) 09:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC) ::unless he is topic banned he will simply edit it back to say that Ukrainians did something bad, then when someone objects he will complain that he is being personally attacked. Been doing this since at least June. ] (]) 10:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::We did and still do. ] (]) 10:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC) :::You can request that the article be locked, so we can prevent this kind of back and forth again. ] (]) 16:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Possibly, but this is definitely not that. I have zero objection to a well-sourced article about actual torture in Ukraine, and considering the massive trauma on both sides there likely were some instances of it. There were as I recall extrajudicial killings in the Euromaidan period, but that was when Ukraine was functionally Russia, and if we are going by boundaries, ok then, are there any legit cases of that mentioned here? If there is anything in this article that is accurate and sourced then let us by all means merge it into an appropriate article until/if there is enough of it for a stand-alone article. ] (]) 13:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Fair. I felt like a better solution would be to blow it all up and start over again. ] (]) 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::I am not against that if you can find anything in there worth using ] (]) 10:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


== And more over the top blatant POV not based on sources ==
Thanks, all.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


{{ping|Masebrock}} - Please provide a citation for the text ''" numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented"'' which you added to the lede . Otherwise self revert. Including highly POV text with no citations and unbacked by reliable sources is quintessential ] and ] editing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:This article needs improvement: it shouldn't be deleted. The subject is notable (we already have ], ], ], ], ], ]) and there's plenty of sources on it. Over the weekend I intend to spend a couple of hours improving the sources and the text - it's shouldn't be too difficult. In the meantime, if you think the article must be deleted, the right way to proceed is to open another AfD. Since the previous one ended with '''Keep''' , a brief discussion on the talk page cannot override that consensus. Please remember that the ARBCOM has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit this article. Deleting the article without consensus may be regarded as highly disruptive. ] (]) (]) 10:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::Let me add that instead of spending time discussing about how bad is this article and the need to delete it, editors could easily improve it with sources or - and this would be even better - they could write a brand new article on ]. We now only have a section on this topic in ], which could easily be expanded, updated and become a self-standing article. ] (]) (]) 11:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I would like to note (before the arbcom threats are thrown around) that I think we all agree that pretty much the entirety of the content of the article as it was should be thrown out. That part, I think, is consensus. ] (]) 11:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::;Exactly ] (]) 10:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::@] ] (]) 11:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::Agree. If anyone wants this to be an article - and Gitz6666, please stop ]ing and reverting my edits, I’ve asked you several times before and my patience is running out - then don’t restore the garbage that was before but rewrite it from scratch. Perhaps start with a minimal NPOV stub. Most definitely DONT try to limit the scope of the article only to torture allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine police since the main subject here is torture perpetrated by Russian and pro Russian forces.
::Also, I guess we can put any claims of “I’m just trying to be balanced and neutral” aside here Huh? Why would anyone who’s trying to be balanced and neutral restore such an obvious piece of propaganda junk? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::: I do not, yet, have an opinion whether the article should exist or not. But I am certain that the material I deleted in this edit does not belong. Hahn's own preface says he is in opposition to Western sources generally. That's pretty much the definition of ]. I am going to stay out of the delete/restore wars for now. But the Restore people need to think about just what they are restoring. The Hahn material should not be restored. I haven't gone through VM's subsequent deletions to see if they shouldn't be restored either. But if you are restoring, it could be a good idea to consider just what you are restoring. ] (]) 14:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Please have a look at how I modified that paragraph. Hahn is biased but not necessarily unreliable and what he is claiming is quite trivial and obviously true: {{tq|It is likely that the volunteer battalions are responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces}}. Arguing the contrary, would imply that most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces were committed by the Ukrainian regular army, which is absurd. Moreover, that sentence is also supported by the Ukrainian human rights organisation that published this report:
::::{{cite book |last1= Gladun|first1=Andrii | last2=Val’ko |first2=Svitlana |last3= Movchan|first3=Serhiy |last4=Martynenko |first4=Oleg |last5= Smelyanska|first5=Yanina |year= 2017|title=Unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine|url= https://helsinki.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ZVIT-engl_New1.pdf|publication-place=Kyiv|publisher= ], ], NGO "Truth Hounds"|isbn= 978-966-97584-4-6}}
::::What is questionable, however, is the sentence {{tq|Despite of the exceptionally serious nature of the crime activities, Ukrainian civil society prefers to ignore them in public discussions}}. I added a template:citation needed, but probably that sentence (which is not supported by Hahn, as far as I see) must be removed. ] (]) (]) 14:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::It is all too much for me at the moment. Lately there does appear to be some movement towards a compromise on the delete/restore war. I think that's a good idea. Things were being restored that should not be restored. But there is precedent for similar articles related to other countries. ] (]) 14:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::No, that sounds extremely dubious or at least badly out of date: requires clarification and at least one or more reliable sources. Nearly all of the ] only existed as such for less than a year of an eight year war.
:::::The statement in isolation is also undue and potentially misleading, as it is clear now that Russian forces, the FSB, and other Russian organizations are responsible for orders of magnitude more torture across the Ukrainian war zone, which includes a systematic program or programs of illegal kidnapping, torture, disappearance, deportation, and murder. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::I plan to ask material from twitter OSINTers to contribute to the article. To prevent canvassing or reliability issues I'm not going to do so until I get sufficient amounts of ok from y'all ] (]) 20:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Twitter OSINT isn’t considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Any material needs to be sourced o ].<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, I meant getting their help to dredge up sources (and possibly photographs?). But I see your point. ] (]) 04:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::] has a number of reports that may be useful. Many are quarterly or periodic, but some are more comprehensive, including these:
:::::::*
:::::::*
:::::::*
:::::::&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 00:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


Currently there are four sources given for this claim.
I took a look at de Ploeg. Not a reliable source. Self described “investigative journalist” which is already a huge red flag these days. His journalistic publications are in things I never heard of like something called “Follow the money” and “Dissident voice”. Over the top rhetoric. Weird essays about “decolonizing spirituality” and “subversive potential of spiritual epistemologies”. I don’t know recent history academia page is but it says he is an undergraduate student. Clarity Press, the publisher of the book is not a reputable press. No way we’re using this for controversial info.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
: Looking at his blog, my initial reaction is skepticism. I certainly don't think people who want to use him have met ]. ] (]) 22:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


Source #1 is CBS news It's about mass graves found after liberation of Kherson. '''There's not a single sentence''' in this source claiming that there were "acts of torture of POWs" or torture of civilians committed by Ukrainian forces. Numerous or otherwise.
== 'It is highly likely that the volunteer battalions are responsible' ==


Source #2 is Human Rights Watch (a source I was accused of removing under pretense of it being unreliable whereas I in fact removed it because it was being misrepresented). It's . It's about Russian forces torturing people in Izium. It's harrowing to read as it goes into harrowing details about the kinds of torture that Ukrainians were forced to endure by Russian soldiers. '''There's not a single sentence''' in this source claiming that there were "acts of torture of POWs" or torture of civilians committed by Ukrainian forces. Numerous or otherwise.
:The paragraph quotes 2017 and 2018 sources. The 'volunteer battalions' have been reorganised or massacred since that time. ] (]) 08:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:'Ukrainian volunteer battalion "Tornado"' was disbanded in 2015. https://uacrisis.org/en/55087-need-know-case-former-tornado-battalion-servicemen ] (]) 08:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


Source #3 is BBC News. . It's about "Russian torture cells in Ukraine". Again, it's disturbing and nauseating
"highly likely", snort. If that isn't a flag for OR, I have never seen one] (]) 09:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


...
:"highly likely" is a verbatim quotation from the source (]) and the sentence is commonsensical: {{tq|It is likely that the volunteer battalions are responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces}}; the alternative hypothesis - that most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces were committed by the regular army - is indeed quite unlikely. I see nothing ] about this claim. ] (]) (]) 00:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::The original statement (since removed) is “It is likely that the volunteer battalions are responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces.”
::But it is practically meaningless without context and background. Presumably it refers to the War in Donbas in 2014 to (2018?), and if so that should be stated.
::Based on what information? And according to whose estimation? Hahn’s? Hahn is not a reliable source. See ], above. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 01:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Hahn is a reliable source. I read above and you haven't proven the contrary. He is no less biased than the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, to make a comparison. Anyway that sentence is also supported by the Ukrainian human rights organisations' report: {{tqb|The perpetrators of torture and unlawful detentions could not be identified in every single case; however, most of the victims reported that the Ukrainian volunteer battalions committed the violations. In particular, the victims recognized some members of "Shakhatrs’k" ("Tornado"), "Aidar", "Dnipro-1" and "Azov" units as perpetrators of torture, enforced disappearances and unlawful detentions}} ] (]) (]) 07:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


:::: First of all, it is policy at en-wikipedia to write about even current events in the past tense. That you don't see the problem with using present tense to describe events that, even if true, happened years ago...Dude, did you read the original post, or are you just reflexively picking an argument in favor of unquestionable Russian propaganda? But ok, if you want to talk about this (dredging up some AGF from somewhere) it needs to be in past tense and attributed, and also match the source. ] (]) 10:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


...
::::also, and I could swear someone just now explained this to you with respect to your Russian Constitution shenanigans at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, if you want to use a source/statement the onus is on you to prove that the source is reliable *for the statement you are sourcing* . If these units disbanded years ago, I don't see how any source can be reliable for proving that they "are" torturing anyone. ] (]) 10:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::So your comment here above {{tq|"highly likely", snort}} refers to the past tense? The only problem with that sentence is that it should have been {{tq|It is likely that the volunteer battalions WERE responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces}}. "Were" instead of "are". Is this the OR you were complaining about, right? ] (]) (]) 10:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::That’s meaningless as long as we have no idea what “the Ukrainian human rights organisations' report” is and what it refers to as “the violations.”&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 14:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::I'm referring always to the same source, the one I quoted here above: {{cite book |last1= Gladun|first1=Andrii | last2=Val’ko |first2=Svitlana |last3= Movchan|first3=Serhiy |last4=Martynenko |first4=Oleg |last5= Smelyanska|first5=Yanina |year= 2017|title=Unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine|url= https://helsinki.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ZVIT-engl_New1.pdf|publication-place=Kyiv|publisher= ], ], NGO "Truth Hounds"|isbn= 978-966-97584-4-6}} ] (]) (]) 14:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


:sealioning. I used small words and I think their meaning is pretty clear. We are supposed to tell the truth, yes. That the sentence does not, is reason enough to nuke the sentence, just like all the other untrue sentences we've had to nuke in this piece of garbage article, and *that* is only one of many problems. By the way, you appear to have misread the thread about Encyclopedia of Ukraine. The thread definitely doesn't say that the source is not RS. I don't know if it is in fact biased, but that is a different standard than RS. In a collaborative editing environment, we are supposed to be able to believe what you say to us. ] (]) 10:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


<s>Fuck you. Fuck you for making read this stuff. Just to check your work. Pour through these accounts of inhumanity and bestiality and pure evil just to show that you're fucking lying about how it was Ukrainians that committed "numerous acts of torture"</s>
== The subject of this article ==


...
The subject of this article IS NOT torture perpetrated by anybody within the confines of Ukrainian territory - torture committed by foreign states, that is, Russia? and why not private individuals? like the ] for instance? No, the subject of this article is torture committed by agents of the Ukrainian state. Please have a look at similar articles:
* ]: {{tq|Torture in the United States includes documented and alleged cases of torture both inside and outside the United States by members of the government, the military, law enforcement agencies...}}
* ]: {{tq|Torture in the State of Palestine refers to the use of torture and systematic degrading practices on civilians detained by Palestinian forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip}}.
We may well have an article ] or ]. Perhaps we'll need to write one, as ] is becoming too long. But this article has a different subject, which is not relevant for the ongoing war but is relevant for the Ukrainian people and for anybody who is interested in the practice of torture. Could we stop seeing everything through the lens of war? I think this war has made everybody go crazy if we think that an article on "Torture in Ukraine" must be an article about Russians torturing Ukrainians. ] (]) (]) 15:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::United States hasn’t been invaded by anyone and the obvious difference is that the majority of torture in United States HAVE NOT been committed by an outside force. The topic is torture ***IN*** Ukraine, not “Torture ***BY*** Ukrainians” (which would be POV and WP:POINT). And trying to have an article “Torture by Ukrainians” but masking it and sneaking it in (to avoid scrutiny and circumvent NPOV) as “Torture in Ukraine” is not only POV but also dishonest. This is what the original creator of the article clearly did. Trying to restore and replicate their behavior is then on par with what they attempted to do. Ban worthy.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::And yes, an article on “Torture in Ukraine” should in fact be substantially about Russians torturing Ukrainians, since that is precisely who has been responsible for majority of torture in Ukraine. That’s just very elementary NPOV.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:File a move request if you want to re-scope the article. To me, “Torture in Ukraine” means torture in Ukraine.
:It should include history going back to at least the period of Kyivan Rus, although weren’t the Scythians documented as torturing their military conquests?&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 16:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::I glanced at the standard histories. The only one with an entry for ''torture'' in the index is Plokhy, ''The Gates of Europe'', p&nbsp;114, about the torture and killing of ]’s brother Danylo by the Muscovite ''voevodas'' in 1660. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I don't understand what you're talking about. Why are you talking about Kyivan Rus, Scythians and king Danylo? Filing a move request is not necessary as this article survived the AfD in May 2022 when its subject was clearly stated in the lead: {{tq|Torture in Ukraine includes documented and alleged cases of torture committed by members of the Ukrainian government, the military, law enforcement agencies, the Security Service of Ukraine, and Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary units}}. So if you want to broaden the scope of the article, e.g. by adding a section on "Torture by Russian and Russian-affiliated forces in Ukraine", be it. But that should in no way prevent editors from reporting about torture committed by members of the Ukrainian government, the military, law enforcement agencies. This article has been basically wiped out and valuable sources removed with no effort to check them and improve the text. ] (]) (]) 18:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::AfDs, as you well know, only determine the notability of the topic. You are also conveniently failing to mention the fact that almost all those who voted "Keep" stated the article should be rewritten and... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... specifically suggested adding torture by Russia!!! (which is what you're so vehemently objecting to here, while simultaneously hiding behind the AfD result).<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::And there certainly was "an effort to check them" (sources). That's how I know that the original author of this article simply lied about what was in the sources. Just because YOU didn't check the sources before blind reverting (WP:STALK), doesn't mean the other users haven't. Indeed, it's pretty clear from the discussions above that the proposal to merge, redirect or rewrite was primarily motivated by other users checking the sources. If you haven't - that's on you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::It seems to me that the consensus for the title “Torture in Ukraine” implies a consensus on its subject being torture, in Ukraine. Not “].”
::::But you can start a conversation to confirm the consensus on defining the subject and its scope too, if you want. It seems to be clear that the current consensus is against the article, as it stood a few days ago, altogether.
::::Anyway, the Muscovite ''voevodas'' whose torture Plokhy referred to were representatives of the colonial government in Ukraine in 1660. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Volunteer Marek is correct, the topic is defined by the article title, and the Keep votes were for ''this'' article title (and ''this'' topic). Trying to make an article whose topic is unambiguous into an article about something else is disruptive editing. Don't do that. Given the widespread and detailed coverage in RS of torture in the 2022 Russian invasion, it should be one of the main focuses. The other major focus, also well represented in RS, would be ''the previous time'' Russia invaded the country and . <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 21:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::So because the Ukrainian people have been invaded, killed and tortured by the Russian regime, reporting that they've also suffered at the hands of their own government becomes inherently UNDUE. Ukrainian human rights organisations have been vocal in denouncing the practice of torture by government officials and agents, and amongst other things they've published a courageous report on ''''. And what do we do while brandishing NPOV? We remove this source and silence them because our task is to keep the right ] between Russian and Ukrainian torturers rather than informing about torture in Ukraine. This is a consequence of the way we re-framed the subject of this article by making it an article on the war in Ukraine: the efforts of human rights organisations in documenting torture perpetrated by state authorities must now be balanced and outweighed by the numerous news reports on torture inflicted by Russians forces.
::::::But this is not a consequence of our commitment to NPOV and is entirely at odds with what has been done in all our "Torture in (country XY)" articles: the reason we focus on country XY is because it bears some responsibility for torture rather than because torture took place within its borders. This reshaping of the article's subject from the original {{tq|Torture in Ukraine includes documented and alleged cases of torture committed by members of the Ukrainian government, the military, law enforcement agencies, the Security Service of Ukraine, and Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary units}} to the present {{tq|Torture in Ukraine involves documented and alleged cases of torture committed within the borders of Ukraine}} is neither in the interest of the Ukrainian people nor in the the interest of the Encyclopaedia: from this defective but promising article we have now reached the present ridiculous, useless stub, which is ready to be transformed into a redirect to ], thus accomplishing what the AfD didn't achieve. ] (]) (]) 21:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Nobody said it was "undue" to include torture by Ukrainians. Please cut it out with the attempted bait-and-switch, no one here is falling for it. If someone says "Article should include X" and then you come along and start yelling "SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT Y is UNDUE" that's not a good faithed conversation.
:::::::The stuff about torture by Ukrainian services can be included. What CANNOT be done though is falsely presenting this torture which happened before 2014 and the Revolution of Dignity '''in present tense'''. I assume you know how temporality works, so you're aware that pre-2014 is different than 2022 and hence pretending that what was happening in, say 2012 (when Ukrainian government was dominated by Russian puppets) is what is happening is 2022 is simply dishonest. This is exactly what the original text written by the original author tried to do. You can put in stuff about torture in Ukraine by Ukrainian security forces under Yanukovych and other pro-Russian puppets (as an aside why do you think the Euromaidan happened in the first place???) just stop pretending that it wasn't them but is happening now.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 00:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::YOU REMOVED IT! That's incredible, {{tq|Nobody said it was "undue"}}. Please, note what you've done:
::::::::* removing {{tq|In 2017, ] reported that during the ] there was overwhelming evidence of ongoing ]s, including torture and mass murders}};
::::::::* removing {{tq|In a 2017 report on unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in Eastern Ukraine, ], ] and other NGOs documented 19 cases of torture and ill-treatment mostly taking place in 2014-2015}};
::::::::* again removing the same text (and more).
::::::::] (]) (]) 01:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::jfc, look at the very first diff you provide. What does the edit summary say? What does that word mean? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Feel free to provide any diffs where I am removing stuff because I claim it is "undue". If you can't then you should strike the above claim.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Indeed it was Cambial Yellowing claiming here above that {{tq|Given the widespread and detailed coverage in RS of torture in the 2022 Russian invasion, it should be one of the main focuses}}, and my comment was replying to him. You, on the other hand, claimed many times that the text you removed misrepresented the sources, e.g., {{tq|this piece of shit article was straight up lying about what's in the sources}}, which is not true: the text could be improved, but the way it dealt with the sources was quite accurate. On this, see here below my collapsible hat with the title {{tq|Text removed by VM. Detailed analysis of the sources}}. ] (]) (]) 13:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Also please stop lecturing us about what is "in the interest of Ukrainian people". It's... obnoxious, to put it mildly, especially given your editing history.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Please mind ]. ] (]) (]) 08:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


I feel sick. Going outside to breath.
{{od}} Now what did I tell you, Gitz, about doing obnoxious stuff and then complaining that people aren't nice enough the gazillionth time you tie everyone up arguing about the ridiculous? Are you taking a break from claiming that the Russian Constitution is a reliable source? Don't you dare claim that people here are uncivil. I used to make excuses for you, but all that po-boy stuff about how you don't speak English too well doesn't fly any more. AGF one last time: You do a huge amount of damage and if it isn't deliberate you *really* need to learn to listen. ] (]) 09:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


<s>Fuck you.</s><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:Please refrain from ]. This behaviour is unacceptable. ] (]) (]) 10:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


:I'm ignoring the part where you say "fuck you" for now. As you know, the lead of the text summarizes content found in the body, and the sources do not have to be redundant. The following describe the numerous torture activity by Ukraine:<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=May 21, 2015 |title=Breaking Bodies: Torture and Summary Killings in Eastern Ukraine |url=https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/breaking-bodies-torture-and-summary-killings-in-eastern-ukraine/ |access-date=2022-11-25 |website=Amnesty International USA |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="You don't exist">{{Cite web |date=July 21, 2016 |title=Ukraine: "You don't exist": Arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and torture in Eastern Ukraine |url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur50/4455/2016/en/ |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=July 21, 2016 |title=Watchdogs: Civilians Detained, Tortured in Eastern Ukraine |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/watchdogs-civilians-detained-tortured-in-ukraine/3428561.html |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last= |first= |date=June 3, 2016 |title=Kiev allows torture and runs secret jails, says UN |language=en |work=] |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kiev-allows-torture-and-runs-secret-jails-says-un-vwlcrpsjn |access-date=2022-11-24 |issn=0140-0460}}</ref><!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
You, with an impressive history of being told you are wrong at the endless series of noticeboards where you have dragged the people who took issue with your misrepresentation of sources, *you* have for whatever reason chosen to overturn consensus and you are upset because I described your behaviour? And are continuing on your merry wall of text ways. Nuh uh. If we have the article it needs to be accurate, and you just misrepresented what happened at RSN. Perhaps you actually believe what you are saying, which is even sadder. You're definitely a time sink. Go start a complaint about how I won't let you explain reliable sources to me. I don't know why you, some random lawyer in Italy, choose to devote all this time to Those Poor Misunderstood Russians, but seriously dude, you are embarrassing yourself. I believe in the truth, and I really don't like bullies, and if we gotta document all cases of torture *in* Ukraine, well then fine, but I don't think you will like the results and I will have no sympathy for you. If you think that's a personal attack, which I question, there is really nothing I can say to you so...{{lang|it|ciao}}. Make sure your edits are accurate is all I have to say to you. ] (]) 12:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::The four sources you '''pretended''' support the text ''"<u>During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine</u> numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented"'' are . '''Not a single one''' of these sources support the claim you inserted into the text. They all painstakingly detail and document the torture perpetrated by '''Russian''', not Ukrainian, forces. This is 100% clear cut case of falsifying sources to push POV claims.
::Now you try to pretend that you have OTHER sources. '''They're all from 2015 and 2016'''. It is impossible for a source from 2015 or 2016 to cite something that is alleged to have happened in 2022. You are still pretending.
::This is beyond ridiculous. There are some things you simply don't lie about.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::1. These sources were not added by me. I was simply modifying the lead to match the body of the text and inadvertently did not notice that all the sources someone else added to the lead were about torture by Russia. I don't know why someone would do this but it is easily solvable 2. I also didn't notice that references to the War in Donbass had been removed from the lead. Again, easily fixable, no need for hysterics. I will make these edits now. Please stop casting aspirations, accusing me of "lying" and such. ] (]) 01:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Great! So you misrepresented sources "inadvertently". Did you also added "and Ukrainians" to that sentence about "numerous instances of torture" inadvertently? Like your fingers slipped, cuz you meant to write "Martians" but you know, the M is close to the U on the keyboard, the a to the k and so on? I know, I make mistakes like that all the time.
:::::::If you make an edit and use other people's sources for it, '''especially''' when that edit involves a very serious and contentious accusation like committing torture, then YOU take the responsibility for those sources supporting the text. Best case scenario here is that you were so keen on inserting the POV into the lede that you did not bother actually reading.
:::::::But wait. When challenged about these sources not supporting the text you... claimed there were some OTHER sources which did. Except those didn't either.
:::::::(You were NOT "simply modifying the lead to match the body of the text" since THERE IS no text of such nature in the body! You were simply adding unsupported, false, POV to the lede and pretending that the sources there supported it).<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::When I added "the Ukrainians", I thought the torture was in reference to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict that has been spanning from 2014-2022. I didn't realize that the sentence in question only referred to 2022. At any rate, it's fixed now. Please stop casting aspirations. ] (]) 02:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::I've already done it. ] (]) (]) 01:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I also would remove that reference to Ukrainian forces in the sentence {{tq|During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian .... forces have been documented}} because I don't think it's supported by sources. We have sources on torture of Russian POWs by Ukrainian forces but the scale is not comparable with what civilians have been subjected to by the Russian army. However, I would also remove from the lead section the tag:failed verification after the sentence {{tq|Prior to the Revolution of Dignity (2014) and during the war in Donbas (2014-2022), torture was perpetrated by agents of the government, the army, law enforcement agencies, the Security Service of Ukraine and, since 2014, torture has also been perpetrated by Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary units}}. We have sources on this, which I provided here above at 02:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC) in this thread: ] ] (]) (]) 01:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Thank you Gitz, you beat me to the edit. ] (]) 02:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


== Kuzio ==


:: I realize that we are all affected by these horrors. I personally cannot look at this right now. Not enough bandwidth, too much everything. Somebody please verify Gitz's fix. I had to stop myself from putting that in quotes. AGF he has now realized the problem? Peace out for now, but I'll be back. VM, breathe, buddy. ] (]) 02:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there an online way to check references to the Kuzio book? ] (]) 19:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I see ] reverts that appear to misrepresent sources (putting in '''very''' mildly) problematic. I honestly I do... - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 05:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:I checked it. It was correct, but I slightly modified it and improved the reference; I also quoted verbatim from the book. The text I published (which you removed ) was the following:
::::Feel free to tag sources that you think are misrepresented, or at bring them up on the talk page. Vaguely gesturing at an article with 25 different sources isn't useful. ] (]) 05:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:{{tqb|According to British expert ], in 2015 the Ukrainian ] possessed "the worst reputation of any of Ukraine's security forces because of human rights abuses and mistreatment, and little has changed since the Soviet era in police culture".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kuzio |first=Taras |title=Ukraine: Democratization, Corruption, and the New Russian Imperialism |publisher=Praeger Security International |year=2015 |isbn=9781440835025 |pages=481}}</ref>}} ] (]) (]) 21:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Yes @], please, tell us which sources are misrepresented here. ] (]) (]) 10:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Does Kuzio says "in 2015" or is that just when the book was published? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 00:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::@] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]. It appears to me that these are the sources. (I did a fast general scan. Am my mistaken? Let me investigate again..tomorrow okay?) - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 12:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::It's when the book was published. ] (]) (]) 00:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Hi @], sorry to be pushy, but I was reviewing the discussions in light of the ongoing thread at ANI. Did you find the time to check if any of my reverts misrepresented sources? I'm pretty sure I never misrepresented any source here, but everybody makes mistakes and I'd like to be sure I didn't miss anything, so if you have diff to share that would be helpful. ] (]) (]) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::So the "in 2015 <this and this>" is original research and synthesis.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::This issue has now been corrected. There was a brief version of this article where these sources were accidentally being misrepresented (someone had swapped out all sources of torture by Ukrainian forces out of the lead and replaced them with Russian forces, leading to a bit of chaos). This version was up for a few hours, but it has now fixed. ] (]) 16:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Specifying the year of the source so as to contextualise its claims is no OR. It's good editorial practice and we all do it all the time. ] (]) (]) 06:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
:::::::::But you’re NOT “specifying the year of the source”!!! What you are doing is taking the year of the publication and pretending, falsely, that any quote pulled from that book applies to that particular year. The text you’re trying to cram in there is NOT “in a book published in 2015 this author said…”, the text you’re trying to cram in there is basically “in the year of our lord 2015 thing was true”. You’re jumping from “book was published in 2015 about stuff that happened prior to its publication” (obviously) to “the stuff that happened, happened in the year the book was published”. THAT is original research (and POV).<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::you guys are jeering at {{user|GizzyCatBella}} now? You guys. Scroll up. VM did a pretty good job of explaining it to you, in this very thread. Yet again. ] (]) 10:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::By the way, the text {{tq|Before the Revolution of Dignity in 2014}} that you placed before the quotation by Kuzio : that's a good example of original research. I write "In 2015 Kuzio said things were bad", and that's OR because Kuzio said "things are bad" in a book published in 2015; you write "Before the Revolution of Dignity Kuzio said things were bad", thus implying that they improved after the Revolution, and that's not an OR! It's amazing, how do you explain this? ] (]) (]) 08:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Note to newcomers - there is even more stuff just like this at ], also. ] (]) 10:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC){{od}} please explain what you mean by "fixed" ] (]) 21:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Ummmm, no, you didn’t write “In 2015 Kuzio said things were bad” so I don’t know why you’re putting that in quotes and pretending that’s what the argument is about.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::And what about your {{tq|Before the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, according to British expert Taras Kuzio...}}. How is it better than my {{tq|According to British expert Taras Kuzio, in 2015...}} (in quotes)? ] (]) (]) 09:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Another relevant quotation is the following one: {{tqb|Conditions in Ukraine's policy custody and prisons have never been good and have not dramatically improved since 1991, and large numbers of Ukrainians continue to be victims of police mistreatment with torture remaining commonplace}} (p.482) ] (]) (]) 21:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Again, this "never" and "since 1991" actually means "never up until 2014" and "between 1991 and 2014" since this is when the book was published.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 00:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::My purpose here is not to complain about anyone's edits. I'm just wondering if there is an online way to check the actual source. At the moment, my impression is that the answer is no? ] (]) 21:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Incidentally, about my xx:23 edit, I went to self revert part of it, possibly the Kuzio part, but then found there had been a further big edit at xx:25. It might have been the Kuzio part. Basically, my edit did more than I wanted, but subsequent changes made that hard to untangle and I gave up. ] (]) 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The answer is "No", as far as I know, but I have the book. I was not complaining, but the article was perfectible but not disastrous. As passionate editors we should have helped it. There were a few POV claims that were not supported by sources, but there were many verifiable claims and, as far as I could see, the sources were not misrepresented. ] (]) (]) 22:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::<small>I've found a google books preview here </small>] (]) (]) 12:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::I don't know man, text outright lying about what sources say would put it in the "disastrous" category in my book but I guess different editors have different standards.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::The worst sub-standard treatment of sources I can spot - I wouldn't say "outright lying" - is what you did when you removed relevant and well-sourced materials (Amnesty international, Ukrainian HR organisations) and added misrepresentations of sources. ] (]) (]) 08:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::You mean when I removed the claim, fake-sourced to Amnesty, that the murders and torture were committed by Ukrainians (what the text you restored claimed) rather than by Russian forces and proxies (what Amnesty source actually said). Yeah, I did that. Of course.
::::::Here’s how it works. “Relevant and well sourced” is necessary. But what is also necessary, in addition to “relevance” and “reliability”, and I can’t believe I actually have to explain this to you, is that <u>the text we include actually reflects the source</u> rather than lies about what’s in it.
::::::And here you are pretending that removing fake sourcing and lies is… “misrepresenting sources”. Seriously?<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::What you just said is false. I don't think you made it on purpose, I assume your good faith, but all the text you removed was impeccably sourced. Anyway, here below you'll find a detailed analysis of the text you removed and the quoted sources. Please read carefully and tell me what do you think about this. Did you actually bother to check the sources or did you just act on the basis of your personal knowledge and expertise?
{{cot|title=Text removed by VM. Detailed analysis of the sources}}
* {{tq|In 2017, ] reported that during the ] there was overwhelming evidence of ongoing ]s, including torture and mass murders of prisoners.<ref> Amnesty International, 2017</ref>}}


====References====
SOURCE AMNESTY: "Overwhelming evidence of ongoing war crimes, including torture and summary killings of prisoners, serve as a stark reminder of the brutal practices being committed on a near-daily basis in eastern Ukraine’s conflict, Amnesty International said in a comprehensive new briefing today"

* {{tq|In Eastern Ukraine, ] (SBU) operates ] for alleged Donbass rebels where unacknowledged detention is accompanied by widespread torture and different kinds of human rights abuses. The Ukrainian government tried to deny the existence of the blacksites, but it was confirmed by multiple reports of the UN monitoring mission in Ukraine, ] and ].<ref> Amnesty International</ref><ref>https://www.voanews.com/a/watchdogs-civilians-detained-tortured-in-ukraine/3428561.html Watchdogs: Civilians Detained, Tortured in Eastern Ukraine</ref><ref> The Times</ref>}}

SOURCE THE TIMES: "Ukraine’s spy agency, the SBU, is systematically rounding up and torturing suspected rebel sympathisers, the United Nations has told The Times"

SOURCE VOA NEWS: "Arbitrary detentions, sometimes involving torture, are taking place in Eastern Ukraine both by Ukrainian authorities and Russian-backed separatists, according to a joint report released by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Thursday"

SOURCE AMNESTY: "Based on the research findings detailed in this report, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch believe unlawful, unacknowledged detentions have taken place in SBU premises in Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, Izyum, and Mariupol. We received compelling testimony from a range of sources, including recently released detainees, that as of June 2016 as many as 16 people remain in secret detention at the SBU premises in Kharkiv. Ukrainian authorities have denied operating any other detention facilities than their only official temporary detention center in Kyiv and denied having any information regarding the alleged abuses by SBU documented in this report".

* {{tq|Dutch journalist Chris Kaspar de Ploeg in his book "Ukraine in the Crossfire<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vYpXDwAAQBAJ&q=chris+kaspar+de+ploeg|title=Ukraine in the Crossfire|first=Chris Kaspar de|last=Ploeg|date=April 5, 2017|publisher=SCB Distributors|isbn=9780997896541 |via=Google Books}}</ref>" said about the prisons that their "practices happen completely in the dark" emphasizing that the supporting evidence about the facilities has been documented independently by the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.{{sfn|de Ploeg|2017|loc=The Ravages of War|p=139}}}}

SOURCE DE PLOEG: "In fact, even direct co-operation between volunteer battalions and the regular security forces in regard to torture has been documented by Human Rights Watch.14 In addition, a UN report indicated that secret prisons have been established in Ukraine, whose practices happen completely in the dark.15 Supporting evidence for these secret detentions were later provided in a report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch"

* {{tq|In 2018 Amnesty International concluded that "The investigation into the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) for its alleged secret prisons failed to make any progress. Law enforcement officials continued to use torture and other ill-treatment".<ref> Amnesty International, 2018</ref>}}

SOURCE AMNESTY (now here ): "The investigation into the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) for its alleged secret prisons failed to make any progress. Law enforcement officials continued to use torture and other ill-treatment. The Ukrainian authorities increased pressure on their critics and independent NGOs, including journalists and anti-corruption activists"
{{cob}}
:::::::] (]) (]) 09:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::There’s no reason to use disputed source De Ploeg for this. Does no undisputably reliable support what he says here?&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 14:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::* ],
:::::::::* ], and
:::::::::* ]
:::::::::] (]) (]) 14:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Gita, rather than endlessly edit warring against consensus (there’s at least four or five editors here who have raised serious objections and concerns with your edits) how about you: 1) at least make an effort to get the tense right rather than falsely suggesting that this is current practice and 2) stop trying to reinsert sources which have been rejected by multiple editors here. I suggest you make proposals here rather than edit warring again.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:Disagree that there is "consensus" to remove the well-sourced material restored by Gitz.] (]) 07:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::Thats nice. But in fact there was consensus to just redirect the article to the War Crimes article. Keeping it but cleaning it up off all the garbage was the compromise.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:Two points:
:# Could you please answer my question? You said that this {{tq|piece of shit article was straight up lying}}. Can you point to the lies? Because I see that you have removed lots of texts and sources, and in the edit summaries you've explained {{tq|whoever put the original text in simply lied about what the source actually says}}, {{tq|there's outright lying about what sources say}}, {{tq|removing outright lies and misrepresentations of sources}}, {{tq|outright lying}}, and so on, but I checked all the sources and I' sorry: I cannot see a lie.
:# Now you've just removed the text again but you no longer say it's full of lies: the problem is that I didn't get {{tq|the tense right}}. So it's a huge improvement, isn't it? And I had just restored a couple of broken links and things like that. But if the tense is wrong, why don't you modify the text instead of removing it entirely? Mind "]".
:] (]) (]) 21:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::I already gave several examples. One was that the sources discussed torture and murder by *Russian separatists* but the text in this article pretended it said “Ukrainians”. Another piece of dishonesty is pretending that stuff that happened before 2014 was actually taking place today. If someone can seriously look at the original version of this article and genuinely think “looks alright to me” then I have no choice but to question their judgement or intention. ] is required.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Please provide references, make an analysis of the text and the sources, as I did here above, otherwise I don't understand what you're talking about. I know this: I checked all the sources and I'm pretty sure the text is fully verifiable and correct. Mistakes can always happen but you should be more precise. And besides, you could always correct mistakes directly in Ns0, without removing all the text, so as to comply with ]. ] (]) (]) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}} {{Reflist-talk}}


== Proposal: Merge/redirect, or Disambig ==
== Possible sources ==


Having seen the ''cri de cœur'' at NPOVN, I have the following proposal:
* ()
#Redirect the name of the article to ]; there isn't enough pre-2022 material in this article and in the target section to justify a stand-alone article at this time. This is similar to ] which redirects to a section in the ] article. Merge any non-redundant pre-2022 material to the section.
* ()
#The torture in Ukraine following the 2022 Russian invasion is already covered in detail in the ] article, specifically in the "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" and the "Treatment of prisoners of war" sections. Therefore, instead of ''Main:Torture in Ukraine'' in the ] section, list {{Further|War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians}} and {{Further|War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Treatment of prisoners of war}}.
] (]) 03:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This approach may satisfy the needs of readers who are looking for general info, while quickly redirecting those interested in the current events to the War crimes... article. Any thoughts? -- ] (]) 04:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


:* '''Agree'''&nbsp; A good solution, thanks. While I would oppose deleting an article over a content dispute, neither the past nor current state constitutes a complete article on the subject. It can be spun off again by splitting from those other WP ones if and when they mature.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to use them ] (]) 09:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:*:Yes, I also '''agree'''. This is a good solution. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 22:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:*'''Support redirect/merge''' I think K.e. makes some good points regarding this article, and given that torture as a concept is invariably also a matter of human rights, this would make the most sense, especially given the size of the current article and most of the points made by K.e.<br> No comment on the possible changes to the Human rights in Ukraine article mentioned by others here. ] (]) 19:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


== Legislation passed at gunpoint ==


An even simpler approach is to turn this page into a disambiguation page, as in:
We should probably include the ] and the extrajudicial killings during Euromaidan. Also, did we get to the rapes yet? ] (]) 13:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:''This page may refer to:''
::*]
::*]
--] (]) 04:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:: Also ] to cover the period between 2014 and 2022. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


:How is this on topic? ] (]) (]) 18:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC) : I just call for a speedy end to this timesink of a travesty. ] (]) 09:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how merging the contents of this article with another "ends" any of the controversy. This is a proposal to ''move'', not remove. ] (]) 16:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:This seems like a reasonable approach to me. ] (]) 11:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


::How is it not? Are you asserting that rape cannot be used as a torture tactic? Just trying to clarify your thinking. Meanwhile "vote to secede or I will hurt you" seems pretty torture-like to me. Please answer in a succinct manner. ] (]) 17:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Thank you coming. I am currently speechless. ] (]) 09:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
:::{{tq|did we get to the rapes yet?}}, without a source or any reference to make the question meaningful, is not clear. My question "How is this on topic?" referred only to the part of your post that is intelligible: {{tq|We should probably include the little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War) and the extrajudicial killings during Euromaidan}}. I doubt that this has anything to do with torture. ] (]) (]) 17:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


*'''Agree'''. One issue here is content forking. Most of the torture was happening during the war(s) (i.e. ], etc.) and on the territories not controlled by the Ukrainian government. Some of them are ]s and therefore were described on other pages. On the other hand, a page "Torture in Ukraine" (not ''by'' Ukraine) must include everything at the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, i.e. such materials do belong to such page. Another issue is that sections "Before Euromaidan" and "Torture during the 2014 Russian invasion" are written essentially as an anti-Ukrainian "attack page", and in general, this page is poorly written. Overall, I feel that suggestion K.e.coffman to merge and redirect was reasonable. ] (])
:: I did not think that a good-faith editor such as yourself would question that there have been many rapes. This can be documented of course, but this is a talk page, and I am trying to understand your comment. Are you claiming that rape is off-topic for the article? If so, an RfD should resolve this. If not, please clarify.
*'''Agree''' with ]. This never happens, but I do. ] (]) 23:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Agree'''. There is not a lot of content on the pre-2014 period and I don't think that mixing pre-war 'civilian' torture and wartime torture makes sense. One more desambig alternative we should have is ] which covers the period between 2014 and 2022. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
:: Having seen u:Masebrock's !vote, I wanted to clarify that the information from this article which is not present in the main articles should be incorporated there. ]<sub>]</sub> 14:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''Agree'''. This is a good idea, as long as it doesn't result in the loss of notable content and reliable sources of this article. If they are not redundant, the pre-2022 contents of this article should be merged with that section ], which is indeed quite poor and in need of more materials.] (]) (]) 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Disgaree'''. User ] has indicated on the ] that he does NOT intend to merge the content from this page to the ] page as he suggested in this proposal, but instead intends to blank the section of torture, removing all sources from organizations such as the New York Times, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations. His rationale is that the current sources "focus on specific periods, stages of the conflict, or individual incidents" instead of providing a general overview. I disagree with his assumption that human rights pages must only speak in generalities, and I also disagree on the merits that the provided sources only speak in narrow case-specific language. And I find the argument that 2016 is too historical to be included a human rights page highly questionable at best. But anyway, '''this is not a proposal to merge. K.e.coffman is proposing to delete.''' All well sourced material describing torture by the government of Ukraine (a notable, verifiable topic) will be scrubbed from Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
{{cot|Collapsing cross-post. See: ]. --] (]) 00:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)}}
:::{{ping|Masebrock}} I should have been more specific and perhaps should have continued the discussion here, instead of starting a new one. I'm reposting my comment from ], with links added for clarity:
::::''I'm actually leaning towards blanking the section (]) and only including links to other articles via the "Further" template. My rationale is that it's currently impossible to create a balanced, stand-alone overview article / section, given the lack of sources that provide such an overview. There's press coverage and reports by human rights organizations, but they focus on specific periods, stages of the conflict, or individual incidents. I've not seen sources that discuss the topic of "torture in Ukraine" since independence (1991) to the present time (2022) in an overarching format, to establish the right balance of coverage. That's why I think that, at the current time, no overview article or even section is possible.''
::::Adding here: The ] exists and I'm not proposing to blank it; but instead use the 2016 sources there, if they are not already included. Here was my additional comment:
::::''If not already used there, this 2016 coverage can be used at ]; there are sections "Abductions and torture" and "War crimes". It would be topical there and would avoid the issue of WEIGHT in ]''.
:::Does this make sense? --] (]) 06:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::::I'm not sure where the discussion should take place. I've just added my remarks to ]. In my view, the decision to redirect the name of the article to ], which I welcome in principle, is purely editorial, meaning that it doesn't affect in any way the admittedly very controversial question of what content and sources should be reported in that section. ] (]) (]) 10:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Yes, let's continue the discussion about the contents of the section in question at ]. --] (]) 00:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
:I'm unclear on the process for this. It seems like most people here agree. Does that mean we just make the redirect and do the merge? Do we need an AfD? Something else? ] (]) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|Adoring nanny}} I redirected the article to the section ]. --] (]) 17:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


== WP: BLUE in a time of 1RR ==
::Also, I've talked to you before about the way you use speak to me. Please refrain from telling me I am unintelligible, as you have repeatedly done. It is very insulting, unless of course, this is a matter of your English, in which case I will rephrase. As you have repeatedly mentioned, you are not using your first language. Nothing wrong with that and I deal with English problems quite frequently, but you keep taking offense at the question. If you do not have a problem with English, yet you claim you do not understand a simple question, can you see that this is a personal attack that you should stop making? Please consider this a warning. ] (]) 17:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::My English might be defective, but I understand the semantics of {{tq|did we get to the rapes yet?}} Honestly I find the question a bit unpleasant and disrespectful, as if we weren't talking about real people; it's also entirely useless from an editorial point of view. I don't understand why you want to pick up a fight with me but I won't reply to this thread any further. ] (]) (]) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


Yanukovych was a Russian puppet. It had not occurred to me that a good-faith editor familiar with the history would dispute this, but ok... apparently this can be done. I took issue at ANI with the contemptuous removal of this rather factual statement; Yanukovych disputed his removal after fleeing to Moscow, for heaven's sake. Since I substantiated the material with three rather good references, I think the statement should be restored, as it is important context to some of the early instances of torture.
So you no longer wish me to explain to you how this is not off-topic then?? I am happy to oblige.


Btw I don't want to pick a fight with you, in fact I find your tone extremely unpleasant every time we speak. I do however think it is necessary to oppose your repeated edits contrary to the talk page consensus. And for the record your written English seems quite good. It's your comprehension I was wondering about, as an exercise in AGF. Particularly when you call very simple posts "incomprehensible". But fine: the answer appears to be that no we have not. Several of the sources I have posted above deal with the topic.] (]) 20:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC) I don't usually revert at all let alone operate in 1RR environments, so I am uncertain of the proper way to proceed. Since I just got home after some rather harrowing travel, for tonight I plan to limit myself here to this post and go edit grammar in medieval Sri Lanka articles or something. Will check in tomorrow. Thank you for any thoughts ] (]) 03:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
:"Pre-2014 Ukraine was a client state of Russia" is the kind of highly contentious claim that is sort of the opposite of "WP:SKY_IS_BLUE", but if you have reliable sources feel free to add it back in. ] (]) 03:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Masebrock}} You're a funny guy. You were also joking when you said that that the statement must be untrue because three Misplaced Pages pages didn't say so, right? Right? The sources for the statement are a Guardian think piece, a Barack Obama State of the Union address, and a Merriam Webster entry, all of which explicitly say exactly that. All jokes aside, I am going to await further input and go work on something uncontroversial for tonight, too tired and frazzled to put up with editors who seem to think that I need their permission. Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


:Not sure which edit this refers to.
== Sources for "Torture in Ukraine" ==
:I did tag a statement that Ukraine was a ], implying from the surrounding text that it meant by 2010, with little or no qualification or explanation. Certainly Ukraine was no Belarus, and Yanukovych was playing the resisting pressure game until the reversal on the EU AA. After that point he lost support of the West and most of his population, and the bare statement makes more sense.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 03:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


:{{ping|Mzajak}} see the "Section -- before Euromaidan" section above. It is entirely possible that I may have unartfully appeared to suggest something -- the past few days I have been editing between interruptions while traveling. The point I was trying to make is that Zelenskyy should not be tasked with the sins of Yanukovych etc., and this thought underlay my attempt to AfD the article. I have seen enough of your work to convince me that you know more about this than I do and I will gladly review your thoughts on this tomorrow. My current belief is that this is an important point of context. ] (]) 04:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC) fixing the ping: {{ping|Mzajac}}
The following are 2022 unless noted:
::Well I didn’t delete it. I thought it needed improvement based on sources, so I tagged it.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 06:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


: Yanukovych is aligned with Russia. ] was not. So the previous sttement was too broad. There is probably a different-but-similar statement we can make. But I'm not sure exactly what it is. ] (]) 10:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 14:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:: Yanukovych was a wannabe authoritarian dependent on Russia, but trying to retain as much power and autonomy as he could. Like Lukashenka in some ways. Although he did implement the demands of Medvedev’s 2009 ultimatum. But the major turning point to his personal full dependence only came in late November 2013, when he lost the support of the majority of Ukrainians and other states, and I don’t believe Ukraine ever became what can be termed a “client state” (although I am willing to consider what that means and what reliable sources say). &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


:::I am not adamant about a particular wording. I do agree that "client state" applies more to today's Belarus than to the aspects of Ukraine that I am pointing at, yet the term has also been applied to Syria, so I don't think it implies '''de jure''' administrative power necessarily. It is probably a ] in international law. Maybe we can start by looking at that definition.
] (]) 14:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


:::I do think that some statement(s) should be made about how independent from Russia Ukraine might have been prior to the Revolution of Dignity. There is the matter of Russian special forces essentially running areas of the Donbas in the frozen war, and the question of whether and when Crimea could be considered Ukraine for purposes of this article. It is also worth noting that essentially all mass media in the country were owned by Russian oligarchs. Their level of support for Putin may have varied, unsure. That is a murky topic and I don't think I did it justice when I worked on ] and related information war articles. At least one oligarch was from eastern Ukraine and possibly funded a volunteer brigade, on the other hand, as I recall.
] (]) 14:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


:::I came out of my recent travels with a sprained knee and bronchitis, and the weather is terrible, so I am essentially calling in sick on this thread at the moment and going back to bed. It is getting some thoughtful and intelligent responses so let's let the discussion play out a bit.] (]) 19:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 14:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Rather than analyzing Ukraine’s characteristic vis-à-vis ''client statehood'', let’s first see what other articles say. “]” does not define the subject as a client state or use the term. “]” currently lists Ukraine, along with Germany and the UK, as a client state of the USA, relying on some very dubious-looking sources (Ha! I think I’ll disregard that article for now). A quick search didn’t find any other articles that call Ukraine a client state, but I didn’t try very hard.
::::Next we can examine what reliable sources say. How about you finding a couple of sources that support the statement, and perhaps describe when Ukraine could be considered a Russian client state, and then we’re done.
::::Of course Crimea is considered Ukraine.
::::My understanding is that Ukrainian mass media has been largely owned by oligarchs but that created a free plurality of media sources, not too different from in the West. And unlike Russia, where the media, including that owned by oligarchs, has been increasingly beholden to the state since 1999. I could probably find a source if it’s needed.
::::Hope you get better soon. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 20:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


:::::The sources I provided in the ANI thread were: a Guardian think piece, Barack Obama in a State of the Union speech, and Merriam Webster. I will fish them out and bring them over here shortly. I am not insistent that we use that exact wording, as I said, but I am pretty sure Ukraine wasn't exactly fully independent at the time either. I wasn't accusing you of removing the text; I haven't looked to see who it was, but odds are that it was the person who had so much fun saying that it was removed in their dissertation on my supposedly disgraceful editing. I'm not even mad about it at this point, but I do think something along those lines needs to be considered in the "in Ukraine" articles. Mass media: murky subject as I said, but some of the information war materials I've looked at thought the ownership was important. I tried to update the en.wikipedia articles, but there are a lot of shell companies and ambiguous mergers/partnerships involved. We don't need to explicitly get into all that here, but it is a factor. I do not think the level of press freedom is comparable to North America's. If you have good sources about this at your fingertips, I could use them at my talk page, since talking about this here has reminded me of ], and the fact that it most likely still needs work. If you don't have them at your fingertips, don't worry about it; I can look when I come back to this. Oh and btw I didn't think much of ] either. ] (]) 22:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
{{od}} Re sources: others are probably available, but let's start with what I said about this at the ANI thread: {{tq|Ukraine was a client state<ref></ref> of Russia under ], {{tq| "a profoundly corrupt politician...seen as a proxy for Kremlin interests, and generally loyal to the idea of post-Soviet Ukraine as a Russian client state...<ref></ref>}} Also, some guy named Barack Obama reached this conclusion, and he had some pretty good information sources available to him.<ref></ref>}}. I am open to suggestions/discussion. ] (]) 00:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


:The reference ought to be to the original article, because although the dictionary is an authority on the meaning of words, it is only giving an example quotation to illustrate that and not saying Ukraine is a client state. Unfortunately the article is by a business reporter, so not really a reliable source on whether this is an accurate categorization. A lot of terms have meanings that can be used casually or informally, but I’d like to see experts in international relations or something to support this.
] (]) 14:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:The ''Guardian'' article, “Although seen as a proxy for Kremlin interests, and generally loyal to the idea of post-Soviet Ukraine as a Russian client state, he threw his weight behind an association agreement with the EU,” doesn’t actually say Ukraine was a client state, and the sentence is about how Y. might have accepted that but actually resisted it. (Often better not to go by titles and subtitles, because the editors write them.) It is consistent but not indicative with the idea that if Ukraine was a client state it was not until November 2013.
:The subject in RFE/RL is about how what Obama said seemed wrong, isn’t it? With several experts quoted saying so. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 00:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
::I think it’s the wrong term to use. Better to describe specifically what is meant. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 01:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
: Brainstorming a couple of options, with indisputably true statements:
*'''A''' {{tqb|In 2010, before the 2013–14 ] demonstrations and ], ] said . . .}}
*'''B''' {{tqb|In 2010, during the ]-backed Presidency of ], ] said . . .}} ] (]) 04:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


::mmmyeah,those are some good points. My initial reactions however are: 1) we already quote Amnesty International much too much in this article and I would prefer to diversify the sourcing a bit. Also, 2) while they can probably be described as experts in torture/civil rights, does that extend to political systems and international relations? 3) Attribution probably is a good idea, mind you; I'd prefer to attribute to someone else though. 4) Yes, the RFE says that the term seemed surprising, yet this presumes that RFE knows something Obama didn't, whereas the the converse was likely true. Whatever one may think of Obama, he was a careful man making an official statement on behalf of a country. 5) The author of the Guardian piece is a journalist who was posted to Moscow, and arguably could be considered an expert. Yes, his statement is a lot more nuanced than mine, but mine was written in circumstances so harried that I originally wrote that Russia was a Russian client state, I think it's always been a given that the BOLD would be discussed as we are here, and rewritten. 7) I don't insist on "client state", although I don't think it's unreasonable, and I think we should say *something* of the kind. I will click around a bit tomorrow and ping you two with something reworked a bit. ] (]) 06:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 14:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Why are you doubling down on this? Is there not a single good source?
:::The record of “journalists posted to Moscow” on Ukraine is crap. Remember Pulitzer winner Walter Duranty? You can’t talk to Ukrainians or even see Ukraine from Moscow.
:::In your own source an anonymous Obama staffer gives a nonsense explanation and experts say he misspoke. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


:is there not a legitimate question as to Russia's influence over Ukraine in the period? I think you are off in the weeds a bit. A lot of your objections to these specific sources are reasonable. I think I can find sources for this or some other wording, and the article would be better for the objection. My point with the journalist posted to Moscow was that this might make him an expert on Russia, but ok, this not the same as on the ground in Ukraine. But I suspect that other editors would object to a Ukrainian source. Which leaves what, the World Bank? I am pretty sure I can source some statement all my these lines, and I am not trying to include it unsourced. I've been quiet because I've been on pain meds and asleep, not because it isn't possible to find a source for this. ] (]) 17:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 14:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::Yes there is a question. The answer is not “client state” with iffy references. Find an expert that actually says it. Journalism might not be the right place. Look for academic articles or popular-academic books on Google Books or Scholar.

::Anyway, I think the answer is probably not “client state” at all. Perhaps that is not a well defined academic term (I don’t really know). My dictionary says “a nation that is dependent on another, more powerful nation,” which is inherently vague, and light years from exactly black-and-white in this age of globalization and multiple different interdependencies.
] (]) 14:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::IMO Putin never succeeded to the degree that you can call Ukraine an unqualified “client state.” The political situation was complex and changing. Ukrainians revolted when it looked like Yanukovych was going to turn their country into a client state and headed it off.

::Until late November 2013 Ukraine was actively planning European integration. Two days later, the nation was actively revolting against a government that tried to scupper the effort. In February the “patron” state was grasping at its influence so desperately that it invaded. In March 2014 Ukraine signed the Association Agreement. To me this was never a client state. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 14:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::This is way too much time spent on a contested term. In the article, explain what you actually mean, or just use terminology no one disagrees with.

:::I’m taking a break from this thread unless something new appears. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 14:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Since this article is on "Torture in Ukraine", this conversation would be more in-topic at ], ] or ]. However, it is simply false, and not supported by any RSs, that pre-Maidan Ukraine was a Russian client state. The pro-Russian Yanukovych himself had spent half of his presedency negotiating the ] and was more than willing to sign it; he gave up not because of a free political choice but because of ] (you don't start a trade war with your client state, would you?). In any case, even if one could find an RS claiming that pre-Maidan Ukraine was a client state of Russia, this nonsense would be off-topic in this article, which is about torture. If I understand the general political intent of the edit I reverted, its author should rather be looking for a source claiming that the use of torture decreased after Euromaidan and/or a source on the commitment of post-2014 governments to combat the practice of torture: anything else would be ]. So far I haven't been able to find an RS like that, but I don't doubt that it would be in-topic in this article and that we could publish (with attribution) the corresponding content. ] (]) (]) 09:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

::::: Moot at this point, but I tend to agree with that. Yanukovich could reasonably be described as a Russian client individual. One could even make a case that he would have preferred that Ukraine become a Russian client state. But he was never the state, and it did not. ] (]) 03:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 14:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

] (]) 14:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)



(2014)
[https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/new-book-recounts-prisoner-torture-in-russian-occupied-eastern-ukraine/
Atlantic Council]








] (]) 15:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

== The lead ==

We should add this sentence (or something similar) to the lead: {{tqb|Torture has been perpetrated prior to the ] and during the ] by law enforcement agencies, the ], the army and ].}}
Any reason why we shouldn't? ] (]) (]) 01:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:sources? Any reason why we *should* both-sides this? ] (]) 01:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

::* There's plenty of sources: {{tq|Torture has been perpetrated prior to the Revolution of Dignity (2014)}}<ref name="Kuzio">{{Cite book |last=Kuzio |first=Taras |title=Ukraine: Democratization, Corruption, and the New Russian Imperialism |publisher=Praeger Security International |year=2015 |isbn=9781440835025 |pages=481}}</ref> {{tq|and during the war in Donbas (2014-2022)}}<ref name="Ukrainian HR ONGs">{{cite book |last1= Gladun|first1=Andrii | last2=Val’ko |first2=Svitlana |last3= Movchan|first3=Serhiy |last4=Martynenko |first4=Oleg |last5= Smelyanska|first5=Yanina |year= 2017|title=Unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine|url= https://helsinki.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ZVIT-engl_New1.pdf|publication-place=Kyiv|publisher= ], ], NGO "Truth Hounds"|isbn= 978-966-97584-4-6}}</ref><ref name="OHCHR">{{Cite web |date=15 November 2022 |title=Ukraine / Russia: Prisoners of war |url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2022/11/ukraine-russia-prisoners-war |access-date=2022-11-25 |website=] |language=en}}</ref> {{tq|by law enforcement agencies and the Security Service of Ukraine,}}<ref name="Kuzio" /> {{tq|the army,}}<ref name="OHCHR"/> {{tq|and Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary units}}.<ref name="Ukrainian HR ONGs"/>
::* You ask {{tq|Any reason why we *should* both-sides this?}} This is an article on torture in Ukraine: don't make it an article on the war in Ukraine. The only two sides here are the tortured and the torturers. Is there any reason why we should not talk about torture during the war in Donbas? ] (]) (]) 02:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
{{od}} please desists from misrepresenting my comments. I did not advocate not talking about the war in Donbas. You said we should make a change and I asked you to support your proposed change with sources, per WP:ONUS. At the moment there is good reason not to, since (at least when I looked earlier today) there is nothing about this in the body of the article. ] (]) 21:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:::I don’t like the mixing up of the stuff from before RoD and even 2014. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:It's a good lead. It summarizes the text of the article. Easy improvement over the previous version that bizarrely only mentions torture by Russian forces. ] (]) 08:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::how do you suggest, @], we modify the lead to cover all relevant contents without mixing up stuff? ] (]) (]) 08:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
{{od}} This is just a polite reminder that the onus is on you to provide sources for the material you want to include. You can't just wave your hands and say they are many. PS: I deleted the screed you left on my talk page, but I did answer you first, in case you missed that.] (]) 15:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC) {{ping|Gitz6666}}

:Sources are provided. The lead section does not need citations per ], so we can either publish the sentence with detailed references (here above) or leave them out. Since ] and ] are not an issue here, the topic I proposed for discussion is whether this sentence belongs to the lead as it correctly describes (I believe) the content of the article. ] (]) (]) 15:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

::<small>Yes, I saw your reply before you deleted it and in terms of length you far exceeded my "screed", but unfortunately you made no commitment to avoid personal attacks in the future. Too bad.</small> ] (]) (]) 15:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

::: That is because it is not a personal attack to take issue with another editor's editing. This is why nothing happened in any of the many cases with which you have cluttered the admin boards, claiming to have been personally attacked by editors who disagreed with you.

::: It is not, for example, a personal attack to point out that your proposed lede, which you claim accurately reflects this topic, completely omits the Russian special forces units in Donbas, as well as the regular Russian Army units. Therefore I '''oppose''' the text you are proposing.

:::It is good to know that you read the talk page reply though, thanks for that reply.

:::The stuff about length is another red herring. It's my page. Don't like it, don't stalk it, and also, don't misrepresent it. I have asked you not to post there. Since I had just addressed you quite bluntly here, doing so was understandable in this instance, but if you can't understand a regex discussion you shouldn't be trying to use it as proof of my perfidity somehow. Thanks, glad we cleared that up. ] (]) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: Personally I think trying to nail down a lead would be premature. Yeah, we need one, but until the body is a bit more stable, we can't really say what it should be. ] (]) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

==== The lead. References ====
{{Reflist-talk}}

== Secret detention centers of SBU ==

How should we report the info on the ]? As you see, we already have a dedicated article on this. The original text of this article, which I have slightly improved, is as follows:

{{tqb|In Eastern Ukraine, the ] (SBU) operated ] for alleged ] where unacknowledged detention was accompanied by widespread torture and human rights abuses.<ref name="You don't exist">{{Cite web |date=July 21, 2016 |title=Ukraine: "You don't exist": Arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and torture in Eastern Ukraine |url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur50/4455/2016/en/ |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=July 21, 2016 |title=Watchdogs: Civilians Detained, Tortured in Eastern Ukraine |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/watchdogs-civilians-detained-tortured-in-ukraine/3428561.html |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last= |first= |date=June 3, 2016 |title=Kiev allows torture and runs secret jails, says UN |language=en |work=] |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kiev-allows-torture-and-runs-secret-jails-says-un-vwlcrpsjn |access-date=2022-11-24 |issn=0140-0460}}</ref> The existence of ] was denounced by multiple reports of the ]<ref>{{Cite web |date=15 August 2015 |title=Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine |url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/report-human-rights-situation-ukraine-11 |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=] |language=en |quote=a persistent pattern of arbitrary and incommunicado detention by the Ukrainian law enforcement (mainly by the Security Service of Ukraine) and by military and paramilitary units (first and foremost by the former volunteer battalions now formally incorporated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the National Guard and the police). These cases were often accompanied by torture and ill-treatment}}</ref>, ]<ref name="You don't exist" /> and ].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2014-05-07 |title=Dispatches: A Damning Silence From Kiev |url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/07/dispatches-damning-silence-kiev |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=Human Rights Watch |language=en}}</ref> Dutch journalist Chris Kaspar de Ploeg said about the prisons that their "practices happen completely in the dark" emphasizing that the supporting evidence about the facilities had been documented by a number of human rights organisations.{{sfn|de Ploeg|2017|loc=The Ravages of War|p=139}} In 2018 Amnesty International concluded that "The investigation into the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) for its alleged secret prisons failed to make any progress. Law enforcement officials continued to use torture and other ill-treatment".<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=22 February 2018 |title=Amnesty International Report 2017/18 - Ukraine |url=https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a993840a.html |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=Refworld |language=en}}</ref>}} ] (]) (]) 02:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
: TL;DR. Please make a specific proposal about a specific piece of text. Walls of text are a type of bludgeoning, and you have been told this many times. And yet here we are. ] (]) 17:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

====Secret detention centers of SBU. References====
{{Reflist-talk}}

== Volunteer battalions ==

How should we report the info on allegations of torture perpetrated by the ] and ]? The original text of this article used, amongst others, the following source that is no longer available online: {{cite book|title= The Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law in Ukraine
|year= 2016|url = https://www.globalrightscompliance.com/uploads/8613f5864bb41f1e56309ddb379b7798.pdf|location=Kyiv
|publisher= Global Rights Compliance LLP|isbn= |ref={{sfnRef|Global Rights Compliance|2016}}}} I therefore removed the corresponding text. It's not a big deal as it was probably ]. The remaining text, slightly edited and fully verifiable, is the following:
{{cot|title=text on volunteer battalions}}
{{tqb|Ukrainian volunteer battalion "Tornado" became an infamous example of torture and sadistic practices by Ukrainian paramilitary forces.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 30, 2016 |title='Tornado' Trial Tests Kyiv's Ability To Rein In Rogue Paramilitaries |url=https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-tornado-battalion-rogue-paramilitaries-kyiv-trial-crimes/28205795.html |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 April 2017 |title=What you need to know about the case of former Tornado battalion servicemen |url=https://uacrisis.org/en/55087-need-know-case-former-tornado-battalion-servicemen |website=uacrisis.org}}</ref>{{sfn|de Ploeg|2017|loc=The Ravages of War|p=138-139}} As reported by ], prisoners captured by "Tornado" were allegedly held in basements, stripped naked, placed on a concrete wall, doused with water and tortured by applying electricity to their testicles, genitals and other body parts.<ref name="Der Spiegel">{{Cite news |last=Bidder |first=Benjamin |date=2015-07-29 |title=Ukraine: Freischärler sollen Gräueltaten begangen haben |language=de |work=Der Spiegel |url=https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-prozess-gegen-pro-ukrainischer-kaempfer-a-1045801.html |access-date=2022-11-24 |issn=2195-1349}}</ref> In a statement, a former prisoner said he was forced, under threat of death, to rape another prisoner.<ref name="Der Spiegel" />{{sfn|de Ploeg|2017|loc=The Ravages of War|p=138-139}}

It is likely that the volunteer battalions were responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces.{{sfn|Hahn|2018|p=281|loc="Revolution of Dignity" or Revolution in Vain}} According to Amnesty International, in 2014 the ] was responsible for widespread abuses, including abductions, unlawful detention, ill-treatment, theft, extortion, and possible executions.<ref name="AI_Abuses">{{Cite web |date=September 8, 2014 |title=Ukraine: Abuses and war crimes by the Aidar Volunteer Battalion in the north Luhansk region |url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur50/040/2014/en/ |access-date=2022-11-23 |website= |publisher=] |language=en}}</ref> Human rights organisation documented dozens of cases of abuses and in nearly all of them the victims were subjected to beatings at the moment of capture or during interrogations, and had to pay ransom for their release or had their money and valuables stolen.<ref name="AI_Abuses" />

In a 2017 report on unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in Eastern Ukraine, ], ] and other NGOs documented 19 cases of torture and ill-treatment mostly taking place in 2014-2015.<ref name="Unlawful detentions">{{cite book |last1= Gladun|first1=Andrii | last2=Val’ko |first2=Svitlana |last3= Movchan|first3=Serhiy |last4=Martynenko |first4=Oleg |last5= Smelyanska|first5=Yanina |year= 2017|title=Unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine|url= https://helsinki.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ZVIT-engl_New1.pdf|publication-place=Kyiv|publisher= ], ], NGO "Truth Hounds"|isbn= 978-966-97584-4-6}}</ref> The Ukrainian human rights organisations concluded that the practice of illegally detaining local residents of Donetsk and Luhansk regions under suspicion of separatism was widespread during those years, and that detainees were usually subjected to torture and the seizure of their property and money by members of various volunteer battalions.<ref name="Unlawful detentions" /> The human rights organisations expressed concern about the lack of effective investigation of these crimes by the Prosecutor's Office.<ref name="Unlawful detentions" />}}
{{cob}}
What shall we do with this? My proposal: we move the first two paragraphs to ] and ], and we keep in this article the third paragraph also adding to it the sentence {{tq|It is likely that the volunteer battalions were responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces}} (that is, most of the war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces were perpetrated by the volunteer battalions rather than the regular ]). To me it is particularly important that we keep the reference to the excellent report by Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group and other NGOs, which shows the efforts by parts of Ukrainian civil society to denounce torture and stop the escalation of violence in Donbas. ] (]) (]) 11:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:Didn't we just now talk about wikivoice in that "it is likely" sentence? I have only been intermittently online the past few days, so I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that that happened.

:The rest of this is TL;DR. Please propose your changes one at a time as they will all need to be verified for accuracy. ] (]) 17:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::There's nothing wrong with using the probabilistic term "likely" if it is supported by reliable sources, which in this case it is. My only recommendation would be to add the {{cite book |last1= Gladun|first1=Andrii | last2=Val’ko |first2=Svitlana |last3= Movchan|first3=Serhiy |last4=Martynenko |first4=Oleg |last5= Smelyanska|first5=Yanina |year= 2017|title=Unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine|url= https://helsinki.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ZVIT-engl_New1.pdf|publication-place=Kyiv|publisher= ], ], NGO "Truth Hounds"|isbn= 978-966-97584-4-6}} source as a citation along with Hahn. The "Tornado battalion" section is long-standing stable content and should be restored unless consensus is formed on the Talk Page to remove. ] (]) 18:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

::I thought we already had consensus for that, but maybe it was just me agreeing with {{ping|Xx236}}. Apparently they've been disbanded for years. Stable content isn't really a good argument, when there is a consensus that Misplaced Pages has been hosting Russian propaganda for seven years. Also, there is some dispute about the Hahn book; I haven't been following the details but there are several posts about it at ] ] (]) 20:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::If Tornado has been disbanded, feel free to provide a reliable source for that and we can include it in the article. Your comment about "Russian propaganda" is going to have to expounded on as Der Spiegel is considered a reliable source. I am restoring the stable "Tornado" content unless consensus is achieved otherwise. ] (]) 20:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::”Long standing stable content” (sic) is not the argument you think it is when you consider the fact that this whole article was created as over the top POV garbage FORK and stayed that way for a couple months before anyone noticed.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::You don't get to ignore the standard rules of removing long-stable content on Misplaced Pages by making the absurd claim that "no one noticed" that this page existed. What in the world? Who says? Much of this has been here over a year. ] (]) 21:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::There’s no such rule and for good reason. Garbage is garbage regardless of how long it manages to hang around. YOU don’t get to ignore the very basic rule that sources actually have to support the text they’re citing, which is, like, bare minimum.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::] says that until consensis is acheived, the last stable version remains. This is very basic, Misplaced Pages 101 stuff. ] (]) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Masebrock}} No. ] clearly states ''"If the dispute relates to verifiability then the disputed content is not included."'' I have repeatedly said the sources are being misrepresented and the information has failed verification. Now. Please self revert.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::I have now incorporated your suggested changes to the text, so no need to revert. ] (]) 23:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::And given the numerous objections raised by multiple editors regarding this material and given the sketchy af history of this article, the consensus is needed for *inclusion* so let’s not play this little game, eh?<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::"Some people have objected" does not override the need for consensus for removal. Because obviously some people have also ''not objected''. "This article is sketchy" is also not an argument to ignore standard editing procedures. ] (]) 21:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::No. YOU need consensus for inclusion (good luck with that, seeing as how the material is so problematic that even restoring it could lead to sanctions). Stop making up rules which don't exist to justify your ] attempts to restore garbage content.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::And here is how this whole paragraph - the text included in our Misplaced Pages article - is bullshit: all three of the sources are about how *Ukrainian* authorities disbanded and initiated an investigation and persecution of one rogue battalion. Yet our text makes no mention of the fact and tries to pretend that this was some emblematic or state sanctioned formation. This is a straight up misrepresentation of sources, additionally, anyone who follows Russian social media knows that this “Tornado battalion” crap is a staple of Russian disinformation and propaganda with all kinds of crazy stories invented. So it very much looks like the creator of this article wrote up the bullshit from one set of unreliable social sources (Putinist and Russian nationalist social media) and then tacked on some reliable sources to the text to make it look legit. It’s just plain old lying.
:::::Well finally, we have some substantive content objections from you. You claim that the text tries to "pretend tries to pretend that was some emblematic or state sanctioned formation". Where? How? Which word or line says this?
:::::You claim that Der Spiegel's and RadioFreeEurope reporting on this topic are "Russian disinformation and propaganda". Yet these are considered reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. We cannot simply take your opinion of these RS as "disinformation and propaganda" as fact. And if the text of the article is supported by reliable sources, then it ''doesn't matter'' if you disagree with the political intentions of the person who wrote the article. Surely a veteran editor such as yourself should know this basic Misplaced Pages editing standard. ] (]) 21:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)]
:::::::''"You claim that Der Spiegel's and RadioFreeEurope reporting on this topic are "Russian disinformation and propaganda""'' I made no such claim so stop making up stuff I didn't say. I said these sources were being misrepresented. Here is exactly what I said, again, just so you won't try pulling these kinds of stunts again: ''"all three of the sources are about how *Ukrainian* authorities disbanded and initiated an investigation and persecution of one rogue battalion. Yet our text makes no mention of the fact and tries to pretend that this was some emblematic or state sanctioned formation. "''. Nice try though.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::"::"''our text makes no mention of the fact and tries to pretend that this was some emblematic or state sanctioned formation.''" Again, please cite the word of phrase that you think implies that the volunteer battaion is state sanctioned. Twice now you have mentioned this and twice now I have asked. ] (]) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Don’t restore this stuff without consensus.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Don't remove stable content without consensus. ] (]) 21:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::It's not "stable content" and even if it was, it doesn't matter. Don't restore text which blatantly misrepresents sources and uses fringe trash as sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::* This article was basically written in February 2019 and was not considered {{tq|as as over the top POV garbage FORK}} until three years later, following the 2022 Russian invasion. See how it was in January 2022: . Then, after the invasion, in became a pray to war, and some editors started to shell it with massive content removals, tag-bombing and AfD, while others (such as Ingenuity, EdBever, BeywheelzLetItRip, and more recently Alaexis, Masebrock and myself) tried to counter the deletionist fury. Apparently, since the Ukrainians were invaded by Russia, their suffering at the hands of their government must become invisible, "POV garbage FORK" as you say, and the Ukrainians must become one and the same thing their government, with no dark spot. But no, you have no right to remove well-sourced notable contents without consensus; the article needs improvements and you’re not helping. If you feel that it’s unbalanced, why don’t you write something on torture by pro-Russian separatists? Actually, I think I'll do this myself.
:::::::* {{tq|text which blatantly misrepresents sources}}. Please tell me where: which source?
:::::::] (]) (]) 22:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Sometimes it happens that an article is written and nobody notices for awhile. There have been cases of trash articles on Misplaced Pages hanging around for years. This is NOT an argument for keeping garbage content. Bottomline is that the '''text misrepresents the sources''', the text (especially previous version) '''simply lied about what sources said''' and where it doesn't it relies on '''unreliable fringe sources.
::::::::NPOV is non-negotiable. "Oh someone got away with bullshit for a year or two so we must keep it for ever" is not an actual policy.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, for fucks' sake. 1) The sources talk about '''Russian separatists''' murdering POWs. The original text falsely said it was Ukrainians. 2) The sources (including Das Spiegel and RFL) are all about how Ukraine is '''prosecuting''' the members of this rogue battalion. The text makes no mention of that fact and worse, pretends that somehow the activities of this battalion were sanctioned by Ukrainian government! This is just straight up lying about what sources say. 3) The Ploeg source is from a publisher that has... ] as their "featured author". Yes, THAT ], former "junior analyst" that got caught exposing himself to kids and then became a fringe "commentator" defending Putin and Russian war crimes. You can't get more ] then that. And apparently some editors genuinely are trying to convince us with a straight face, that this isn't garbage material and must be kept just because somebody put it in at some point.

Not. How. It. Works.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:: I agree that Clarity Press is not reputable. I see they are also featuring 9/11 conspiracy theorist ]. I further don't see anything about de Ploeg that suggests to me we should treat him as ]. Definitely the "yes" side of that one has not met ]. So he needs to be removed. ] (]) 22:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I removed all references to De Ploeg. I honestly don't know if he's reliable or not, but I know that we don't need him: in fact, I have his book under my eyes and I see that all his claims are supported by other sources (Der Spiegel, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), that he quotes and that we also quote. So there's no point in discussing about this, let's just drop this reference for the sake of harmony. ] (]) (]) 22:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Well, I guess that's a step forward. And how much time did that waste? Just to remove conspiracy theory crap. How many times did you and the other guy restore this garbage under the pretense that it was "long standing"? Now you see why "long standing" is NOT a wikipedia policy???
::::Now. No, it's not true that "Der Spiegel, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch" support De Ploeg. One. More. Time. All of these sources are about how '''Ukrainian authorities are persecuting one rogue battalion''' for its abuses. That's it. That's what the sources are about. What does our text say? Oh, instead it makes the unsupported claim that ''"Ukrainian volunteer battalion "Tornado" became an infamous example of torture and sadistic practices by Ukrainian paramilitary forces"''. <u>There's NOTHING like that in the source</u>!!!! The person who put that in was simply lying. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. "Became an infamous example"? Not in the source. Completely made up. "Example of torture and sadistic practices by Ukrainian paramilitary forces"? Not in the source. Completely made up.
::::I would really appreciate it if you stopped restoring falisifications of sources to the article.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Per your suggestion, I have removed the editorializing claims of calling Tornado "infamous" and describing them as an "example", and added Tornado's prosecution and 2015 disbandment from the source. If you have any further suggested edits or objections please provide them in the talk page. ] (]) 23:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::So after ALL THAT you finally admit that the original text was misrepresenting sources. Jesus christ. Finally. How hard was that? Still, this means that you reverted several times to a version that blatantly lied about what sources said. Which is a violation of half a dozen of Misplaced Pages policies including ], ], ], ].
::::::And there's still a problem. The fact that this was a rogue battalion which was persecuted by Ukrainian authorities is still being downplayed in the text. And the info itself is probably undue.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I'm ok with this, but I was actually going to add that calls them "scandalous battalion" (Скандальний батальйон) and with the charges that led to the commander being sentenced 11 years (including torture, sodomy under threat of violence, and incitement to attempted suicide). It's off-topic, but you might be interested also in about the commander having been recently released from prison after he pledged he will continue to fight against the Russians. ] (]) (]) 23:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::First source doesn't say anything about torture - it's about some fight these guys got into while in prison. Second source was already in there and it is one of the sources which focus on how Ukrainian authorities persecuted these bandits. The third source I've seen before and it seems to be based on some tweets - I have seen no verification of this info anywhere else.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

==== Volunteer battalions. References ====
{{Reflist-talk}}

== Please stop using false edit summaries ==

{{ping|Gitz6666}} please don't use fall and dishonest edit summaries like you did . Neither I, nor all the other people that objected to this material, did NOT claim that "Amnesty International, Voice of America, The Times, the UN monitoring mission, Human Rights Watch and Der Spiegel" are unreliable. I, and others, have pointed out that these sources '''have been misrepresented'''.

This has been pointed out to you like half a dozen times by now. The fact that you make this completely false claim in your edit summary really bespeaks to your good faith here.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:So what are you objecting to, then? ] (]) (]) 22:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::You using false edit summaries. I thought I was clear. Do you want me to put it in more explicit terms? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes please, more explicit terms. Tell us which source was misrepresented and/or where is the lie. ] (]) (]) 23:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Already did. Multiple times. . . . . . . . How many freakin' more times can I explain it? You're simply engaging in ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:58, 27 December 2024

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.
The contents of the Torture in Ukraine page were merged into Human rights in Ukraine on 3 December 2022 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
 • Human rights in Ukraine
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
 • Talk:Human rights in Ukraine
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
WikiProject iconHuman rights
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics / Social and political
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Ethics
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconPsychology
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
WikiProject iconUkraine
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine

Partial hoax?

Not sure what to make of the paragraph starting with "On many occasions, the European Committee . . ." in the current version. At least one portion of it fails a rather obvious check. The last sentence says "Currently, Belarus and Ukraine are the only European nations that have not implemented the independent torture prevention system OPCAT (Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture)". However, when I go to https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CAT-OP&Lang=en, it shows that Belarus and Russia have not ratified OPCAT. Russia is a partly European country. Furthermore, it shows that Ukraine signed in 2005 and ratified in 2006. I don't know what "implemented" means. But it is concerning that the text is at variance with a presumably-authoritative source. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, @Adoring nanny, I missed this thread. I noticed it now because I'm reviewing the discussions for the thread at ANI. The source is Kuzio 2015, p. 482, which has been misquoted, as you rightly noted. This is not a hoax, it's just the usual sloppy treatment of sources; the author of the article wrongly added Currently to Kuzio and changed "EU’s Eastern Partnership" with European nations. Here's the full quotation by Kuzio:

In April 2010, Amnesty International called upon President Yanukovych and his government to ensure accountability for human rights abuses by bringing the country’s law and practices into line with international standards. Ukraine and Belarus were the only countries in the EU’s Eastern Partnership that have not implemented the independent national torture prevention mechanism (OPCAT Protocol), the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Four other Eastern Partnership countries – Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, and even authoritarian Azerbaijan – had taken this step. Amnesty outlined recommendations …

. "Failed implementation" means that as 2010 Ukraine had failed to up the so-called National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) for the prevention of torture. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine informed the UN OHCHR that it had designated an agency as NPM in December 2012. I’m no expert, but I think that means the passage was outdated and misleading.  —Michael Z. 14:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely, both outdated and misleading. No one reverted Adoring nanny when they removed it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop using false edit summaries

@Gitz6666: please don't use fall and dishonest edit summaries like you did here. Neither I, nor all the other people that objected to this material, did NOT claim that "Amnesty International, Voice of America, The Times, the UN monitoring mission, Human Rights Watch and Der Spiegel" are unreliable. I, and others, have pointed out that these sources have been misrepresented.

This has been pointed out to you like half a dozen times by now. The fact that you make this completely false claim in your edit summary really bespeaks to your good faith here. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

So what are you objecting to, then? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
You using false edit summaries. I thought I was clear. Do you want me to put it in more explicit terms? Volunteer Marek 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes please, more explicit terms. Tell us which source was misrepresented and/or where is the lie. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Already did. Multiple times. Here. Here. Here. And here. Also here. And also here. Annnnd another one. Oh look! Also here! How many freakin' more times can I explain it? You're simply engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I hear very well, and your emphasis cannot hide what is there for all to see. After a failed AfD and against the reasoned opposition of at least three editors, a decent and well-sourced article on a notable topic, an article that had been here for years, was repeatedly wiped out without necessity, as the points you raised (past tense/present tense, the Tornado battalion not "infamous", etc.) were in fact very minor and easily manageable with a bit of cooperation. I said from the beginning that the article needed to be improved and balanced, but your overly contentious way of doing makes everything more difficult. By now we could have easily written a section on torture by pro-Russian forces without all this edit warring. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Apparently not, since:
  • The AfD was "keep" but almost all keep votes also said the article needed to be rewritten and cleaned up. This has been already pointed out to you by, among others, the very people who voted keep in the discussion. Here. And here. And here (quote: "I would like to note (...) that I think we all agree that pretty much the entirety of the content of the article as it was should be thrown out. That part, I think, is consensus.") You have been and are ignoring this. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
  • There was no "reasoned opposition" by three editors. There's you and Masebrock who keep restoring false citations of sources which simply do not say what you claim they say. OTOH, before you two showed up, Michael Z, User:Adoring nanny, User:Xx236, User:Elinruby, User:GizzyCatBella, Aristophile, User:Fermiboson, User:Cambial Yellowing and myself all expressed the view that the article should either be redirected or completely rewritten. That's NINE users against the two of you. There's your consensus. And it's not with you. False claims of having consensus are also an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
  • The points I raised were NOT "in fact very minor". Unless you happen to think that a text that lies about what a source says is a "minor point". They were NOT "easily manageable" since the two of you are edit warring so hard to keep restoring these blatant falsifications.
  • If you really think that this version of the article, as created by its original author (an WP:SPA account with barely 20 edits, all of them over the top POV) even though it was chuck full of lying about what sources said and other types of WP:TEND POV pushing, that that version was ... "decent", then I'm sorry but you have no business editing not just this topic (as other people have pointed out several times to you already) but an encyclopedia overall. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
You haven't been able to point out any lies in the text but some very minor mistakes that anyone could fix if they were concerned about the quality of the article rather than the reputation of the Ukrainian government. This is not an article on Ukraine vs Russia, but on torturers vs tortured, and sources include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Ukrainian NGOs, the OHCHR, The Times, Der Spiegel, VOA, NYT and more; these sources are not misrepresented. We shouldn't wipe it out but add other contents, so as to have if not the full picture, a more balanced and complete account. We all know that the text was improvable, and it still can improve, if you stop removing big chunks of text from it.
Re consensus, the integrity of the article has been defended recently not only by Masebrock and me, but also by Alaexis; in the past also Ingenuity, EdBever, BeywheelzLetItRip have remverted similar attempts to undermine the article; at the AfD Oaktree b, A.WagnerC, BabbaQ, ArsenalGhanaPartey, Mzajac and Sleddog116 wanted this article to survive and improve rather than be deleted or merged. This article has been here for years and the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not a good reason for getting rid of it. You beheve as if you have a strong consensus behind but I doubt that you do. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, hang on there just a sec. Don't put words in my mouth here. My only comment on the AfD discussion was that I believe the subject of the article is noteworthy enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. That's not an immutable case of me "wanting the article to survive." I tend to dislike any article being deleted when the topic is noteworthy, but I said even in the AFD discussion that the only way this article could meet the standards of inclusion (and I was not alone in this thinking) was that it's a WP:TNT situation, and that means that huge sections of the article (and possibly the entire article) are going to be removed and later rewritten. In my view, sourcing an article reliably takes precedence over its noteworthiness, and if the sources are in question, then we're not hurting anything by removing contentious material until it can be properly sourced. We are not on a deadline. My comments on the AFD discussion shouldn't be taken as any kind of "consensus" on the contents of the article - my only opinion is that the article should exist. Anything AT ALL beyond that is a misrepresentation of what I said in AFD. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No, do not misrepresent me. I changed my mind when it was 1) clear no one had improved the article Torture in Ukraine for weeks, and 2) I looked closer and realized the content wasn’t just one-sided but reflecting a strong agenda. —Michael Z. 23:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yup to Volunteer Marek.  —Michael Z. 18:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

DECENT AND WELL-SOURCED ARTICLE. DECENT AND WELL-SOURCED ARTICLE???? Look, Michael told you that AfD relates to the notability of the topic. Only. No shame in not knowing that; I didn't either when I nominated the article for deletion. I nominated because it was a cynical and I will say it, evil piece of disinformation and it revolted me. That is apparently the wrong reason to AfD; live and learn. I agree that the topic is notable. I also agree that the article as written was almost entirely false. What sends my blood pressure skyrocketing here is that you know you know you know that, you have been told that on this very page, and there is no way you could not have seen that point made. Do you giggle when you write this stuff???? Elinruby (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the article is extremely incomplete and extremely biased. Welcome to improve. Unfortunately, I can not help much because I am busy and uncomfortable with editing such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
unless he is topic banned he will simply edit it back to say that Ukrainians did something bad, then when someone objects he will complain that he is being personally attacked. Been doing this since at least June. Elinruby (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
You can request that the article be locked, so we can prevent this kind of back and forth again. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

And more over the top blatant POV not based on sources

@Masebrock: - Please provide a citation for the text " numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented" which you added to the lede here. Otherwise self revert. Including highly POV text with no citations and unbacked by reliable sources is quintessential WP:TEND and WP:POV editing. Volunteer Marek 01:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently there are four sources given for this claim.

Source #1 is CBS news It's about mass graves found after liberation of Kherson. There's not a single sentence in this source claiming that there were "acts of torture of POWs" or torture of civilians committed by Ukrainian forces. Numerous or otherwise.

Source #2 is Human Rights Watch (a source I was accused of removing under pretense of it being unreliable whereas I in fact removed it because it was being misrepresented). It's . It's about Russian forces torturing people in Izium. It's harrowing to read as it goes into harrowing details about the kinds of torture that Ukrainians were forced to endure by Russian soldiers. There's not a single sentence in this source claiming that there were "acts of torture of POWs" or torture of civilians committed by Ukrainian forces. Numerous or otherwise.

Source #3 is BBC News. Here. It's about "Russian torture cells in Ukraine". Again, it's disturbing and nauseating

...


...


Fuck you. Fuck you for making read this stuff. Just to check your work. Pour through these accounts of inhumanity and bestiality and pure evil just to show that you're fucking lying about how it was Ukrainians that committed "numerous acts of torture"

...

I feel sick. Going outside to breath.

Fuck you. Volunteer Marek 01:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the part where you say "fuck you" for now. As you know, the lead of the text summarizes content found in the body, and the sources do not have to be redundant. The following describe the numerous torture activity by Ukraine:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masebrock (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The four sources you pretended support the text "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented" are . Not a single one of these sources support the claim you inserted into the text. They all painstakingly detail and document the torture perpetrated by Russian, not Ukrainian, forces. This is 100% clear cut case of falsifying sources to push POV claims.
Now you try to pretend that you have OTHER sources. They're all from 2015 and 2016. It is impossible for a source from 2015 or 2016 to cite something that is alleged to have happened in 2022. You are still pretending.
This is beyond ridiculous. There are some things you simply don't lie about. Volunteer Marek 01:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
1. These sources were not added by me. I was simply modifying the lead to match the body of the text and inadvertently did not notice that all the sources someone else added to the lead were about torture by Russia. I don't know why someone would do this but it is easily solvable 2. I also didn't notice that references to the War in Donbass had been removed from the lead. Again, easily fixable, no need for hysterics. I will make these edits now. Please stop casting aspirations, accusing me of "lying" and such. Masebrock (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Great! So you misrepresented sources "inadvertently". Did you also added "and Ukrainians" to that sentence about "numerous instances of torture" inadvertently? Like your fingers slipped, cuz you meant to write "Martians" but you know, the M is close to the U on the keyboard, the a to the k and so on? I know, I make mistakes like that all the time.
If you make an edit and use other people's sources for it, especially when that edit involves a very serious and contentious accusation like committing torture, then YOU take the responsibility for those sources supporting the text. Best case scenario here is that you were so keen on inserting the POV into the lede that you did not bother actually reading.
But wait. When challenged about these sources not supporting the text you... claimed there were some OTHER sources which did. Except those didn't either.
(You were NOT "simply modifying the lead to match the body of the text" since THERE IS no text of such nature in the body! You were simply adding unsupported, false, POV to the lede and pretending that the sources there supported it). Volunteer Marek 02:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
When I added "the Ukrainians", I thought the torture was in reference to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict that has been spanning from 2014-2022. I didn't realize that the sentence in question only referred to 2022. At any rate, it's fixed now. Please stop casting aspirations. Masebrock (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I've already done it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I also would remove that reference to Ukrainian forces in the sentence During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian .... forces have been documented because I don't think it's supported by sources. We have sources on torture of Russian POWs by Ukrainian forces but the scale is not comparable with what civilians have been subjected to by the Russian army. However, I would also remove from the lead section the tag:failed verification after the sentence Prior to the Revolution of Dignity (2014) and during the war in Donbas (2014-2022), torture was perpetrated by agents of the government, the army, law enforcement agencies, the Security Service of Ukraine and, since 2014, torture has also been perpetrated by Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary units. We have sources on this, which I provided here above at 02:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC) in this thread: Talk:Torture_in_Ukraine#The_lead Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Gitz, you beat me to the edit. Masebrock (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


I realize that we are all affected by these horrors. I personally cannot look at this right now. Not enough bandwidth, too much everything. Somebody please verify Gitz's fix. I had to stop myself from putting that in quotes. AGF he has now realized the problem? Peace out for now, but I'll be back. VM, breathe, buddy. Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I see Gitz6666 reverts that appear to misrepresent sources (putting in very mildly) problematic. I honestly I do... - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to tag sources that you think are misrepresented, or at bring them up on the talk page. Vaguely gesturing at an article with 25 different sources isn't useful. Masebrock (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes @GizzyCatBella, please, tell us which sources are misrepresented here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Gitz6666 . It appears to me that these are the sources. (I did a fast general scan. Am my mistaken? Let me investigate again..tomorrow okay?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @GizzyCatBella, sorry to be pushy, but I was reviewing the discussions in light of the ongoing thread at ANI. Did you find the time to check if any of my reverts misrepresented sources? I'm pretty sure I never misrepresented any source here, but everybody makes mistakes and I'd like to be sure I didn't miss anything, so if you have diff to share that would be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This issue has now been corrected. There was a brief version of this article where these sources were accidentally being misrepresented (someone had swapped out all sources of torture by Ukrainian forces out of the lead and replaced them with Russian forces, leading to a bit of chaos). This version was up for a few hours, but it has now fixed. Masebrock (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

{{

you guys are jeering at GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) now? You guys. Scroll up. VM did a pretty good job of explaining it to you, in this very thread. Yet again. Elinruby (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Note to newcomers - there is even more stuff just like this at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, also. Elinruby (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC) please explain what you mean by "fixed" Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

References

References

  1. "Breaking Bodies: Torture and Summary Killings in Eastern Ukraine". Amnesty International USA. May 21, 2015. Retrieved 2022-11-25.
  2. "Ukraine: "You don't exist": Arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and torture in Eastern Ukraine". Amnesty International. July 21, 2016. Retrieved 2022-11-24.
  3. "Watchdogs: Civilians Detained, Tortured in Eastern Ukraine". Voice of America. July 21, 2016. Retrieved 2022-11-24.
  4. "Kiev allows torture and runs secret jails, says UN". The Times. June 3, 2016. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2022-11-24.

Proposal: Merge/redirect, or Disambig

Having seen the cri de cœur at NPOVN, I have the following proposal:

  1. Redirect the name of the article to Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Torture and conditions in detention; there isn't enough pre-2022 material in this article and in the target section to justify a stand-alone article at this time. This is similar to Torture in Russia which redirects to a section in the Human rights in Russia article. Merge any non-redundant pre-2022 material to the section.
  2. The torture in Ukraine following the 2022 Russian invasion is already covered in detail in the War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, specifically in the "Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians" and the "Treatment of prisoners of war" sections. Therefore, instead of Main:Torture in Ukraine in the Human rights in Ukraine#Torture and conditions in detention section, list Further information: War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine § Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians and Further information: War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine § Treatment of prisoners of war.

This approach may satisfy the needs of readers who are looking for general info, while quickly redirecting those interested in the current events to the War crimes... article. Any thoughts? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Agree  A good solution, thanks. While I would oppose deleting an article over a content dispute, neither the past nor current state constitutes a complete article on the subject. It can be spun off again by splitting from those other WP ones if and when they mature. —Michael Z. 18:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I also agree. This is a good solution. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support redirect/merge I think K.e. makes some good points regarding this article, and given that torture as a concept is invariably also a matter of human rights, this would make the most sense, especially given the size of the current article and most of the points made by K.e.
    No comment on the possible changes to the Human rights in Ukraine article mentioned by others here. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


An even simpler approach is to turn this page into a disambiguation page, as in:

This page may refer to:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Also Humanitarian_situation_during_the_war_in_Donbas#War_crimes to cover the period between 2014 and 2022. Alaexis¿question? 11:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I just call for a speedy end to this timesink of a travesty. Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how merging the contents of this article with another "ends" any of the controversy. This is a proposal to move, not remove. Masebrock (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable approach to me. BogLogs (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you coming. I am currently speechless. Elinruby (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Agree. One issue here is content forking. Most of the torture was happening during the war(s) (i.e. War in Donbas (2014–2022), etc.) and on the territories not controlled by the Ukrainian government. Some of them are war crimes and therefore were described on other pages. On the other hand, a page "Torture in Ukraine" (not by Ukraine) must include everything at the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, i.e. such materials do belong to such page. Another issue is that sections "Before Euromaidan" and "Torture during the 2014 Russian invasion" are written essentially as an anti-Ukrainian "attack page", and in general, this page is poorly written. Overall, I feel that suggestion K.e.coffman to merge and redirect was reasonable. My very best wishes (talk)
  • Agree with User:K.e.coffman. This never happens, but I do. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree. There is not a lot of content on the pre-2014 period and I don't think that mixing pre-war 'civilian' torture and wartime torture makes sense. One more desambig alternative we should have is Humanitarian_situation_during_the_war_in_Donbas#War_crimes which covers the period between 2014 and 2022. Alaexis¿question? 09:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Having seen u:Masebrock's !vote, I wanted to clarify that the information from this article which is not present in the main articles should be incorporated there. Alaexis¿question? 14:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree. This is a good idea, as long as it doesn't result in the loss of notable content and reliable sources of this article. If they are not redundant, the pre-2022 contents of this article should be merged with that section Human rights in Ukraine#Torture and conditions in detention, which is indeed quite poor and in need of more materials.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Disgaree. User K.e.coffman has indicated on the talk page of Human Rights in Ukraine that he does NOT intend to merge the content from this page to the Human rights in Ukraine page as he suggested in this proposal, but instead intends to blank the section of torture, removing all sources from organizations such as the New York Times, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations. His rationale is that the current sources "focus on specific periods, stages of the conflict, or individual incidents" instead of providing a general overview. I disagree with his assumption that human rights pages must only speak in generalities, and I also disagree on the merits that the provided sources only speak in narrow case-specific language. And I find the argument that 2016 is too historical to be included a human rights page highly questionable at best. But anyway, this is not a proposal to merge. K.e.coffman is proposing to delete. All well sourced material describing torture by the government of Ukraine (a notable, verifiable topic) will be scrubbed from Misplaced Pages. Masebrock (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing cross-post. See: Talk:Human rights in Ukraine#Recent edits. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Masebrock: I should have been more specific and perhaps should have continued the discussion here, instead of starting a new one. I'm reposting my comment from Talk:Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Recent_edits, with links added for clarity:
I'm actually leaning towards blanking the section (Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Torture_and_conditions_in_detention) and only including links to other articles via the "Further" template. My rationale is that it's currently impossible to create a balanced, stand-alone overview article / section, given the lack of sources that provide such an overview. There's press coverage and reports by human rights organizations, but they focus on specific periods, stages of the conflict, or individual incidents. I've not seen sources that discuss the topic of "torture in Ukraine" since independence (1991) to the present time (2022) in an overarching format, to establish the right balance of coverage. That's why I think that, at the current time, no overview article or even section is possible.
Adding here: The Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas exists and I'm not proposing to blank it; but instead use the 2016 sources there, if they are not already included. Here was my additional comment:
If not already used there, this 2016 coverage can be used at Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas; there are sections "Abductions and torture" and "War crimes". It would be topical there and would avoid the issue of WEIGHT in Human rights in Ukraine.
Does this make sense? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the discussion should take place. I've just added my remarks to Talk:Human rights in Ukraine#Recent edits. In my view, the decision to redirect the name of the article to Human rights in Ukraine#Torture and conditions in detention, which I welcome in principle, is purely editorial, meaning that it doesn't affect in any way the admittedly very controversial question of what content and sources should be reported in that section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, let's continue the discussion about the contents of the section in question at Talk:Human rights in Ukraine#Recent edits. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm unclear on the process for this. It seems like most people here agree. Does that mean we just make the redirect and do the merge? Do we need an AfD? Something else? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: I redirected the article to the section Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Torture_and_conditions_in_detention. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

WP: BLUE in a time of 1RR

Yanukovych was a Russian puppet. It had not occurred to me that a good-faith editor familiar with the history would dispute this, but ok... apparently this can be done. I took issue at ANI with the contemptuous removal of this rather factual statement; Yanukovych disputed his removal after fleeing to Moscow, for heaven's sake. Since I substantiated the material with three rather good references, I think the statement should be restored, as it is important context to some of the early instances of torture.

I don't usually revert at all let alone operate in 1RR environments, so I am uncertain of the proper way to proceed. Since I just got home after some rather harrowing travel, for tonight I plan to limit myself here to this post and go edit grammar in medieval Sri Lanka articles or something. Will check in tomorrow. Thank you for any thoughts Elinruby (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"Pre-2014 Ukraine was a client state of Russia" is the kind of highly contentious claim that is sort of the opposite of "WP:SKY_IS_BLUE", but if you have reliable sources feel free to add it back in. Masebrock (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Masebrock: You're a funny guy. You were also joking when you said that that the statement must be untrue because three Misplaced Pages pages didn't say so, right? Right? The sources for the statement are a Guardian think piece, a Barack Obama State of the Union address, and a Merriam Webster entry, all of which explicitly say exactly that. All jokes aside, I am going to await further input and go work on something uncontroversial for tonight, too tired and frazzled to put up with editors who seem to think that I need their permission. Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Not sure which edit this refers to.
I did tag a statement that Ukraine was a client state, implying from the surrounding text that it meant by 2010, with little or no qualification or explanation. Certainly Ukraine was no Belarus, and Yanukovych was playing the resisting pressure game until the reversal on the EU AA. After that point he lost support of the West and most of his population, and the bare statement makes more sense. —Michael Z. 03:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mzajak: see the "Section -- before Euromaidan" section above. It is entirely possible that I may have unartfully appeared to suggest something -- the past few days I have been editing between interruptions while traveling. The point I was trying to make is that Zelenskyy should not be tasked with the sins of Yanukovych etc., and this thought underlay my attempt to AfD the article. I have seen enough of your work to convince me that you know more about this than I do and I will gladly review your thoughts on this tomorrow. My current belief is that this is an important point of context. Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC) fixing the ping: @Mzajac:
Well I didn’t delete it. I thought it needed improvement based on sources, so I tagged it. —Michael Z. 06:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Yanukovych is aligned with Russia. Viktor Yushchenko was not. So the previous sttement was too broad. There is probably a different-but-similar statement we can make. But I'm not sure exactly what it is. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Yanukovych was a wannabe authoritarian dependent on Russia, but trying to retain as much power and autonomy as he could. Like Lukashenka in some ways. Although he did implement the demands of Medvedev’s 2009 ultimatum. But the major turning point to his personal full dependence only came in late November 2013, when he lost the support of the majority of Ukrainians and other states, and I don’t believe Ukraine ever became what can be termed a “client state” (although I am willing to consider what that means and what reliable sources say).  —Michael Z. 17:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not adamant about a particular wording. I do agree that "client state" applies more to today's Belarus than to the aspects of Ukraine that I am pointing at, yet the term has also been applied to Syria, so I don't think it implies de jure administrative power necessarily. It is probably a term of art in international law. Maybe we can start by looking at that definition.
I do think that some statement(s) should be made about how independent from Russia Ukraine might have been prior to the Revolution of Dignity. There is the matter of Russian special forces essentially running areas of the Donbas in the frozen war, and the question of whether and when Crimea could be considered Ukraine for purposes of this article. It is also worth noting that essentially all mass media in the country were owned by Russian oligarchs. Their level of support for Putin may have varied, unsure. That is a murky topic and I don't think I did it justice when I worked on Mass media in Ukraine and related information war articles. At least one oligarch was from eastern Ukraine and possibly funded a volunteer brigade, on the other hand, as I recall.
I came out of my recent travels with a sprained knee and bronchitis, and the weather is terrible, so I am essentially calling in sick on this thread at the moment and going back to bed. It is getting some thoughtful and intelligent responses so let's let the discussion play out a bit.Elinruby (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Rather than analyzing Ukraine’s characteristic vis-à-vis client statehood, let’s first see what other articles say. “Ukraine” does not define the subject as a client state or use the term. “Client state” currently lists Ukraine, along with Germany and the UK, as a client state of the USA, relying on some very dubious-looking sources (Ha! I think I’ll disregard that article for now). A quick search didn’t find any other articles that call Ukraine a client state, but I didn’t try very hard.
Next we can examine what reliable sources say. How about you finding a couple of sources that support the statement, and perhaps describe when Ukraine could be considered a Russian client state, and then we’re done.
Of course Crimea is considered Ukraine.
My understanding is that Ukrainian mass media has been largely owned by oligarchs but that created a free plurality of media sources, not too different from in the West. And unlike Russia, where the media, including that owned by oligarchs, has been increasingly beholden to the state since 1999. I could probably find a source if it’s needed.
Hope you get better soon.  —Michael Z. 20:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The sources I provided in the ANI thread were: a Guardian think piece, Barack Obama in a State of the Union speech, and Merriam Webster. I will fish them out and bring them over here shortly. I am not insistent that we use that exact wording, as I said, but I am pretty sure Ukraine wasn't exactly fully independent at the time either. I wasn't accusing you of removing the text; I haven't looked to see who it was, but odds are that it was the person who had so much fun saying that it was removed in their dissertation on my supposedly disgraceful editing. I'm not even mad about it at this point, but I do think something along those lines needs to be considered in the "in Ukraine" articles. Mass media: murky subject as I said, but some of the information war materials I've looked at thought the ownership was important. I tried to update the en.wikipedia articles, but there are a lot of shell companies and ambiguous mergers/partnerships involved. We don't need to explicitly get into all that here, but it is a factor. I do not think the level of press freedom is comparable to North America's. If you have good sources about this at your fingertips, I could use them at my talk page, since talking about this here has reminded me of Mass media in Ukraine, and the fact that it most likely still needs work. If you don't have them at your fingertips, don't worry about it; I can look when I come back to this. Oh and btw I didn't think much of client state either. Elinruby (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Re sources: others are probably available, but let's start with what I said about this at the ANI thread: Ukraine was a client state of Russia under Viktor Yanukovych, "a profoundly corrupt politician...seen as a proxy for Kremlin interests, and generally loyal to the idea of post-Soviet Ukraine as a Russian client state... Also, some guy named Barack Obama reached this conclusion, and he had some pretty good information sources available to him.. I am open to suggestions/discussion. Elinruby (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The reference ought to be to the original article, because although the dictionary is an authority on the meaning of words, it is only giving an example quotation to illustrate that and not saying Ukraine is a client state. Unfortunately the article is by a business reporter, so not really a reliable source on whether this is an accurate categorization. A lot of terms have meanings that can be used casually or informally, but I’d like to see experts in international relations or something to support this.
The Guardian article, “Although seen as a proxy for Kremlin interests, and generally loyal to the idea of post-Soviet Ukraine as a Russian client state, he threw his weight behind an association agreement with the EU,” doesn’t actually say Ukraine was a client state, and the sentence is about how Y. might have accepted that but actually resisted it. (Often better not to go by titles and subtitles, because the editors write them.) It is consistent but not indicative with the idea that if Ukraine was a client state it was not until November 2013.
The subject in RFE/RL is about how what Obama said seemed wrong, isn’t it? With several experts quoted saying so.  —Michael Z. 00:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it’s the wrong term to use. Better to describe specifically what is meant.  —Michael Z. 01:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Brainstorming a couple of options, with indisputably true statements:
mmmyeah,those are some good points. My initial reactions however are: 1) we already quote Amnesty International much too much in this article and I would prefer to diversify the sourcing a bit. Also, 2) while they can probably be described as experts in torture/civil rights, does that extend to political systems and international relations? 3) Attribution probably is a good idea, mind you; I'd prefer to attribute to someone else though. 4) Yes, the RFE says that the term seemed surprising, yet this presumes that RFE knows something Obama didn't, whereas the the converse was likely true. Whatever one may think of Obama, he was a careful man making an official statement on behalf of a country. 5) The author of the Guardian piece is a journalist who was posted to Moscow, and arguably could be considered an expert. Yes, his statement is a lot more nuanced than mine, but mine was written in circumstances so harried that I originally wrote that Russia was a Russian client state, I think it's always been a given that the BOLD would be discussed as we are here, and rewritten. 7) I don't insist on "client state", although I don't think it's unreasonable, and I think we should say *something* of the kind. I will click around a bit tomorrow and ping you two with something reworked a bit. Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Why are you doubling down on this? Is there not a single good source?
The record of “journalists posted to Moscow” on Ukraine is crap. Remember Pulitzer winner Walter Duranty? You can’t talk to Ukrainians or even see Ukraine from Moscow.
In your own source an anonymous Obama staffer gives a nonsense explanation and experts say he misspoke.  —Michael Z. 17:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
is there not a legitimate question as to Russia's influence over Ukraine in the period? I think you are off in the weeds a bit. A lot of your objections to these specific sources are reasonable. I think I can find sources for this or some other wording, and the article would be better for the objection. My point with the journalist posted to Moscow was that this might make him an expert on Russia, but ok, this not the same as on the ground in Ukraine. But I suspect that other editors would object to a Ukrainian source. Which leaves what, the World Bank? I am pretty sure I can source some statement all my these lines, and I am not trying to include it unsourced. I've been quiet because I've been on pain meds and asleep, not because it isn't possible to find a source for this. Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes there is a question. The answer is not “client state” with iffy references. Find an expert that actually says it. Journalism might not be the right place. Look for academic articles or popular-academic books on Google Books or Scholar.
Anyway, I think the answer is probably not “client state” at all. Perhaps that is not a well defined academic term (I don’t really know). My dictionary says “a nation that is dependent on another, more powerful nation,” which is inherently vague, and light years from exactly black-and-white in this age of globalization and multiple different interdependencies.
IMO Putin never succeeded to the degree that you can call Ukraine an unqualified “client state.” The political situation was complex and changing. Ukrainians revolted when it looked like Yanukovych was going to turn their country into a client state and headed it off.
Until late November 2013 Ukraine was actively planning European integration. Two days later, the nation was actively revolting against a government that tried to scupper the effort. In February the “patron” state was grasping at its influence so desperately that it invaded. In March 2014 Ukraine signed the Association Agreement. To me this was never a client state.  —Michael Z. 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This is way too much time spent on a contested term. In the article, explain what you actually mean, or just use terminology no one disagrees with.
I’m taking a break from this thread unless something new appears.  —Michael Z. 17:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Since this article is on "Torture in Ukraine", this conversation would be more in-topic at Russia–Ukraine relations, History of Ukraine or Viktor Yanukovych. However, it is simply false, and not supported by any RSs, that pre-Maidan Ukraine was a Russian client state. The pro-Russian Yanukovych himself had spent half of his presedency negotiating the association agreement wiht the EU and was more than willing to sign it; he gave up not because of a free political choice but because of strong Russian pressure (you don't start a trade war with your client state, would you?). In any case, even if one could find an RS claiming that pre-Maidan Ukraine was a client state of Russia, this nonsense would be off-topic in this article, which is about torture. If I understand the general political intent of the edit I reverted, its author should rather be looking for a source claiming that the use of torture decreased after Euromaidan and/or a source on the commitment of post-2014 governments to combat the practice of torture: anything else would be WP:SYNTH. So far I haven't been able to find an RS like that, but I don't doubt that it would be in-topic in this article and that we could publish (with attribution) the corresponding content. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Moot at this point, but I tend to agree with that. Yanukovich could reasonably be described as a Russian client individual. One could even make a case that he would have preferred that Ukraine become a Russian client state. But he was never the state, and it did not. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. Merriam Webster
  2. The Guardian
  3. State of the Union Speech
Categories:
Talk:Torture in Ukraine: Difference between revisions Add topic