Talk:Human rights in Ukraine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead section / updating Freedom House + OSCE

The lead is very poor-quality and it is bound to change in the near future. However, something easy can be done right now, if there's consensus. I propose the following text, which is a very minor improvement but still it's an improvement. The main points:

• While I'm not sure why we should cite Freedom House in the lead, at least we should say that it is a US-based NGO, we should use its 2022 report and, most importantly, we should mention the reasons why Ukraine is ranked "Partly Free".
• Analogously, we should mention the findings of the most recent report by ODIHR (OSCE) instead of just their 2015 report; the findings are not very different, and we can add a bit of content both on the good ("generally peaceful, competitive and fair", in my text) and the bad (corruption and constaints on the media). Here's the proposed text:

  Human rights in Ukraine is a highly contested topic. In 2022, the US-based non-governmental organization Freedom House rated the country "Partly Free". According to Freedom House, Ukraine had enacted a number of positive reforms in the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan Revolution, but corruption was still widespread, and attempts by the government to counter it had encountered resistances and suffered setbacks. Attacks on journalists, civil society activists and members of minority groups were frequent, and police responses were often inadequate. According to the OSCE, both the 2015 local elections and the 2019 presidential elections were generally peaceful, competitive and fair, although there were credible indications of misuse of state resources and vote-buying, and media pluralism had not yet been fully achieved.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, first, here you have the issue of close paraphrasing. Volunteer Marek 00:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You are right. Surely a proficient English speaker could help with some copyediting of the text. The original text from Freedom house is corruption remains endemic, and the government’s initiatives to combat it have met resistance and experienced setbacks. Attacks against journalists, civil society activists, and members of minority groups are frequent, and police responses are often inadequate. With regard to OSCE, my rendering is less close to the text and more appropriate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• No. None of the versions (the current or suggested) properly summarizes the content of the page. In any case, the lead should not be based on 1-2 sources, but should simply summarize the page. I would suggest to improve the body of the page first, and then return to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the lead should summarise the page, but don't you think the proposed text is an improvement over the current lead, which doesn't summarise the page in any way and is also outdated? Perfect is the enemy of good. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that both versions are not good, but not sure if this is an improvement. When you should write several times in the lead "according to..." (because this is an attributed opinion from a biased source), this is red flag. Such things are OK in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps we'd better avoid the "According to OSCE" and state this with wikivoice. Anyway, we all agree that the current lead is defective, so I'm now removing it entirely (claiming ONUS, as Volunteer Marek tought us to do...). It's outdated and also biased, as it depicts a too rosy picture of human rights in Ukraine. Since there's still no consensus on how to rephrase/update it, we'll remain without a lead for the time being. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Human rights in Ukraine is a highly contested topic, in its icastic and powerful concision, says pretty much all there is to know. I'd be inclined to add a series of tags such as {{elucidate}}, {{Nonspecific}}, {{POV-statement}} and {{By whom}}, but perhaps that would be overdoing it to the point of being WP:POINTy, so let's leave it like it is by now and hope for the better. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with your lead edit. The human rights situation is dynamic and indeed controversial. Masebrock (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think old was better, not best though. It needs to say in the first sentence, something like

"Human rights is governed by the enacted laws of the constitution of Ukraine, though many failures to meet these have been documented since 2013. Unequal application of these laws across the country and Russia's illegal war in 2022 makes this a highly contested topic. From the 2014 Euromaiden protests there was slow incremental progress, however much of this has now been negated and the issues sidelined.

For Human rights violations see;

• Russian ones
• Ukr ones

" 2404:4408:638C:5E00:666D:DDCF:AE5E:A34C (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"For Human rights violations see" should say For "Human rights violations During the War, SMO, conflict see" 2404:4408:638C:5E00:666D:DDCF:AE5E:A34C (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a war since 2014. Any war causes hr violations. Xx236 (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not arguing with that, or that the political and oligarch based corruption prior to 2014 was a violation in of itself, and despite the Donbass, and much Russian meddling, pressure etc. progress was being made in Ukrainian controlled areas since 2014. And it summarise the purpose of the laws, and this article to reflect the goals and the difficulty in reaching these, lumping all post independence failures, scores etc in the bad, concise, vague lead in one sentence "...Contested..." is virtually pointless and caters to the pro-Russian POV. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:3DE6:B2A4:FA9D:DD74 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

And makes it somewhat current, which is kind of wiki policy. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:3DE6:B2A4:FA9D:DD74 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Please. Stop. Edit. Warring

Masebrock can you please stop edit warring [1] and make even a feeble attempt at getting consensus? This material is being challanged. Here and in the other article. You have other editors saying the relevant section should be sparse. There's UNDUE issues. There's misrepresentations of sources (and please stop acting like 'wrong tense' is no big deal - it is because it creates the false impression that stuff that USED to happen is happening NOW. This isn't some quantum physics level concept, it's pretty straight forward). Please don't restore this stuff without getting consensus. See WP:ONUS. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ll try to assist in reaching an agreement here if that’s okay. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Mare, please stop edit warring. If you challenge long-standing sourced material, please seek consensus on talk page before deletion. In a debate over content, the proper response is to restore to the last stable version, not restore to your preferred version. I will now revert and restore to the last stable version (before my own edits) until consensus for change is achieved. Masebrock (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that a way to cool temper would be if editors were to commit not to remove relevant sourced content without first seeking consensus on the talk page. However, if they'd rather make bald edits [2], then let's please follow the WP:BRD cycle. Reverting Masebrock's revert [3] was wrong, GizzyCatBella. It's up to Volunteer Marek to seek consensus on the talk page for the removal of reliably sourced content. Rather than speaking of edit warring and WP:ONUS, he should carefully explain:

• what does he mean when he says There's misrepresentations of sources;
• who says that the relevant section should be sparse, and why;
• what are the UNDUE issues, ie. what are the significant viewpoints here that need to be balanced?

The text we're talking about is the following:

According to the Human Rights Watch report for 2014, both sides violated the laws of war during the ongoing war in Donbas. The government imposed excessive restrictions on freedom of media and sexual diversity is not fully respected. On 21 May 2015 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has passed a resolution declaring the suspension of conventions for Human Rights in the eastern Donbas region.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Of course that should not be in the lead because (1) this is not a proper summary of very short section about War in Donbas on this page, and (2) "violating the laws of war" are war crimes, i.e. belong to other pages. Other than that, I am not sure what the disagreement is about. Please start new section, suggest new changes on the page and justify why they are needed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  And what about the excessive restrictions on freedom of media and sexual diversity? Content on the war in Donbas could be placed in the relevant subsection of the article rather than being delated. We could remove this content from the main section without losing materials and sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There is already such section, Human_rights_in_Ukraine#War_in_Donbas. One can expand it if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• But this is unacceptable. [4][5][6][7] I don't even know how we should approach a discussion on this, how we should organise it to make it orderly and meaningful. This looks like sheer provocation, like a challange or something I don't understand. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What you show as several diffs is a sequence of consecutive edits. This counts as a single edit for WP:3RR purposes. Looking at the edit history, this all started from this edit by Masebrok which apparently has no consensus for inclusion. I do not see any section of this talk page where that edit would be suggested, justified and got consensus. One should do it. The removals by VM have been discussed in previous section; I agree with K.e.coffman that one should use only scholarly review articles here, and therefore also agree with removals by VM. Such sources do exist. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no precedent that only scholarly retrospective review articles be used on human rights pages. For instance, the section on torture on the Human rights in the United States is based on sources from the Washington Post, ABC News, and Human Rights Watch. Very similar to this article which uses the New York Times, The Times, Amnesty International, ect. Masebrock (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The title of the article is “Human Rights in Ukraine”. It’s not “Human Rights in Ukraine in 2014” or worse “Human Rights in Ukraine in 2014 but let’s pretend that it’s still true today”. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, the 2004 torture at Abu Ghraib has an entire section at the Human_rights_in_the_United_States page. The idea that 2014-2016 is too historical to be included on a human rights page has no precedent on Wikipedia, and comes across as an attempt to censor unpleasant content. Masebrock (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

False analogy. Did US have a regime change in 2004? Are there reliable sources which report on the changing situation? Has there been dramatic developments in the US, on the scale comparable to Ukraine, in terms of human rights protection? There can def be a section on the situation before 2014 and between 2014-2016 but it must observe DUE WEIGHT and NPOV, and obviously (perhaps not so obviously) WP:V. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Did Ukraine have regime change from 2015-today? Have there been dramatic changes in the governance of Ukraine in the post-Maidan period? (other than regular elections, which also happen in the US). I don't understand your argument of how this analogy doesn't work. Masebrock (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it had one in 2014 and has been reforming ever since. Yes, there have been dramatic changes in post Maiden period. But of course you fully know all that. Please cut it out with the WP:GAMEs. Volunteer Marek 23:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm just having a real hard time understanding why torture committed in 2004 by the United States is recent enough to be included on a human rights page, but torture committed in 2014-2016 by Ukraine is not. I do not think people confused by this are simply "playing games". Masebrock (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason you’re having a hard time understanding is because you’re not listening. Info on 2014-2016 can be included but 1) it needs DUE weight 2) it doesn’t belong in the lede, at least not more than briefly, 3) torture by Russian separatists needs to be included since, you know, that’s actually a good part of what sources focus on and 3) the text needs to reflect what sources actually say.

A good idea would be to make proposals here first. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that any changes to long-stable content with reliable sources needs to be proposed on the talk page before revision. This is why I am asking you to revert your removal of the journalist imprisonment section that was deleted without without consensus. Masebrock (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No. There's no "long standing" policy on wikipedia. If it's unsourced, it goes. If it's falsely sourced, it goes. If it's over the top POV and UNDUE, it goes. THOSE are actual policies. WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include. Volunteer Marek 16:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is shocking that I have to explain the basics of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to an experienced editor such as yourself. No, if your removals of reliably sourced material have not achieved consensus and they can and should be reverted until talk page consensus is achieved. Masebrock (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think analogies are fine. ...both sides violated the laws of war during the ongoing War in Donbas. The analogy: "both sides, Al-Qaeda and USA government (including the patriotic militia in USA), have been engaged in human rights violations". One can say or argue this is true (all these actors have been engaged in human rights violations), but this is not the way to describe it on our pages. This analogy is proper because in such phrase we: (a) combine together the Ukrainian government and militias, and (b) put on the equal footing the democratically elected Ukrainian government and organizations classified as terrorists in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The torture in question took place by the Ukrainian state itself (the SBU) as documented in reliable sources, so I don't understand what the issue is here. I do not think we are inappropriately conflating activity by private militias and the SBU in the text, but if I am wrong about this please point out the misrepresentation and we can correct it. As for the question of "equal footing", our job is to report what reliable sources say, not create a false imbalance based on political concerns. Masebrock (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I was saying about the phrase with "both sides". The "detention centers" - I do not know. Of course if they were something like Guantanamo Bay detention camp (using again the US analogy), then yes, include them, sure. But if not, this may be disputable. And no, this is not our job to create a false imbalance by indiscriminately quoting biased sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

MVBW's analogy between the USA/Al Quaeda and post-Maidan government/pro-Russian separatists conflict is questionable on many levels: Ukraine had just experienced a revolution, an elected president had been overthrown, and the lines of legitimacy were blured; a civil war was developing in which both sides (pro- and anti-Maidan) enjoyed popular support in some areas of the country. But one thing is obvious and beyond doubt: this is not the kind of conversation we WP editors are meant to have; in no way it could help us build a collective encyclopaedia committed to neutrality. The point - I think - is another one, and much less controversial. Based on the coverage of reliable sources, there's no doubt that torture by state authorities and para-military formations during the first years of the war in Donbas is crucial in any possible account of the topic "torture in Ukraine". One cannot seriously talk about "torture in Ukraine" without addressing this topic. So we should address it to the best of our ability, based on reliable sources, without pondering too much about the possible practical consequences of circulating knowledge among the public. (As for the political consequences, however, I must say that the notion that the Ukrainian military effort and/or the security of the Ukrainian people could somehow be enhanced by hiding the dark spots of recent Ukrainian history strikes me as deeply Stalinist in nature and frankly stupid). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC) re-reading my comment I see that the last part could easily be (mis)understood as an attack on MVBW; that was not my intention! It was just a general reflaction on the "political passions" I perceive, perhaps mistakenly, behind our controversies. I'm ready to strike through and apologise if someone gets offended.

Sure, they are not the same. That was just an analogy. But you are following the Russian propaganda narrative here: "an elected president had been overthrown ... a civil war was developing..". No, Poroshenko and Zelensky were legitimately elected. No, that was not a civil war, but a hybrid war and intervention by Russia, even during early years of the currently ongoing conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian propaganda narrative? The war was "hybrid" precisely because it combined an international conflict between Russia and Ukraine with a non-international confict, aka civil war, in Ukraine, and "overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych" is common parlance (e.g., The Guardian). By the way, I noticed that on many articles we've started to use the expression "2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine" or "Invasion of Ukraine" (in 2014), which is not unheard of (it's basically the title and thesis of Kuzio's book, Putin's War Against Ukraine) but strongly biased and possibly misleading. There's been a Russian invasion of Crimea, which is Ukrainian territory, right, but the expression suggests there's been more than that - an invasion of Donbas in 2014 - which is false: Russia promoted, supported, financed, armed and possibly directed the separatists in many ways, but it did not "invade" the Donbas area. We're way off-topic here, though. The topic is: attempts to "weaponise" the human rights discourse for the purposes of the Russo-Ukrainian war are both disgraceful and contrary to WP policies - I hope we all agree on this non-negotiable bottom line. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, of course Russia did invade Donbass in August of 2014, as described on our page, see War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)#August_2014_invasion_by_Russian_forces. That was regular Russian army in the Battle of Ilovaisk. Did not you know? If they would not invade, the Donbas would be Ukrainian territory (separatists were loosing to the Ukrainian Army; Russian Army did not want to intervene so openly, but they had no choice). Moreover, one could say that Russians invaded from the very beginning, except they were not regular army, but special forces, just as in Crimea, those Little green men. Regular or not, but special forces and GRU are a part of the Army, so, yeh, that was an invasion even from the very beginning. Yes, they acted less brutally than during Operation Storm-333, but that is only because they did not need to be so brutal in Crimea. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

[8] - ups, sorry, I see that you know about Illovaysk and therefore just replaced "an agreement with Russian commanders in Ilovaisk" by "DPR's proposal" on the page, so this would not appear as actions by Russian Army. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

please have a look at Invasion (and be aware that I have the page in my watchlist: you know what I mean). An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants..... "Large number" is key to the concept of invasion. Hitler invaded Poland, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In February 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine. In August 2014 there were Russian servicemen in Ukraine, although Russian denied ir, but there was no invasion. (Note that I've been working on Ilovaisk before you mentioned the battle here, and I've been using OHCHR as a source) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

References

There's. No. Need. For. Overly. Emphatic. Section. Names.

They look like an emotional outburst and/or shouting, and only serve to raise the temperature of a discussion. A plain descriptor of the topic -- without an imperative -- is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Masebrock and Volunteer Marek: I'm noticing an edit war brewing around the Torture section; I hope it can be avoided. (I've added the page to my watchlist after the discussion at Talk:Torture_in_Ukraine#Proposal:_Merge/redirect,_or_Disambig).

I'm actually leaning towards blanking the section and only including links to other articles / sections via the "Further" template, as being suggested at the link above. 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 to the present time 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. What do you think? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Volunteer Marek 16:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The current section has sources from the New York Times, The Times, Voice of America, Amnesty International, and Newsweek, all of which directly deal with the topic of torture in Ukraine post-revolution. Some of them focus on specific incidents, whole others (such as the quote from Ivan Simonovic of the UN) speak in broad strokes. If the New York Times reporting on torture in post-revolution Ukraine isn't notable and verifiable, I don't know what is. Masebrock (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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 this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If the issue is merely one of WEIGHT, then surely we can agree that section blanking violates WP:DUE. Torture should absolutely be mentioned on a county's human rights page, this is standard practice throughout Wikipedia. I can trim the section up (and possibly remove the section on pre-2014 torture altogether), but the question of proper weighting is not solved by section blanking. Masebrock (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a proposed pared-down text:

From 2014-2016

During the War in Donbas, torture was used by both the Ukrainian government and the Russian-backed of separatists. The United Nations assistant secretary-general for human rights Ivan Šimonović described Kyiv's torture of prisoners as entrenched and systemic.

In Eastern Ukraine, the SBU operated special hidden prisons for alleged pro-Russian separatists where unacknowledged detention was accompanied by widespread torture and human rights abuses. In 2016, the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture suspended its visit to Ukraine after the government had denied it access to jails in several parts of the country.

References

Masebrock (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I also do not want an edit war. I ask that everyone proposing removal of sourced content to do so on the Talk Page before deletion (like K.e.coffman is doing here). Masebrock (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

While an improvement still gives UNDUE weight to just one side. The sources originally in the article went into great detail on torture and murder by the separatists but this is completely missing from this text aside from a token acknowledgement. Newsweek is not a reliable source. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• The NYT source actually goes into greater detail of the torture by Ukrainian authorities (e.g., suffocation by plastic bags, visible injuries indicating torture on prisoners, ect). Going into further detail of only torture by separatists would be WP:UNDUE. My proposal (per User:K.e.coffman's more big-picture article concerns) is that we go into detail of neither.
• The Newsweek source, which I agree has now been depreciated, is unnecessary and can be replaced by the NYT source for the sentence on the suspension of UN monitoring visits. Masebrock (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the discussion should develop - here or at Talk:Torture in_Ukraine#Proposal: Merge/redirect, or Disambig.

As for the present discussion, my view is that we should be very careful in removing notable and well-sourced material on torture in Ukraine. If in 2015 Amnesty published a report saying xyz, in principle we should report "In 2015 AI said xyz" in the article. Precisely because these are recent events and we inevitably lack sources providing balanced, stand-alone overview (e.g. an authoritative History of HR in Ukraine), contextualisation and balance are usually achieved by reporting dates, allegations and sources rather by removing them in an indiscriminate way. Removing contents because they use present tense instead of past tense [9][10] or because the events of 2014 would fall under outdated recentism, undue [11][12] is not an improvement and can esaily be taken for disruptive editing. WP:ONLYREVERT applies here, and the imprisonment of a journalist in 2015 is not ancient history (by the way, the sections on "Freedom of expression and conscience" and " Migrants and refugees" lack essential information and need to be expanded and updated).

Finally, with regard to the proposed text here above, I think it's very good and should defintely be published. I propose we add to it the following text and sources:

While the use of secret detention centers to hold alleged separatists substantially decreased from late 2016 onwards, in 2018 the UN special rapporteur on torture lamented that investigations and prosecutions into allegations of torture had been extremely rare, thus creating a perception of de facto impunity.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Second thoughts on my last comment. My proposal stands, but I see that VM says While an improvement still gives UNDUE weight to just one side. @Volunteer Marek, what about we put that text online and you add some contents about pro-Russian separatists? Or, alternatively (and perhaps for the best, given the 1RR) we could work on a shared text in a sandbox, starting from that draft. What d'you think? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Torture in Ukraine now redirects here

This is per the discussion: Talk:Torture_in_Ukraine#Proposal:_Merge/redirect,_or_Disambig. Anything worthwhile can be merged from the article history. I see above that there are some disagreements. Perhaps they can be hashed out here. For now, I removed the section breaks as the sections are not long enough to warrant them. I also merged contents from the lead of Torture in Ukraine as of 3 December, to cover the 2022 events. Here's the diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Journalist imprisonment section removed

I would like to restore this long-stable content (that has reliable sourcing from The Guardian) which has been removed without consensus.

Amnesty International has appealed for the release of Ukrainian journalist Ruslan Kotsababy and declared him a prisoner of conscience.

The rationales given for the removal in the edit summary were "outdated recentism, undue". I disagree that 2015 is too outdated to include on a human rights page (see: Human rights in the United States for examples >10 years older than this one). And I disagree that its inclusion is undue, as censorship of journalists and prisoners of conscious are highly relevant to the topic at hand, and it has been covered by reliable sources. Please discuss.Masebrock (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No it’s UNDUE and outdated. Sources are from 2015. Has this gotten any more recent coverage? Only more recent sources I’m seeing are all WP:FRINGE. And yes, this is another staple of pro-Russian propaganda on the internet. Volunteer Marek 23:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Lol. He was released like five years ago. Why exactly are you wanting to put this in? Without even mentioning that he’s been long released? Do you really think that doesn’t misinform our readers? Seriously? Volunteer Marek 23:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If he was released, provide reliable sources and we can put in the text how long he was imprisoned. Events from 2015 are not outdated, as human rights pages in other countries mention events much older. Reliable sources such as The Guardian are not "pro-Russian propaganda" and your personal opinion as such is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Masebrock (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I never said that The Guardian was pro Russian propaganda and it’s very bad faithed for you to even suggest that I did. I don’t see why I should even continue discussing this with you if you’re going to resort to pronouncing such gross falsehoods. Please strike that. Volunteer Marek 00:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If you agree that The Guardian article is NOT pro-Russian propaganda, then what is the "this" in your sentance "this is another staple of pro-Russian propaganda on the internet"? Masebrock (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop obfuscating. Anyone capable of reading can see that what I said is that this particular story has become a staple of Russian propaganda. Which is true. I didn't say ANYTHING about the Guardian so I would appreciate it if you stopped pretending otherwise and struck your false comment. Volunteer Marek 16:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The "story", as you say, is directly sourced to The Guardian. So I still don't understand. Is your argument that The Guardian's reporting is Russian propaganda, but not The Guardian itself? Feels like splitting hairs. Masebrock (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with restoring well-sourced content. The section on freedom of expression is terribly outdated and incomplete, however, and in the near future I'd like to work on it. I hope we'll be able to create a collaborative environment on this subject and to that end removals of reliable sourced contents are not helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This info is outdated and concerns someone we do not even have a page about. Zero hits about him in Google news. Therefore, probably undue on this page. If there are human right problems in a country, one should have to focus on systematic problems, preferably with statistical data. Including individual cases is fine, but such cases must be significant, e.g. Navalny in Russia, something resulting in cases in international courts, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The name of the journalist is "Ruslan Kotsaba": Ruslan Kotsababy is likely to be the work of a vandal. We don't have a page on him, but we should probably have it. His affair, I read, is not at all finished: [13]. Here's a 2015 article by the Guardian on him [14], and here's Amnesty [15]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Now we have an article on Ruslan Kotsaba. I haven't finished working on it yet, a lot of information is still missing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Lute88, with regard to this revert [16], why do you believe that Kotsaba's arrest and trial have nothing to do with human rights (and with freedom of expression and conscience in particular)? Amnesty said he was a prisoner of conscience because he had been imprisoned for the nonviolent expression of his beliefs, and the quoted source (Guardian) says

“You can take different views on Ruslan Kotsaba’s position, but by arresting him for stating a particular viewpoint, the Ukrainian authorities are violating the key human right of freedom of thought, which Ukrainians stood up for on the Maidan,” said Tetiana Mazur, director of Amnesty International in Ukraine.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft dodging in a time of war is not a human right by all legal standards.

Kotsaba received a fair trial. Aristophile (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

He was not arrested for draft dodging: he was arrested for inviting other people to dodge the draft, that is, for expressing his views against the mobilisation. And while the trial he received may have been fair, it is still ongoing 7 years after the video was posted on youtube: see this 2021 press release by the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, which is "shocked by the continuation of prosecution and attacks against Ruslan Kotsaba". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe it as a human rights violation, which is all that matters. The content should be restored unless consensus is formed to remove. Masebrock (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

References

LGBT rights

The article seems to have a void when it comes to Ukraine's LGBT rights record. For instance same-sex marriage is still outlawed. Reflecktor (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• This https://www.equaldex.com/region/ukraine say ambiguous. This says even during WAR they are trying to advance rights https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/same-sex-partnerships-in-ukraine-would-show-its-values/ if we contrast and compare to say Czar Putin's Russia, even as it stands it is miles apart and going much further apart in both directions.2404:4408:638C:5E00:7527:D2E8:A117:F6A (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Russia, it's got nothing to do with this article. Sources indicate same sex marriage isn't allowed in Ukraine, the LGBT rights in Ukraine says the same. Reflecktor (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It was where the rights in Ukraine started from or were inherited from, and moves to improve have happened, however, Russian pressure, pro-Russian oligarch, implanted Russian subversives, Russian snipers, Russian intelligence agents provided advice and for a fair few other reasons as well, things have moved slowly.

Re Sources, both says it is not recognised, not outlawed (oops Russian bits could go here again), 2nd source says it is being addressed, which is vastly different to your leading phrasing2404:4408:638C:5E00:7527:D2E8:A117:F6A (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to bear in mind WP:NOTAFORUM when diatribing about Russia. Not recognised is the same as outlawed, the law doesn't allow it hence 'outlawed'. It's not really disputed by sources that gay marriage isn't legal in Ukraine so conversations about it is moot, that's why wikipedia states such a thing. Reflecktor (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Outlawed activities in Russia are punishable by jail, creates discrimination and fosters an unfriendly social environment and other issues , not recognised would be if two Ukrainians (guys or girls) got married in the UK would not have marriage equality, maybe bear that in mind, that said, the UN hrc articles do not specifically address LGBT+ rights, however a header and some prose should be included, I can love Russia and Russian history, art, chess players etc and still hate what is being done there diatribe's about Putin is fully justifiable 2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)