Talk:Anti-protest laws in Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

There is no such naming, this is original research. --188.104.222.135 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one to add the POV tag, but I think the article's title is biased. Is there any way to make it more neutral? Did these laws have a collective official name? --Երևանցի talk 01:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this isn't a WP:COMMON title for the laws. I don't think there is one single term to describe them all yet in the media, and I don't know the formal, legal name for the 10 laws as a whole. I tagged the name until I find out a proper name.--Львівське (говорити) 02:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if we call it something like "Ukraine anti-protest laws" or "Ukrainian anti-protest laws"? Is it too generic? I can't think of a better title. --Երևանցի talk 02:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, 'Black Thursday' seems to be used as the name to describe the day the laws were ratified. Maybe make the article that name to avoid any original research --Львівське (говорити) 02:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kyiv Post, RFE/RL and a few other sources use that phrase, but I'm not sure it is a common name and whether it is recognizable or not. Another problem is that "Black Thursday" is used for several events and if we are going to use it for this article, then we should add '2014' or 'Ukraine' in parenthesis. --Երևանցի talk 03:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it's not WP:COMMON but it's all I've got at the moment, since we're looking for a solution to a clearly non-neutral, original research article title.--Львівське (говорити) 03:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • found this on Interfax, it's not for all the laws, just some, "the so-called Oliynyk-Kolesnichenko law, which, in particular, determines the procedure for the registration and functioning of NGOs - "foreign agents," --Львівське (говорити) 03:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added numerous links for the name. As a lawyer, I can say that there're no exist official name for that 10 laws, so it's impossible to give for the title one short name (some laws are including 15-20 words). "Anti-protesters laws" are wrong translation from Ukrainian and wrong definition for that laws. Anti-protesters laws means that this laws are only (or mainly) against protesters. But in a fact, this laws are adopted against rights and freedoms of all citizens of Ukraine. For example, for libel person can be imprisoned (f. e. in Russia - there're only fee), for unauthorised driving in groups of more than 5 cars (f. e. weddings or celebrations) — driver loose a license for 1–2 years, NGOs that accept foreign funds must register as "foreign agents" and face high scrutiny, additional tax measures and finally, state may take the decision to ban Internet access. It's only some examples. This laws are against freedom and rights of all people, not only protesters, first of all against mass-medias, non-governmental organisations and simple people. I'm not sure that this name of the article is perfect, but I have not find any better. In Ukraine this name is most widely used. Why we can't name it just by the names of all laws / as "anti-protesters" laws I've mentioned above. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pravda was a good source since it shows it's being used by the press, whereas the other links were from pro-maidan sites, which IMO shows use amongst protesters but not Ukraine as a whole (and doesn't help the neutrality complaint). If you can find more mentions of it from major press sites in Ukrainian, I think we can move forward with this name.--Львівське (говорити) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll look for that now. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you rock--Львівське (говорити) 17:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy move (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 14:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dictatorship laws in Ukraine → Anti-protest laws in Ukraine – WP:NPOV. I'm convinced that no matter how common, "Dictatorship laws" is a biased phrase and should not be used as a title on Wikipedia. Երևանցի talk 22:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well what takes precedence, WP:COMMON or WP:NPOV? Personally, calling them "anti-protest laws" is a bit reductionist seeing as many of the laws have nothing to do with protests, but rather free speech (libel, criticizing the state, etc.), assembly, and also parliamentary immunity. By my count, only 5 of the 10 laws have to do with protests and assembly, only 1 mentions protests directly.--Львівське (говорити) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Protest", according to Merriam-Webster, is "something said or done that shows disagreement with or disapproval of something". Thus, it doesn't only refer to the physical form of protest (i.e. Demonstration (protest)). Besides, I have doubts about the claim that "dictatorship laws" is more common. Google shows only 611 results for ukraine "Dictatorship laws" and 808,000 for ukraine "Anti-protest laws".--Երևանցի talk 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one said it was common in english, just ukrainian (in which the actual translation is pro-dictatorship laws) --Львівське (говорити) 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


So many news agencies use the term "anti-protest laws" it doesn't even make sense to list them here, but here's a few: BBC, Moscow Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Al Jazeera. --Երևանցի talk 22:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support the move. As it stands, the title is just a big red flag to any readers that the article was written by euro-maiden supports.99.242.186.64 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To our Ukrainian friends - perhaps your limited understanding (no offence intended) of the language prevents you from seeing just how silly and obviously one-sided the current title is to native English speakers. It might as well be titled the "Neo-Stalinst Laws" or the "Death of Ukrainian Freedom Laws". 99.242.186.64 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, speedy support. Emphasis on the "speedy". What takes precedence, WP:COMMON or WP:NPOV? I am so glad you asked, Lvivske. (I mean this sincerely, not sarcastically.) WP:NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It is never to be compromised. Red Slash 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move, but to a proper title - I still feel that 'anti-protest laws' is original research and a name that's being invented here. Like my issue with the current name before proper sourcing was made, I'm fine with a move so long as it's not something being made up on the talk page. Is there an official decree or bill number? --Львівське (говорити) 03:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, and equally strongly echoing User:Red Slash. Good idea re. Bill no., but I think as it's various laws together, and not a single one, it probably has a shed load of identifiers. Would 'Anti-Opposition Legislation of the Ukraine' work? I.e, that they are directed against the 'opposition' in general rather than any one specific party. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS, having had a look at Anti-Jewish legislation, it gives quite a few article titles regarding such laws around Europe- most seem to be akin to what I suggested ? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
...well I'm sure glad I wasn't wasting my breath! ("lol") Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Ukrainian Wikipedia is using the page title 'Dictatorship Laws' and even the official Wikipedia page on the laws announcing the wiki-strike openly uses the language. If NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia...the site's official stance seems to have no issue with the language like we're having here. Seems a contradiction.--Львівське (говорити) 17:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This article has a serious issue of balance and the lack of neutral point of view and do'nt even attempt to compare these laws with the laws in other countries like France or USA. Or even with ODIHR's Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (OSCE) --Tirthika (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comparing these laws to other countries and inserting our own interpretations would be a violation of original research. --Львівське (говорити) 15:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Wikipedia users should not be engaged in such practices. It's called original research. --Երևանցի talk 22:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would have been fair to compare these laws to those of other countries, particularly European Union countries and western democracies to allow people to measure how 'mainstream' they are, and also as the article has a tweet from an EU official suggesting that these laws weren't in accord with EU norms. From what I can see every one of the activities made illegal under these laws is already a criminal offence in the UK and would, in most cases, actually entail a longer prison sentence. For example collecting information on the police and judiciary and their family would fall foul of anti-terrorism legislation in the UK and would lead to a longer prison sentence, protesting by erecting tents etc is illegal in the area around the UK Parliament and would be swiftly dealt with,writs are deemed served in the UK if they are put in the post so they doesn't even have to be proof that they reached the person in question. "Drivers of motorcades of more than 5 cars, if they cause traffic jams, face the loss of their driver's license and vehicle for up to two years (unless permission is obtained from the Ministry of Internal Affairs);" - this would be causing an obstruction and could a number of motoring offences and could lead to prison and points on license (and then the loss of license). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.4.122 (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a tent would get you 2 weeks in jail in the UK? I'm guessing you'd get at worst a fine --Львівське (говорити) 08:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Anti-protest laws in Ukraine[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anti-protest laws in Ukraine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "kpj22deaths":

  • From 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots: "Five killed, at least 300 injured, in police assaults on EuroMaidan protesters". Kyiv Post. 22 January 2014.
  • From Euromaidan: "Five killed, at least 300 injured, in police assaults on EuroMaidan protesters". Kyiv Post. 22 January 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15 years for mass disruption?[edit]

I've seen mentions of some remarkably long prison terms. The Australian reported that "Participating in "mass disruptions" will incur 10-15 years imprisonment." The BBC quoted local media as saying that 13 of 32 imprisoned protesters could face up to 15 years in jail for creating "mass disturbances." Indeed, Transparency International Ukraine mentioned something similar in its report:


This is currently not mentioned in the article. Should it be? It's not in the article's Ukrainian counterpart according to what Google Translate says. Does anyone know if this is a change that was introduced in the new laws, and do we have sources we can use as references for more detail? (Non-English sources, like Ukrainian news articles or a passage from the laws themselves, are okay. They're a hassle but we can use them.)

Incidentally, is this the same kind of "mass disturbance" as the one mentioned in the recent text messages? --Kizor 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-protest laws in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine&oldid=1198875182"