Talk:Human rights in Ukraine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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 [1][2] or because the events of 2014 would fall under outdated recentism, undue [3][4] 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)

Please. Stop. Edit. Warring

Masebrock can you please stop edit warring [5] 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 [6], then let's please follow the WP:BRD cycle. Reverting Masebrock's revert [7] 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. [8][9][10][11] 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)

[12] - 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)

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

1RR

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

@Ad Orientem:, @Masebrock:. Masebrock you just broke 1RR by removing the “failed verification” tags I added. Here is your previous revert on 17:43 yesterday [17]. Here’s your second revert just now [18] at 0:21 today. That’s what, 6 hour difference?

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

Fixing the wording issue you brought up isn't a revert, its an attempt at collaboration. Did you want the wording used fixed here or not? For reference, the source I added [19] says verbatim "Justice needed for former secret prison detainees". I attempted to solve the problem you pointed out, and now you accuse me of edit warring. Please. Masebrock (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

'Linguistic rights' should explain the context

Russia used to dominate Ukraine culturally. Russian language was a tool of Russian imperialism. The government had to support Ukrainian to preserve it in Eastern Ukraine.

The war has changed linguistic situation. Many Russian-speaking Ukrainians learn Ukrainian, eg. President Zelenskyy.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As currently written and sourced, this section does not belong to the page because it is not clear if their language policy was a human rights violation. The text refers to the Ukrainian law of 2017 which made Ukrainian the required language of study in state schools from the fifth grade on, although "the bill does not outlaw instruction in other languages" [20]. As cited in this ref, according to Poroshenko, "The law raises the role of Ukrainian as a state language in the education process," he said. "The law ensures equal opportunities for all...It guarantees every graduate strong language skills essential for a successful career in Ukraine.". That may or may not be the case, but the text must indeed be properly written and sourced to demonstrate this issue as a serious human rights problem in the country to be included to the page. Yes, they are adopting a single state language, but so do many other countries. Yes, this issue has been heavily exploited by Russian propaganda, hence place it to page about Russian propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As a note of order, this section was included by a throwaway account [21] who also included the nonsense about "heavily contested topic" [22], etc. It is heavily contested by whom? By Russian propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your criticism: the section on language rights was defective and also outdated. Luckily, I have done a lot of work on this important topic over the past few months and have good sources available. I will be able to publish an updated and (hopefully) improved version of the text very soon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S. But "heavily contested topic" is not nonsense and is not just Russian propaganda! Human Rights Watch, the Venice Commission and others have raised serious concerns about Ukrainian language policy. Every newspapers or online publication must either be in Ukrainian (or an official language of the EU) or have a translation into Ukrainian; all secondary education and teaching must be in Ukrainian (there cannot be a private "Russian school" teaching in Russian) with limited exceptions for EU languages but not for Russian; all scientific, cultural and sporting activities must be in Ukrainian (or other official languages of the EU), unless the use of other languages is exceptionally justified "by the artistic or creative concept of the event organiser", in which case the organiser must provide simultaneous or consecutive interpretation in Ukrainian (e.g., a play by Chekhov must be accompanied by subtitles or audio translation); political campaigning must take place in Ukrainian only. Since Ukraine is a multicultural and multi-linguistic state, this linguistic policy cannot but be a "heavily contested topic" both in Ukraine and abroad. Just imagine what would happen in Canada if someone passed these rules... It always amazes me how little information there is on Ukraine: and this should make us wary of talking about "propaganda" as if it were only other people's problem. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Ops! I was going to publish the text straight-away and I would have inadvertently violated the 1RR. I take the opportunity to anticipate the draft here below:

TL:DR on those walls of text below. Please stop doing that, Gitz. I have asked you this before. If you feel the need to show us something that long, create a subpage or something. Better yet, break it into one or two changes at a time. But anyway...I am just here to point out that someone *did* pass these rules in Canada, and it has worked rather well for years. Canada also mandates a maximum level of foreign broadcasting time. I do not know what the United Nations says about this, but it's pretty much accepted in Canada. So...bad analogy. Elinruby (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft on Linguistic rights

Linguistic rights Main article: Language policy in Ukraine In 2017, the Ukrainian government adopted a new education law to reform the education system. The language provisions of the law were highly controversial both locally and in neighboring states, as it made Ukrainian the compulsory language of study from the fifth grade on. Education in minority languages in kindergarten and primary school remained unchanged, but at secondary level, students could only learn their native languages as a separate subject. Additionally, from grade five onwards, two or more subjects could be taught in any of the languages of the EU, which include minority languages such as Hungarian, Polish and Romanian but not Russian. The 2017 education law provoked harsh reactions in Hungary, Romania, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria and other countries. The Romanian parliament passed a motion condemning the law and warned that Ukraine could not proceed towards EU integration without respecting the language rights of national minorities. The Russian Duma and Federation Council also adopted a resolution lamenting the violation of the language rights of the Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine. On 7 December 2017, the Venice Commission stated that criticism of the law seemed justified, as the the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education could infringe on the rights of ethnic minorities. Moreover, according to the Venice Commission, allowing certain subjects to be taught in the official languages of the EU could discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used non-state language. The 2019 Law "On Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language" prescribed compulsory use of Ukrainian in both state institutions and public life, including mass and social media, publishing, entertainment, advertising, commerce, public services, education and health services. The law required print and online publications to be exclusively in Ukrainian or have a Ukrainian translation. The law did not regulate private communication. Some exemptions were provided for the official languages of the EU and minority languages, with the exclusion of the languages of minorities that are not EU official languages (in particular Russian, Byelorussian and Yiddish). The Venice Commission and Human Rights Watch expressed concern about the 2019 law's failure to protect the language rights of Ukrainian minorities. The OHCHR also expressed concern about the absence of special legislation regulating the use of minority languages in Ukraine and criticised the distinction between minorities speaking an official EU language and other national minorities. References

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does not look good. I assume you are trying to say here that Linguistic rights of Ukrainian citizens were violated. But what rights, exactly? Were they not allowed to speak other languages? Was it something from Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights? Or something from European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages? This needs to be stated very specifically and well sourced. It says, for example, HRW "expressed concern about the 2019 law's failure to protect the language rights of Ukrainian minorities". Which concerns exactly and why? This is not at all clear from the text. Some claims (yes, they come fro the cited sources) read like absurd. For example, The commission said a provision in the new law to allow some subjects to be taught in official EU languages, such as Hungarian, Romanian and Polish, appeared to discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used non-state language. How allowing teaching on a variety of different languages can be seen as a discrimination? One needs better sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from the word "compulsory" in the paragraph that people are being legally prohibited from speaking languages in certain contexts. This is not merely "teaching a variety of languages" as you say. And at any rate, reliable sources describe this as a violation of language rights, so Wikipedia should describe it as a violation of language rights. Masebrock (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No, that's the thing. The cited sources do NOT say that "people are being legally prohibited from speaking [other] languages", for example in public places, etc. I do agree that these laws are introduced to increase usage of Ukrainian language in the country and specifically decrease usage of Russian language in the country (not surprising given the history of Russification and the ongoing war), but I do not see this strongly documented as a serious human rights problem in RS. Saying that, I agree that some kind of properly written text about this should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the cited sources CLEARLY AND PLAINLY STATE that people are being prohibited from speaking other languages in certain contexts. They are as clear as could be on this, am I frankly confused how you do not see this. And there are numerous sources provided that describe this as a human rights violation. Masebrock (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion here is you have truncated my sentence (leaving off "in certain contexts") which gives it a different meaning than what I said. Masebrock (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So you don't see any human rights issue in that legislation on education and the state language, MVBW? The quoted RSs do however see such an issue and speak of violations of the linguistic righrs of the national minorities, especially the Russian minority. So what shall we do? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I am against including the text above as written per reasons I explained (it makes false claim that "people [in Ukraine] are being legally prohibited from speaking [other] languages"). My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not a quote found in the proposed text. That's just something you are saying in quotation marks. What part of the proposed text says this, that you are opposed to? Can you quote that instead? Masebrock (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hungary was, and still is, angry because of the law. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Viktor Orban is very angry about a lot of things. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We should not engage in OR on this but rather rely on what RS say. Let me address MVBW's objections one by one. Sources are provided are above in the proposed draft:

1. what rights, exactly? ... This needs to be stated very specifically and well sourced ... One needs better sources. These issues should be dealt with in the dedicated article Language policy in Ukraine. Answering all your questions in the proposed text would be WP:TOOMUCH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anyway, answering these questions is relatively easy. As explained by the Venice Commission, Ukraine has ratified several international treaties that prohibit discrimination on the ground of language and protect minority rights: Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language), the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (which establishes several obligations for signatory states, such as the obligation to allow the use of minority languages in relations between citizens and administrative authorities in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (the parties undertake to encourage the use of regional or minority languages in speech and writing, in public and private life, e.g. by ensuring that minority languages are used in the provision of public services and in the debates of local authorities assemblies). Furthermore, Article 10 of the Ukrainian Constitution stipulates that Free development, use, and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine shall be guaranteed in Ukraine, Article 24.2 forbids privileges or restrictions based on ... linguistic or other characteristics and Article 53.5 stipulates that citizens belonging to national minorities enjoy the right to education in their native language.
2. How allowing teaching on a variety of different languages can be seen as a discrimination? MVBW, you should address this question to the Venice Commission. My personal opinion on this: if I'm a Russian-speaker, in secondary school I'm not allowed to take any subjects in my native language, while Hungarian-speakers and Polish-speakers are allowed to do so, hence the discrimination.
3. The cited sources do NOT say that "people are being legally prohibited from speaking [other] languages. It depends on what you mean. The use of minority languages is allowed in private communication: you can walk down the street speaking in Russian, no doubt. But if you own a restaurant with menus in Russian, use Russian to advertise your company, hold a karaoke party with songs in Russian outside the permitted cases, organise a play in Russian, or - even worse - you publish and distribute texts in Russian outside of a predetermined quota system, then you can be forced to pay fines ranging from 1,700 UAH to 11,900 UAH (64 EUR to 446 EUR).

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I saw these sources, but I do not see how they support assertion that people in Ukraine are being legally prohibited from speaking other languages (that is what a reader suppose to conclude from reading this as follows from responses by Masebrock above). My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that readers will conclude that people in Ukraine are being legally prohibited from speaking other languages? The proposed text says what it says, which is verifiable. If you or others want to improve the linguistic quality of the text to prevent misunderstanding, you are welcome to do so. Note that the text already says "The law did not regulate private communication", if that's what you mean by being legally prohibited from speaking other languages. If, however, you mean being legally prohibited from speaking other languages in communication with authorities, advertisement, cultural activities, political campaigning, education and teaching, print mass media, etc., then yes, Ukrainians are prohibited from speaking other languages in those areas. By the way, the law also requires every citizen to be proficient in Ukrainian and prevents them from accessing to "state positions" (members of parliament, civil servants, etc.) if their proficiency in Ukrainian is deemed insufficient. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition, all of that is outdated. Right now, Russian has become the language of occupiers for Ukrainian citizens, and this is probably the end of it in the country. But of course it has always been the language of Russian/Soviet occupiers. I met some colleagues in Poland who could speak Russian just fine (because they were forced to learn it in school), but refused speaking it anywhere as a matter of principle/protest. Incredible, but I even met one native Russian speaker, an emigrant to USA, who preferred speaking broken English with me instead of Russian for the same reason. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with MVBW , this seeks to give a false impression to the reader, frames the info in terms of Russian propaganda tropes and is only loosely related to the subject. And before you two start screaming “no consensus to remove! No consensus to remove!”, you actually need consensus to include. Per WP:ONUS. Which you already know since we’ve been through this issue like four times already, WP:AN/I and all. Volunteer Marek 14:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The section frames the info in the same terms as the human rights organizations it cites. Shouldn't we write about human rights in Ukraine using the best available sources? Why should we be so worried about contradicting or validating Russian propaganda? The alternative is to engage in propaganda ourselves and try to convince Ukrainians and the world that Ukraine has always been a safe heaven for human rights, and that to argue otherwise is to give voice to Russian propaganda. How can this be compatible with NPOV? NPOV requires us to balance the significant viewpoints but here you are proposing to suppress one of the most significant viewpoints on human rights in Ukraine, that of international human rights organisations.

WP:ONUS is misunderstood here. WP:ONUS is not the right to say "I say no, fuck you" - it is not a veto power. Collaborative editing implies that if you remove a whole section full of sources you have to explain your reasons, which sources have been misrepresented, if any, which are unreliable, which content is unbalanced, biased and incomplete, how to replace it or how to improve it. Otherwise it is pure disruption and POV-pushing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

you have to explain your reasons These explanations were provided - see for starters the first two comments in this very section - it's just that you're. not. listening. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You can't keep demanding explanations then not bothering to read them when they're provided then demand that explanations are provided. Volunteer Marek 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Ummm... the 2019 Law "On Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language" prescribed compulsory use of Ukrainian in both state institutions and public life, including mass and social media, publishing, entertainment, advertising, commerce, public services, education and health services. The law required print and online publications to be exclusively in Ukrainian or have a Ukrainian translation. This is sourced to the Venice Commission source. Can someone point me to how that source actually supports this text?

For example, our text states "The law required print and online publications to be exclusively in Ukrainian or have a Ukrainian translation"'. The source doesn't say anything about "exclusively in Ukrainian".

Are there some sourcing hijinks going on here? Volunteer Marek 19:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• The proposed text in Wikipedia says "The law required print and online publications to be exclusively in Ukrainian or have a Ukrainian translation"
• The HRW source says "It requires print media outlets registered in Ukraine to publish in Ukrainian. Publications in other languages must also be accompanied by a Ukrainian version, equivalent in content, volume, and method of printing."

I have to say I'm pretty baffled by you calling this "sourcing hijinks". Isn't this almost verbatim? If it was any closer it could be a copyright vio. Masebrock (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Where the source says:

The Venice Commission welcomes that although this Article establishes that “the language in the field of health care, medical assistance and medical services shall be the State language”, it allows that at the request of a person seeking such services, they may also be provided to him or her “personally in another language acceptable to the parties”

In our article this becomes:

"the 2019 Law "On Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language" prescribed compulsory use of Ukrainian in (...) health services"'

This looks like fairly blatant POV manipulation and falsification of a source. Again. Volunteer Marek 19:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah.... no. The more I look at it, the clearer it becomes that this is just a very dishonest misrepresentation of the source. Volunteer Marek 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Look, all countries have a language policy; in France for example (which presumably complies with all these lengthy EU regulatory documents being cited without a page number), the official language is emphatically French. This does not mean that if you show up at an ER speaking Maltese or Norwegian that you don't get treated. The language of instruction in public schools is French. I the United States federal regulations are published in English. This does not prevent the State of New Mexico from, due to its own demographics, choosing to publish all official signage, such as rules for behaviour on a bus, in English, Spanish, Navajo and Vietnamese. But the State of Maine is not required to translate everything into Navajo. I think the analogy to Canada is in fact better: language rights of English speakers are not in any particular need of protection, whereas the federal government has been indeed felt the need to regulate the cultural content of broadcasters, decades ago. Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the relevant question not whether you, Wikipedia User Elinruby, thinks this is a human rights issue, but whether reliable sources describe it as a human rights issue? (which they do) Masebrock (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

No, actually, the more I look at the sourcing, the more they don't, actually. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We have at least three sources here that describe the language law as a human rights issue.[23][24][25] Masebrock (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

that's two sources, not at least three, speaking of misrepresentation, and the one you list twice is the one Whose misrepresentation I discuss just below in the post from 22:40. Elinruby (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC

Whoops, meant to post this one as the third. [[26]]. I would be trivial to find a fourth, if you are interested. I can keep going. Masebrock (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok -- prepared to accept for the moment that this was a cut and paste error. But what is the page number in this report, please? This also looks a bit outdated -- definitely pre-invasion -- but for the moment I would settle for a page number. Doing something else at the moment. Feel free to post other sources however, if you like. Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph number is in the citation (paragraph 81). It's located on page 20. Masebrock (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

we are worried about Taras Kozak's freedom of expression? He's an oligarch! The section titled "Situation" consists in its entirety of a statement that in 2013 Ukraine lost some amazing number of international law cases. Really? That is the "situation" as to human rights in Ukraine? That probably should read "had lost" and might have something to do with the revolution in 2014, but I cannot immediately tell since the sole source for this is in Ukrainian. It's the Ukrainian Pravda as I recall, which is generally regarded as a good source, but this is a great example of an extraordinary claim that does not have extraordinary sourcing, and given the history in the topic area it's likely to not exactly say that. Sourcibg I sampled elsewhere: A 38-page report with no page number, and a web editorial by the organization that wrote the report, about the report. Not exactly the two independent sources that a casual reader might think them to be, but ok, perhaps useful given the lack of page numbers. But a concern expressed in the source that the language of the legislation (incidentally signed into law by a previous president now charged with treason) may not contain sufficient provisions to protect the rights of language minorities {Russian speakers). In our text this has become "concern for the rights of language minorities." I will, since it seems I must dig out the specifics on this, but while it is subtle this sort of distortion is definitely POINTy, and that's before considering that Russian, while it has fewer speakers in Ukraine than Ukrainian, has also historically been the language of many if not most of the elite. Now. It's a beautiful day and I have things to do. Let me leave one constructive suggestion here until I can get back and take a deeper look at this: using a 50-page report as a source really requires a page number. The source should back up the text it is referencing. This is rather elementary and I can't believe I am having to explain this, but here we are. Elinruby (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• a very dishonest misrepresentation. Please refrain from personal attacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS, Volunteer Marek. I wonder why you believe that WP:CIV does not apply to you. And since you are apparently right in believing this, I wonder why you are allowed to behave as you please. This kind of licence to offend makes interacting with you very unpleasant.
• Re press. "The law required print and online publications to be exclusively in Ukrainian or have a Ukrainian translation" is a correct summary of what follows:

Venice Commission: Article 25 allows publishing of print media in two or more language versions, one of which must be Ukrainian, provided that all language versions are identical in size, format and substance and are issued on the same day … In view of crucial importance of the freedom of the press in a democratic society, the Commission recommends that the legislator repeal this requirement

Human Rights Watch: A new legal provision on the use of the Ukrainian language, part of a broader state language law, raises concerns about protection for minority languages. The provision, which entered into force on January 16, is stipulated in article 25 of the law. It requires print media outlets registered in Ukraine to publish in Ukrainian. Publications in other languages must also be accompanied by a Ukrainian version, equivalent in content, volume, and method of printing

• Re healthcare. In the text you removed, "the 2019 Law ... prescribed compulsory use of Ukrainian in ... health services" is accompanied by "The law did not regulate private communication". Private communication includes communication between a doctor and a patient, as it includes communication between a waiter and a client, or between a lawyer and the client. This is a reasonable summary of the law as described by the Venice Commission. The use of Ukrainian is compulsory: try getting a hospital to give you a form, a medical certificate, a health record, an appointment riminder, or any documentation about treatment, medicines and dosages, in Russian, and see what you get; but Ukraiinian is only compulsory in public communication, so if privately the parties agree otherwise, they may do so. Finally, note that in the dedicated article, where there is more space for details, the information is provided as follows: The use of Ukrainian is also mandatory in the field of health care, medical care and medical services, but at the request of the service user, the service can be provided in another language acceptable to the parties.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that you’re trying to deflect by posting long walls of text. No, the source was being misrepresented. To point this out is NOT “a personal attack”. It’s really protecting integrity of Wikipedia from disruption.

”was a correct summary of (source)” No, it absolutely was not. There’s no “exclusively” in the source. “Or translation” makes the sentence nonsensical in fact and contradicts the “exclusively” part (if a translation is ok then it’s not “exclusively” is it?). This isn’t just POV, it’s crappy-writing-that-verges-on-self-parody-POV. The law basically says that government documents and related material have to have a Ukrainian version. Lots of countries have such law - pretty much any country with an official language (like Russia). Sitting there and pretending with a straight face that this is a “human rights violation” is ridiculous.

Your comments and quoting sections on “private communication” are beside the point. Irrelevant deflection. The real problem is that the source basically says “hey Ukraine, we commend you for requiring that health care language be provided in the language a person is comfortable with” and you somehow managed to get “the law prescribed compulsory use of Ukrainian in (...) health services"'“ out of that. 100% OPPOSITE of what the source says. There’s no compulsory in there. The relevant source *commends* the law. Like, really, you cannot get more **source is being falsely misrepresented** than that.

And this is the exact same sourcing hijinks you two were trying to pull over on Torture in Ukraine article. And yes, this is disruptive editing since it takes effort to fix it, and when an editor establishes a history of misrepresenting sources it’s time consuming to have to read every single source they fix.

Oh yeah. This part: The use of Ukrainian is compulsory: try getting a hospital to give you a form, a medical certificate, a health record, an appointment riminder, or any documentation about treatment, medicines and dosages, in Russian, and see what you get - where do you get this nonsense? Is it in any of the sources? No? Then it’s original research. Based on what? I don’t think it’s your own personal experience so where did you get this stuff (and are trying to pass it off as sourced)??? Volunteer Marek 03:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The sentence ...“Or translation” makes the sentence nonsensical in fact and contradicts the “exclusively” part (if a translation is ok then it’s not “exclusively” is it?) is quite funny. I suggest you read our article Logical disjunction. If I say "People invited to the party must dress exclusively in yellow, or yellow combined with green and red", would you say that "or yellow combined with green and red" makes the sentence nonsensical and contradicts the "exclusively" part? Is it an ill-formed, incomprehensible, surprising sentence? No, it's not.

With regard to civility, listen, it's quite easy: I could start speculating about the reason you just said the funny sentence you said. I could speculate that it's because your English sucks; or because you're an ignorant, or stupid persons, who is incampable of understanding an exclusive disjunction; or because you're are blinded by ideology and only interested in winning an argument. The point is: WP:CIV implies that I keep these hypotheses on your intentions and personal qualities for myself, no metter how reasonable they look to me; I'm not allowed to share them on the talk page, OK? Similarly, you shouldn't say that I wrote "exclusively in Ukrainian" or "compulsory" because I was being dishonest, as you've done dozens of times with me and many other editors; and Elinruby shouldn't say that I say what I say because my English is bad or because I'm suffering from mental healht issues. If you and Elinruby believe that I am dishonest or incapable of speaking English or reasoning well, then you raise a complaint at ANI or AE lamenting disruption, either because of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or because of lack of WP:COMPETENCE, or both. What you are not allowed to do, however, is to belittle me and humiliate me and insult me with claims to which I cannot reply without polluting the talk page with off topic discussions.

@Volunteer Marek, do you understand what I just wrote or not? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it an ill-formed, incomprehensible, surprising sentence? Do you understand what the word “exclusively” means? “Exclusively X or X combined with ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP” is indeed an ill formed sentence. Which is why it doesn’t appear in any source but is rather something you just made up.

And if you think that being cute with the whole “I could speculate” is a way of protecting yourself from the accusation of you just throwing down a whole paragraph of insults and incivility (“your English sucks” or “you're an ignorant, or stupid persons” “imcapable (sic) of understanding an exclusive disjunction”, “you're are blinded by ideology”) then sorry that’s not going to work.

So let’s see. You just:

• explicitly called me “stupid”
• explicitly called me “ignorant”
• explicitly said that my “English sucks”
• explicitly said that I am “blinded by ideology”

But… you’re the one who regularly accuses others of incivility? You know, there’s a right and proper response in pristine English to the kind of comment you wrote which would be entirely appropriate under circumstances but since it’s also 100% clear you are trying to provoke me I’m not gonna say. I’m sure you can imagine what it is Gitz. Volunteer Marek 17:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Re "mandatory in healthcare" (again). Since I never invent anything and always run the risk of copyvio, I wondered what the original source of this formulation was. A pro-Russian site? Kremlin propaganda? Russia-today or Sputnik? No, it was US Library of Congress, here [27]: The Law mandates the use of Ukrainian by officials and representatives of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, as well as persons working in medical and educational settings. Please, have a look at that source:

According to the Law, the use of Ukrainian is mandatory throughout the entire territory of Ukraine “in the exercise of powers by public authorities and local self-government bodies, as well as in other spheres of public life, as defined by this Law.” (Law on Ensuring the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as a State Language art. 1(9) (translation by author).) The Law prohibits actions aiming to introduce multilingualism at the official level (granting any other language besides Ukrainian official status) and views these attempts as unconstitutional—identical to actions aimed at forcibly overthrowing constitutional order. (Id. art. 1(6).)

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Without going into details of any particular proposed text . . . I think the page should have a section on language rights. It should take a long-term view of the subject. It should not get caught up in the minutae of this law or that. It should point out both the older history of Russian-favoring policies and the more recent history of Ukrainian-favoring policies. The two sections should have approximately equal weight. I would think a paragraph on each would be about right. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If such text accurately reflects reliable sources and gives due weight that this nonsense has played (and apparently still plays) in Russian propaganda, then sure. But we’re not having t3xt that’s fake-sourced with gross misrepresentation of sources. Volunteer Marek 03:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's all pause for a moment to recollect that the pretext for the current invasion was purported concern for the language rights of Russian speakers. While this thread might seem like arcane infighting to outsiders, this is a very important reason not to allow bullshit to masquerade as truth here, above and beyond the already critical importance of the truth and accuracy on a platform that consistently tops web search results. Look at the section titled "Situation". Is it in any way shape or form an accurate reflection of the situation?

That being said, Adoring nanny has made a good suggestion. I would support doing this, pending discussion of how we should categorize the various periods. But that is a WP:NPOV concern, which is extremely valid but does not address the big howling WP:RS problems here. Elinruby (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I am aware that language policy was a pretext for the current invasion. Such tracts typically go into the current promotion of Ukrainian at the expense of Russian, while ignoring the centuries of history of the opposite. We definitely should not do that. I think the "equal weight" part is critical. For the "suppression of Ukrainian" part, the articles History of the Russian language in Ukraine and Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression may provide some useful sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestions. I wasn't addressing that to you in particular; I know you have been persistent on the human rights issue and I commend you for it. Just trying to provide context for any other editors who may come by and wonder what all the shouting is about. Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully agree with giving the equal weight to "the older history of Russian-favoring policies and the more recent history of Ukrainian-favoring policies." It's like saying that the article on the human rights in the US should give equal weight to the history of segregation and the current issues. This would be absurd - the situation has improved dramatically and while it may make sense to mention the historical issues, the current issues should get much more weight.

In case of Ukraine, the Ukrainian has been the sole official language for 30 years. So we can and should mention the historical Russification to give the context to the reader, but it cannot have equal weight to the current situation and to the decades-old issues. Alaexis_¿question? 09:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Adoring nanny, but not with their idea that we should point out ... the older history of Russian-favoring policies. From when should the article on Human rights in Ukraine start? From the Russian Empire? Re linguistic rights, should we say that Soviet policy on nationalities actively promoted Ukrainianisation in the 1920s and 1930s? Should we say that the development of Ukrainian national awarness and the use of the Ukrainian language were deliberately encouraged by Lenin? [28] Or should we start by clearly stating that "The Ukrainian language was never banned in the USSR and was taught in schools", following the example of the Encyclopedia Britannica? [29] I think we should leave pre-independence history to historical articles and those on Ukrainian language policy and focus on the issue of linguistic rights in contemporary Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the geographic scope of the article is "anything that happens Within the boundaries of the former SSR" then it seems to me that we should include the Soviets at least. The idea of taking it back to Catherine has a certain logic to it. My reservation has to do with the fact that "human rights" AFAIK date from the Declaration of the Rights of Man, but that's not all that big a discrepancy, especially considering that it was modeled on the American example, shrug. Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

PS-given all the ridiculously long posts in this thread it is essentially unusable on mobile - please stop posting here. Elinruby (talk) 11

17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Starting from scratch -- let's work together

Let's build a proposed structure for the article, in the form of a bulleted list. We can worry about the exact hierarchy later. I will delete any walls of text. I will start, primarily to try to illustrate my proposal. I need to go do other things for a while; feel free to rearrange, discuss and/or add. However, for clarity, please put any comments *under* the list.

Lede

• Summary

Definition of HR

• possible compare/contrast of differences

History

• under Stalin: famine, deportations of Crimeans
• As an SSR: restrictions on media
• After collapse of USSR: May need to break down by leaders
• 2010 - Yanukovich, etc, oligarchs
• 2014 on: probably need to break down by leader

-Russian influence, Little Green Men, overview of "separatists", ATO, prosecutions of past office-holders, extrajudicial killings, media ownership, language law, OSCE, propaganda, false flags

Detail sections for topics surveyed in History section

• Donbas: militias
• Language law

Etc Elinruby (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Russian domination/colonialisation of Ukraine started ages ago. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That's true. But how far back should we take it? I was thinking that Kievan Rus predates the concept of human rights. Open to discussion on this subject. Elinruby (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

According to Ukraine it was 1783. Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe even the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca because it was followed by religious persecution, hmm. I am not against the idea, but I am pretty sure somebody will say it's anachronistic. But a fast mention at the beginning of the History section might fly (?) Elinruby (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's not make this a fork of History of Ukraine. Other Human rights in X articles have a short history section (Human_rights_in_Sweden#History_of_human_rights) or no such section at all (Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia). The article should focus on the current issues. Alaexis_¿question? 14:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet the article spends a lot of time on 2005 and 2007. That's the issue with the sort of recentism you are proposing. Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you, I don't think that the article should spend a lot of time on 2005 and 2007. We have more recent sources and we should use them. Alaexis_¿question? 19:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Preach it then. This is my own issue with the current article. I have realized why you said fork of History of Ukraine -- my outline above puts everything under History. It was actually intended as a proposed format for discussing the article structure more than anything else. I actually think we could everything about the history with Russia (Catherine the Great to fall of the USSR) into a section somewhat smaller than the one you pointed to at Human rights in Sweden. If we want to do that. But it seems to me that we should distinguish who is/was running the particular institution that is/was depriving people of their human rights. This is assuming that I am correct in my understanding that we've decided the geographic scope. If not we need to start there.Elinruby (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead

I agree that Amnesty is a reasonable source for the lead. But we have got to keep a balanced view. If one looks at their latest[30], they are most concerned about Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure.

The lead should make a generalized assessment looking at all aspects. Ukraine has been more free than some countries and less free than others. The invasion has obviously caused problems. That's the picture the lead needs to give. The lead should not make Ukraine appear as free as Finland, nor should it make it appear as unfree as Russia.

If we are going to include the specific quote "torture is endemic", we need to balance it with a similar quote looking at ways Ukraine is well off, in order to maintain a balanced view. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Torture is endemic? Really? Where is this coming from? Elinruby (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this is a pretty blatant way to try and POV the lede grossly violating WP:BALANCE. Volunteer Marek 17:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the lede says "impunity for torture" and it *is* a direct quote. If the scope is any human rights violation committed by anyone, it might even be true. However the wording certainly makes it sound like Zelenskyy has demonstrators chained up in dungeons. This is the problem with Amnesty's usual failure to quantify scale. Personally I think it's premature to work on the lede, since we're still discussing the scope let alone the body of the article. If this is the way the lede was before somebody stripped it though, then I can see why it was stripped.

It seems a bit egregious to ding them for being slow to prosecute when their nuclear power plant is endangered and missiles are raining down on their public buildings. As it stands this lede is very misleading. Why is there no mention of all of the war crimes?

I get that the source is talking about 2021, but that's exactly why it shouldn't be in the lede. My suggestion is to strip the lede back again, and if someone is actually maintaining that war crimes are not human rights violations, well, I really dislike RfCs, but this isn't a technical question that has a learning curve and perhaps we should run one on this.Elinruby (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

How would you formulate the question for an RfC? "Should the article *Human rights in Ukraine* speak about human rights in Ukraine, or, in a time of war such as this, should it rather deal with the (constantly improving) history of human rights in Ukraine, and with the crimes committed by the Russians in Ukraine?" Is this a fair summary of the point of disagreement? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be considerably less verbose. But first of all, I was only guessing. What is the actual history of idk, Bucha for example, being omitted in favor of 2007 reports? BTW, if there is to be an RfC, I don't think you should be the one to write it. The question is supposed to be neutral. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that would be a bad formulation for an RfC, and I'm not suggesting to use it. However, I would like us to agree on what we disagree on. Many editors active on this page seem to feel that speaking of human rights violations in post-Maidan Ukraine is inherently undue in a time of war - maybe because it is prone to political instrumentalisations, it echoes Russian propaganda, it's ingenerous towards a country that is fighting for survival, hampers the military effort and international solidarity, etc. Others, however, think that the first group of editors are deluding themselves: wars are not won by writing Wikipedia, and the suffering of the Ukrainian people will not diminish if we stop recounting the human rights violations they suffered at the hands of their government. Wikipedia must remain faithful to its policies, and stick to neutrality especially in times of war. Without giving undue weight, and always relying on the best available sources (OHCHR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Venice Commission, the Ukrainian HR organisations), we must speak openly about Ukraine and the war, so as to circulate knowledge and perhaps also understanding of the views of others. Reality is rarely "black and white", and in any case it's not our job to present it as if it were black and white if RSs report something different. In addition to black and white (e.g., the unlawful and catastrophic aggression by Russia, and the serious war crimes committed against the Ukrainian civilians), RSs also tell us the "nuances", so to say, which we must report if they are significant (such as, "endemic" impunity for torture, and violation of minority language rights in Ukraine). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

just brainstorming:

• Should Human rights in Ukraine include a discussion of 2022 war crimes?"

Offered for discussion.Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The war crimes committed in 2022 are definitely human rights violations. Since we have the article about war crimes in this conflict there is no point in having the same information in two places at the same time. We should have a summary here and a {{mainarticle}} link to the war crimes articles. On the other hand we don't have another article about "ordinary" human right violations in Ukraine so they should be described here. Do we really need a RfC for this - does anyone think differently? Alaexis_¿question? 14:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't. We may need RfCs, however, for the lead, the section on torture, and the section on linguistic rights. Three RfCs would be too many and would signal a deeper, intractable problem. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, the lead is supposed to summarise the article, so it makes sense to discuss them first. Still, not sure about RfCs. The article now does have the torture and linguistic right sections so maybe they can be improved incrementally? Alaexis_¿question? 17:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. If the content now reported in Torture and Linguistic Rights stabilises, there will be no need for RfCs there. Re lead, however, I feel that it is WP:UNBALANCED and doesn't comply with MOS:LEAD, meaning that it doesn't cover the content of the body and is not neutral. The issue of human rights in Ukraine is not just a bit of corruption and lack of due process affecting an otherwise largely fair electoral process; the issue is also violence against journalists, government action against oppostion media, impunity for torture, violation of the linguistic rights of the national minoriets, violence against LGBT people and Roma. Now, some of these contents are still missing and we will add them in due course; but others are already there, and we should cover them in the lead. Adoring nanny edit [31] is an improvement if and only if it is supplemented with something related to the other half of the sky, otherwise it is as if we were claiming a contrario that the only issue is a less than perfect electoral process. This edit of mine [32] is not a "take it or leave it" proposition, it can be improved, but IMO we need to address the issues it highlights. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about others. For myself, I want to be clear about this. I have no problem discussing genuine problems, even with the war. My own lead edits did so, particularly by mentioning corruption, which at least prior to the war was a broad and ongoing problem. However, WP:BALANCE is required, and the war does affect that. Even without the war, we would still need to be careful about balance. Ukraine does have problems, but they are far less severe than in severe human-rights-abusing countries such as Russia. This was true even before Feb. 24. The reader needs to get that sense. Edits that focus only on one aspect or the other are likely to be unbalanced and should be avoided. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't support having an RfC unless we must. They often result in many superficial comments from people who want to help but not read the materials. I am relieved to discover that nobody seems to think that war crimes are not human rights violations. I do not think we should duplicate the war crimes article but I do think that we should acknowledge that they exist. This could be done in a couple of paragraphs, perhaps a short section.

My issue is that something like "impunity for torture is endemic" tells me nothing, and I have been closely reading on Ukrainian topics for a while now. Putting it in the lead only escalates the ambiguity. At a guess, I would say that we are probably talking about the SBU in Donbas. But I shouldn't have to guess. It also seems oddly too specific, despite its vagueness. What is the reason for the impunity, also? Corruption? Entrenched power centers?

If we really are going to throw the usual procedure out the window and start with the lede, well, ok, maybe it will pull the discussion out of the weeds. So what is important about human rights in Ukraine? There is constant destruction of civilian infrastructure and great physical hardship, for a start. Mention that, and the war. Unfree elections in areas under foreign occupation, other human rights violations in Crimea. Ukraine is currently under martial law. The SBU in Donbas seems well sourced. Maybe that should be in the lede, possibly also the question of Medvedchuk's broadcasting licences. I personally think that freedom of speech doesn't mean that the airwaves shouldn't be regulated, but some of the watchdogs are indeed raising this issue, and this is also indeed an action of the current government. That's off the top of my head, but hey, perhaps we can agree that certain things are important. I am not a fan of preventive detention either.

What I don't want us to do is validate the bogus pretext for the invasion by highlighting theoretical concerns about the wording of legislation that seeks to implement a language policy model that, as I have mentioned, has been in effect in Canada since the 60s without the United States ever feeling the need to invade to protect the use of English. It's really hard not to get sarcastic about that Elinruby (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is getting a bit far from "lead". But it seems to me that the answer here is not to disregard broadly-citeable facts. Rather, we need to put those facts into appropriate context, i.e. "Russia used this genuine controversy to . . ." and "In Russia-controlled areas, teachers are threatened with [whatever the source may say] unless they teach the Russian version." Adoring nanny (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Not validating does not mean not discussing the fact than there are/were complaints or concerns. I myself think that a restaurant in Montreal's Chinatown should be able to have a sign that is entirely in Chinese if it so chooses, but that is certainly not the biggest human rights problem in Canada. Despite what Gitz and Masebrock are emailing one another about, I don't think anyone here opposes a discussion of the previous administration's language law: the key words here are context and balance.Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"What I don't want us to do is validate the bogus pretext for the invasion" Elinruby, have you considered that editing the article with the express purpose of advancing your political goals might be a violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY? Masebrock (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that the situation in Canada is irrelevant (a better analogy would be the central government imposing English as the sole official language on Quebec) and the situation with human rights in Russia is also irrelevant. This is not a place to compare the human rights in Ukraine and Russia. Maybe someone can write (or provide a link to) a draft lede summarising the current article: general status, a few sentences about the non-war-related issues and a few sentences about the war-related violations, including on the territories annexed by Russia. Alaexis_¿question? 07:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a way to address on this article Adoring nanny's concerns without hiding human rights abuses, censoring Amnesty international and presenting a rosy, complacent image of human rights in Ukraine. Providing context is not the right way though, if it means writing things like Russia used this genuine controversy to, etc., because would lead us straight to WP:SYNTH and would be rightly seen as an attempt to justify and belittle HR violations by Ukr authorities. What we should do instead is provide information about what the Ukrainians still have, and the Russians unfortunately do no longer have: independent human rights ONGs ready to openly criticise the government and denounce human rights violations, such as the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union. In addition, when RSs report info about government policies aimed to counter human rights abuses, we can agree that that is DUE for inclusion in this article. The resulting picture could be one of civil society and state sectors struggling to cope with serious human rights challenges, including the very worrying situation of the Ukrainian Roma [33][34][35]. It would be a very different picture from that of Russia, where human rights activists are put in prison (e.g. Andrei Pivovarov, [36]), ONGs are disbanded (e.g. Memorial), and the state is under an authoritarian grip. But if we don't speak of human rights violations in Ukraine because of the war, we are failing to live up to WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

About WP:SYNTH, it depends., It's not synth if the source itself draws whatever conclusion. About discussing scale, and evidence that points in contradictory directions, I absolutely agree. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Human rights in x

Looked quickly, at a number of 'human rights in x'. Most seem pretty ad hoc, honestly. A few notes that pertain to discussion here of what should or should not be in this article. Posting here as food for thought, feel free to discuss or rework as desired:

• Yemen - discusses child soldiers, did not see a mention of famine
• Mexico - mentions of cartel violence and other massacres. Did not see discussion of migrants,.at the border or elsewhere
• Syria - extensive History section subdivided by régime. Separate section for Civil war
• Greece - sections for current issues, Amnesty international, US State Dept
• US - extensive History section, separate

discussions of Constitution, CIA misdeeds abroad

• Honduras - sections for régimes, no mention of refugees
• Russia: mostly thematic approach, sections for Putin and Chechnya as well. Nothing about invasion. Tagged needs update
• Donetsk - no "human rights in" article but Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas
• Canada - Current issues section does address pipelines and indigenous people
• UK - History section goes back to Magna Carta
• Saudi Arabia - separate section on extraterritorial killings, featuring Jama Khoshoggi
• Malaysia - thematic approach, discussion of refugees
• Chile - lengthy History section, separate article for Pinochet Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you please get this right...

... and stop misrepresenting the sources? Here is what our text currently says:

However, significant minority languages in Ukraine (such as Russian, Byelorussian, and Yiddish)[30] are not official EU languages and thus not protected

Here is what the source says:

Several provisions of the Law provide a differential treatment between different categories of languages: (a) the languages of indigenous peoples; (b) English; (c) the languages of national minorities which are EU official languages (more specifically Bulgarian, Greek, German, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Hungarian); (d) the languages of minorities that are not EU official languages (in particular Russian, Byelorussian and Yiddish).

There is no "thus not protected" in there. Indeed, one of the following paragraphs says:

Article 25.5 provides for an exception to the obligation imposed on print media outlets (...) “requirements […] shall not apply to the print mass media published exclusively in the Crimean Tatar language, other languages of indigenous peoples of Ukraine, in the English language or another official language of the European Union"

Since this paragraph is discussing the four categories initially mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, the "other languages of indigenous peoples of Ukraine" appears to be referring precisely to "Russian, Byelorussian, and Yiddish"

So once again, when source says "X" somebody goes and puts "opposite of X" into our article. Volunteer Marek 06:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Then the second source given is Reuters. Except... this is a discussion of a 2019 law and the Reuters article is ... from ... 2017! Come on! Can we please NOT do this? Insert sources to pretend that they support whatever original research someone pulled out of their apples? Volunteer Marek 06:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The language of This not protected is sourced to Human Rights Watch, which opens its article with A new legal provision on the use of the Ukrainian language, part of a broader state language law, raises concerns about protection for minority languages. It has a secondary source at Reuters, which includes the sentence the strong domestic and international criticism drawn especially by the provisions reducing the scope of education in minority languages seems justified [...] the legislation raised questions about how the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education would be implemented while safeguarding the rights of ethnic minorities. "Failing to safeguard rights" is a colloquial English synonym of "not protected". Masebrock (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I have modified "Thus not protected" to "concerns have been raised about their protection", now nearly verbatim per the HRW source. Masebrock (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

At no point in the text imply that it is discussing elusively the 2019 law. I am adding a source for the 2017 language law in the opening to remove your ambiguity. Masebrock (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You say the "other languages of indigenous peoples of Ukraine" appears to be referring precisely to "Russian, Byelorussian, and Yiddish", but this is directly contradicted by the source. The Venice Commission says: Duringthe visit to Kyiv, the Venice Commission delegation was given to understand that “indigenous peoples of Ukraine” are those minorities which do not have a kin-State. Specific reference was made to the Crimean Tatar, Karaite and Krimchak minorities [...] So no, "indigenous people" explicitly does NOT include Russian and Byelorussian, per the source. Masebrock (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

After looking at this source, I have a question: what does it mean "not protected"? Simply saying "not protected" is meaningless. Should they be protected? Why, escpecially Russian? If so, then how? This must be explained on the page if we want to include it. Actually, the current text says that "as the Crimean Tatar language and the Karaim language" are protected. That sounds contradictory. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• "What does it mean "not protected"?" By "not protected", it means that the right is being failed to be upheld.
• "Simply saying "not protected" is meaningless." The text does not simply say "not protected", but gives two examples of how this right is not being upheld, in the following sentence.
• "Should they be protected?" Reliable sources describe this as a human rights violation, so that it how Wikipedia should describe it.
• "This must be explained on the page if we want to include it." It is not necessary to explain the reasoning behind the language that reliable sources use, and lack of deeper philosophical explanation is not grounds for removal of notable and verifiable content.
• "Actually, the current text says that "as the Crimean Tatar language and the Karaim language" are protected. That sounds contradictory." I don't understand the supposed contradiction in the text? Crimean Tatar is protected ,while Russian and Byelorussian are not. This seems simple and straightforward? Masebrock (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

""What does it mean "not protected"?" Yes, of course I know what word "protection" means. I am asking what "protection of languages" in this specific context means. Apparently, they do not mean language preservation here, right? I would assume that "protection of languages" means something as defined by UN [37], but this is not what they mean while talking about "minority languages" [38], which could cover Russian and some other languages they are talking about. Do they mean following Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights or something from European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. This is not at all clear. This source is so vague on that subject it should not be used. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources provided are reliable and the topic is notable. It does not matter that the secondary sources we use do not provide an in-depth explanation of the moral and philosophical underpinnings every time they use the language of "rights". It's worth noting that in no other section in this article ("Mass graves found in areas liberated from Russian control", "Electoral rights", "The right to fair trial", "Media freedom and freedom of information", "Torture and conditions in detention", and so on) are the moral or philosophical justifications for the right's existence explained in the text. Insisting the "language rights" must do so, while no other section does, is an unreasonable isolated demand. Masebrock (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The standard of "sources talking about the violation of 'rights' must explain how this right is derived" would nuke the entire contents of this page, and possibly every other "Human Rights" page on Wikipedia. Masebrock (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor suggestions for language section

I have some minor suggestions for the current language section as User:Gitz6666 has provided:

1. The middle paragraph is too long and needs to be split into a historical and a modern day section, in my opinion. I suggest starting a new paragraph at the "Subsequent legislation" sentence to split the historical from the modern day.

2. "secondary schooling is prohibited" should be changed to "secondary schooling in these languages is prohibited", I think, for clarity. Masebrock (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Since I'm still enjoying the dizzying freedom of my one legitimate revert (consecutive edits count as one), I've already implemented your suggestions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Masebrock (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "The 1996 Constitution laid down that Ukrainian is the state language, and that free use and development of Russian and other national minority languages are guaranteed." needs to be carefully considered to make sure we are clear that this is merely what the Ukrainian constitution states, and not imply in the Wikipedia voice that these language rights are currently guaranteed in Ukraine. I'm not even sure the sentence should be included at all, as it is uncited and its relevance to the current situation of human rights in Ukraine is unclear. Masebrock (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find citations and, based on what you and the others think, we could either add a reference or remove the sentence. The reason why I thought it was needed is that the Ukrainian Constitution embraces pluralism and is compatible with multilinguism: the notion that the state should promote and protect national minority languages is quite advanced and fully in line with international conventions. So you are right, we should not imply that language rights are currently guaranteed, but we should let the reader know that they could and perhaps should be guaranteed according to the Constitution. The choice of applying article 10 in the way it was applied is a political decision on the part of the legislator rather than mere compliance with the Constitution. Maybe a better formulation (or quotation marks?) could be found. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I'm just worried that we're mixing sending mixed messages by including it without any qualifiers. In instances where the constitution and the current reality conflict, such as China, this text is used: Although the 1982 constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the Chinese government often uses the "subversion of state power" and "protection of state secrets" clauses in their law system to imprison those who criticize the government Could we say something like: Although the Ukrainian constitution guarantees free use and development minority languages, subsequent legislation has made the use of Ukrainian mandatory in many areas of public life. perhaps? Masebrock (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)