Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:53, 24 November 2022

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Psychology Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ukraine Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Torture in Ukraine be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Ukraine may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

Article seems to be heavily sensationalised with severe lack of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stathisdjs (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Heavily sensationalised?

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

Lack of sources and written with bias

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

Russian propaganda

Article seems like Russian propaganda Calligrapher321 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, it was created for Propaganda!

I found at least 10 tweets referring to this low quality article created within ~4 months.

It's very misleading, it's taking about crimes committed before 2014 and after 2014 with making a distinction between the Yanukovych regime (<2014, pro-Russian & authoritarian) and the post revolution Ukraine.

Basically this article helps spread misinformation.

It must be deleted, because its existence insinuates that Ukraine has a torture problem on a scale that doesn't exist in other countries (which don't have such articles), and that's just not true. 2604:5500:C2A4:3400:D4C6:BF97:A5A1:C7B7 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Torture in Ukraine is incorrectly reference

A long passage is quoted as being from a der Speigel article, however the reference (number 12) is not to the primary source, but to a secondary one “Human Rights”. 2601:191:8481:21A0:8C30:C05B:422C:4492 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed links to victims of Russia

I am not sure if the HRW external link should be used. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is incomplete and as a result places wp:undue weight on Ukrainian government issues while completely ignoring the torture by Russian occupiers and Russian proxies. Please refer to the content tags at the top of the article. —Michael Z. 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand the problem, but the page does not describe Russian crimes, so a selected fact misinforms. I do not know if the page is needed, there ia a page about War crimes.Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Move to draft, merge, or delete

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

• Move to draft: space, anticipating a rewrite or addition of material
• Merge any useful sourced material to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russo-Ukrainian War, and Human rights in Ukraine
• Delete

 —Michael Z. 18:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure yet what to do. But the sourcing is raising suspicions. Why is so much sourced to books that are difficult to check? Why does one of the books have an intro saying that the Western media have the conflict wrong? Why is one claim (about OPCAT) in apparent contradiction to an easy-to-check authoritative source? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

None of the three suggestions are valid topics for RfC; see WP:RFCNOT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: yet the article clearly has a desperate need of outside input. I just put notices on some related talk pages. Can you help further? Adoring nanny (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is not for one of those topics. It is to decide which process to start. If you prefer, we can just file an RFD and be done with it.  —Michael Z. 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For the moment, I am content with the collaborative process we have started. Come to agreement on the value (or lack thereof) of a source, then act on that consensus. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The article was some awful garbage with pretty blatant misrepresentation of sources and obviously willful POV pushing if not outright lying about what sources actually say. I tried to clean it up, but yeah, probably best to Merge to the War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Volunteer Marek 04:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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

I am pretty sure I have laughed at this sourcing before. Is this a spinoff of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, maybe? I lean heavily to *delete* but if somebody thinks there is useful stuff here I am willing to listen. For a start: that 2015 source. It just isn't fair to rely on a source that old, and that's before I start asking who that author and that publisher are. I am absolutely positive that I have said this before. Definitely have think these thoughts.For anyone who may be unfamiliar: seven years ago Ukraine was just barely independent and still in the grip of oligarchs. Any book published in 2015 will largely be dealing with Ukraine when it it was de facto a Russian client state. There is a case to be made that nonetheless these events (assuming they are true) took place on Ukrainian soil. If we decide this is the case, then we need to be clear about the time element, and make it clear who was running these institutions at the time Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty obvious this was created as a WP:POVFORK. Oh, screw it, I'll just redirect it. Volunteer Marek 09:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Any of the choices above would probably be acceptable to me but the sooner the better in my humble opinion. Otherwise why even have an encyclopedia if it says things that that probably aren't true and that it does not source? Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe we still have this article. It was indeed worse when I laughed at it before. I don't claim that every Ukrainian policeman or soldier has clean hands, but the referencing here is appalling and absolutely unacceptable. How can we go on for three sentences about some Der Spiegel article and then not provide a reference? I dropped some cn tags but couldn't get all the way through the article. Has anybody nominated this for deletion yet? Who wrote this article? Elinruby (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User:RaiderQ did. Xx236 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I stand by my earlier position that sure, such things did arguably happen, but if they are "documented" we definitely don't show that here. The overall article is POINTY garbage that we have hosted for seven years. The more people verify it, the more problems they find. Possibly one or two or three of the sources may be salvageable. I have no objection to anyone using them to rewrite this into an article that does not misrepresent its sources, if somebody wants to do that Elinruby (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Merge to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in my humble opinion as this looks like a WP:POVFORK - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It does look like a POV fork. And yet, according to WP:POVFORK, the second article is a POV fork of this. Which would actually make War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the POV fork. Which is crazy, because that article has some relation to WP:NPOV, while this one does not, or at least did not until recently. The definitions are tidier than the reality. I don't have a good answer to it. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The policy WP:IGNORE trumps that content guideline.  —Michael Z. 23:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

.

Ukraine over the Edge -- reliable or not?

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

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

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

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

I found two academic reviews. (I have not read the book.)

One review by a doctoral student at a faculty of biochemical engineering at the time. It describes a geopolitical approach to the views, citing Russian fascist Aleksandr Dugin (!) among others.

The other review is by Ukraine expert Taras Kuzio. It describes the book as following a “five-point template on the Ukraine–Russia crisis deferential to Russia and first developed by Richard Sakwa and Nicolai Pedro . . . The template includes blaming the West and the Ukrainian authorities for the crisis; describing Crimea as always ‘Russian’; depicting Ukraine as an artificial, regionally divided and failed state; downplaying Russian military intervention and describing the conflict as a ‘civil war’; and exaggerating Ukrainian nationalism while downplaying Russian nationalism.”

Hahn is not a Ukraine expert. His own statement quoted above puts him at odds with mainstream media, academic, and government sources. The source can be objectively classified as borderline WP:FRINGE according to our guidelines. It should not be used to support statements that can be supported by clearly reliable sources, and is only suitable if used with attribution as an opinion. It is not needed to source the (too-vague and context-free) statements that it is used for in the text of the article and the citation should be removed. It should not be included in the “References” section without a caveat, or at all.  —Michael Z. 16:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Elsewhere Kuzio goes into more depth about Hahn (2018) and other similar sources’ pro-Kremlin misinterpretations, and says the book “includes so many mistakes that it would require a separate chapter to discuss them.”  —Michael Z. 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The source had been used as the only source for assertions of crimes. You don't seem to think that's appropriate, and I also have serious misgivings about the source. So I just deleted it from the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not what WP:FRINGE means. One critical review of Kuzio (why should we trust him, btw?) does not mean it's an unreliable source. Even in the quote you've cited Kuzio doesn't accuse Hahn of publishing falsehoods. The proper venue for the reliability discussions is WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE: “in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.”

Hahn literally defines his own views as “a distinctly different conclusion” from that “imparted on the Western public” by “most Western, especially American, media, academic, and Government sources.”

Kuzio offers a framework of major themes that let us identify a group of writers that occupy this particular fringe, and confirm this with reference to their statements. I haven’t read Hahn’s book, but his main theses are pretty obvious after skimming over the contents and a few pages inside.

I described it as “borderline fringe” because there are some prominent figures that advocate the “Russia is defending itself against the only real empire by violently colonizing Ukraine” view. But that was a mistake. This is an example of a worldview absolutely contrary to the academic consensus. Precisely WP:fringe. —Michael Z. 17:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Partial hoax?

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

Redirect needed

This must redirect to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.--Aristophile (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please contribute in #Move to draft, merge, or delete, above.  —Michael Z. 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Source broken link, overreliance on single source

Many of the most serious allegations in the article (volunteer unit war crimes, SBU prisons, etc) rely on a single source - de Ploeg, Chris (2017) Ukraine in the Crossfire, Atlanta Clarity Press ISBN 978-9978965-4-1. The link on the source, however, points to the next one, and does not actually link to the source. In fact, based on a google search, the ISBN is also wrong. Based on the author's personal blog it seems like the source is likely to be inherently biased, and has no inherent qualification to write on such a subject ("investigative journalist") and/or OR concerns. I have not been able to find any English language criticism of it to directly show that it is an unreliable source, but also the fact that there is no mention probably means that most RS consider it of so little value to be barely worth a mention.

As many other people have pointed out above, this entire article is quite contentious. I will be notifying the author of the page on their talk page, and if there is no reply here or there in 24 hours, I'll WP:BOLD blank the page. Fermiboson (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, the author's user page seems to be deleted and inactive, and the rest of the major contributors that aren't removing content are all IPs. Fermiboson (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Taras Kuzio, who doesn’t mince words, names Ploeg among “Putinversteher scholars” in “Academic Orientalism in Russia-Ukraine Scholarship,” giving examples of Ploeg using anti-Ukrainian tropes. —Michael Z. 00:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Good, we have a source for that then. Thank you. Fermiboson (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Chris Kaspar de Ploeg is Writer – Speaker – Organizer https://www.chrisdeploeg.com/

He does not claim to be a scholar. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar shows 38 quotations, 4 of them by Kuzio. Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Please feel free to be bold and delete it. BogLogs (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias is not a sufficient reason to dismiss a source (per WP:BIAS). Academics criticise each other all the time, the existence of such criticism doesn't mean we need to purge everything from the article. The proper venue for the reliability discussion is WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 07:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias doesn't even come into play for the simple reason that whoever wrote this piece of shit article was straight up lying about what's in the sources. For example, the Amnesty International source that was in here states explicitly that it was Russian militias in Donbass who murdered prisoners yet the author of this garbage wrote that it was Ukrainian police. You keep on insisting on restoring that kind of stuff... yeah, discretionary sanctions and all. Consider this a formal notification of DS. Volunteer Marek 09:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you it's probably a good idea to AGF, for now. Fermiboson (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Except this isn't ordinary criticism. Kuzio is essentially accusing de Ploeg (corroborated by de Ploeg's own blog) of being a crackpot/POV pusher. Granted, Putinversteher can also mean someone like Mearsheimer, but this is clearly not the case with de Ploeg. It falls squarely within WP:FRINGE (and I thought WP:RSN was for news sources not individual academics anyways). Nobody would, for example, consider using Grover Furr as a serious source on Stalin even though he has "only" been "criticised by some academics". Fermiboson (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to open an RSN discussion if you feel that is the right place to have this discussion. Fermiboson (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would direct you to Chotiner’s remarkable recent interview of Mearsheimer in The New Yorker.  —Michael Z. 17:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I feel like we have consensus to blank. Doing it now Fermiboson (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait. Who redirected it? I feel like torture in Ukraine does encompass more than just 2022. Fermiboson (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, but this is definitely not that. I have zero objection to a well-sourced article about actual torture in Ukraine, and considering the massive trauma on both sides there likely were some instances of it. There were as I recall extrajudicial killings in the Euromaidan period, but that was when Ukraine was functionally Russia, and if we are going by boundaries, ok then, are there any legit cases of that mentioned here? If there is anything in this article that is accurate and sourced then let us by all means merge it into an appropriate article until/if there is enough of it for a stand-alone article. Elinruby (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair. I felt like a better solution would be to blow it all up and start over again. Fermiboson (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all. —Michael Z. 17:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This article needs improvement: it shouldn't be deleted. The subject is notable (we already have Torture in the United States, Torture in Turkey, Torture in Bahrain, Torture in Venezuela, Torture in the State of Palestine, Torture in Brazil) and there's plenty of sources on it. Over the weekend I intend to spend a couple of hours improving the sources and the text - it's shouldn't be too difficult. In the meantime, if you think the article must be deleted, the right way to proceed is to open another AfD. Since the previous one ended with Keep , a brief discussion on the talk page cannot override that consensus. Please remember that the ARBCOM has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit this article. Deleting the article without consensus may be regarded as highly disruptive. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me add that instead of spending time discussing about how bad is this article and the need to delete it, editors could easily improve it with sources or - and this would be even better - they could write a brand new article on Torture in Russia. We now only have a section on this topic in Human rights in Russia, which could easily be expanded, updated and become a self-standing article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note (before the arbcom threats are thrown around) that I think we all agree that pretty much the entirety of the content of the article as it was should be thrown out. That part, I think, is consensus. Fermiboson (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek Fermiboson (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If anyone wants this to be an article - and Gitz6666, please stop WP:STALKing and reverting my edits, I’ve asked you several times before and my patience is running out - then don’t restore the garbage that was before but rewrite it from scratch. Perhaps start with a minimal NPOV stub. Most definitely DONT try to limit the scope of the article only to torture allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine police since the main subject here is torture perpetrated by Russian and pro Russian forces.

Also, I guess we can put any claims of “I’m just trying to be balanced and neutral” aside here Huh? Why would anyone who’s trying to be balanced and neutral restore such an obvious piece of propaganda junk? Volunteer Marek 13:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not, yet, have an opinion whether the article should exist or not. But I am certain that the material I deleted in this edit does not belong. Hahn's own preface says he is in opposition to Western sources generally. That's pretty much the definition of WP:FRINGE. I am going to stay out of the delete/restore wars for now. But the Restore people need to think about just what they are restoring. The Hahn material should not be restored. I haven't gone through VM's subsequent deletions to see if they shouldn't be restored either. But if you are restoring, it could be a good idea to consider just what you are restoring. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Please have a look at how I modified that paragraph. Hahn is biased but not necessarily unreliable and what he is claiming is quite trivial and obviously true: It is likely that the volunteer battalions are responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces. Arguing the contrary, would imply that most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces were committed by the Ukrainian regular army, which is absurd. Moreover, that sentence is also supported by the Ukrainian human rights organisation that published this report:

Gladun, Andrii; Val’ko, Svitlana; Movchan, Serhiy; Martynenko, Oleg; Smelyanska, Yanina (2017). Unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine (PDF). Kyiv: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, NGO "Truth Hounds". ISBN 978-966-97584-4-6..

What is questionable, however, is the sentence Despite of the exceptionally serious nature of the crime activities, Ukrainian civil society prefers to ignore them in public discussions. I added a template:citation needed, but probably that sentence (which is not supported by Hahn, as far as I see) must be removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It is all too much for me at the moment. Lately there does appear to be some movement towards a compromise on the delete/restore war. I think that's a good idea. Things were being restored that should not be restored. But there is precedent for similar articles related to other countries. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that sounds extremely dubious or at least badly out of date: requires clarification and at least one or more reliable sources. Nearly all of the volunteer battalions only existed as such for less than a year of an eight year war.

The statement in isolation is also undue and potentially misleading, as it is clear now that Russian forces, the FSB, and other Russian organizations are responsible for orders of magnitude more torture across the Ukrainian war zone, which includes a systematic program or programs of illegal kidnapping, torture, disappearance, deportation, and murder.  —Michael Z. 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I plan to ask material from twitter OSINTers to contribute to the article. To prevent canvassing or reliability issues I'm not going to do so until I get sufficient amounts of ok from y'all Fermiboson (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter OSINT isn’t considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Any material needs to be sourced o WP:RS. Volunteer Marek 20:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I meant getting their help to dredge up sources (and possibly photographs?). But I see your point. Fermiboson (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

UN OHCHR has a number of reports that may be useful. Many are quarterly or periodic, but some are more comprehensive, including these:

• Arbitrary Detention, Torture and Ill-Treatment in the Context of Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine, 2014–2021
• Human Rights in the Administration of Justice in Conflict- Related Criminal Cases in Ukraine, April 2014 – April 2020
• Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in Ukraine, 14 March 2014 to 31 January 2017

 —Michael Z. 00:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

'It is highly likely that the volunteer battalions are responsible'

The paragraph quotes 2017 and 2018 sources. The 'volunteer battalions' have been reorganised or massacred since that time. Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

'Ukrainian volunteer battalion "Tornado"' was disbanded in 2015. https://uacrisis.org/en/55087-need-know-case-former-tornado-battalion-servicemen Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"highly likely", snort. If that isn't a flag for OR, I have never seen oneElinruby (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"highly likely" is a verbatim quotation from the source (Gordon M. Hahn) and the sentence is commonsensical: It is likely that the volunteer battalions are responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces; the alternative hypothesis - that most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces were committed by the regular army - is indeed quite unlikely. I see nothing WP:EXTRAORDINARY about this claim. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The original statement (since removed) is “It is likely that the volunteer battalions are responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces.”

But it is practically meaningless without context and background. Presumably it refers to the War in Donbas in 2014 to (2018?), and if so that should be stated.

Based on what information? And according to whose estimation? Hahn’s? Hahn is not a reliable source. See #Ukraine over the Edge -- reliable or not?, above.  —Michael Z. 01:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hahn is a reliable source. I read above and you haven't proven the contrary. He is no less biased than the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, to make a comparison. Anyway that sentence is also supported by the Ukrainian human rights organisations' report:

The perpetrators of torture and unlawful detentions could not be identified in every single case; however, most of the victims reported that the Ukrainian volunteer battalions committed the violations. In particular, the victims recognized some members of "Shakhatrs’k" ("Tornado"), "Aidar", "Dnipro-1" and "Azov" units as perpetrators of torture, enforced disappearances and unlawful detentions

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this article

The subject of this article IS NOT torture perpetrated by anybody within the confines of Ukrainian territory - torture committed by foreign states, that is, Russia? and why not private individuals? like the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs for instance? No, the subject of this article is torture committed by agents of the Ukrainian state. Please have a look at similar articles:

• Torture in the United States: Torture in the United States includes documented and alleged cases of torture both inside and outside the United States by members of the government, the military, law enforcement agencies...
• Torture in the State of Palestine: Torture in the State of Palestine refers to the use of torture and systematic degrading practices on civilians detained by Palestinian forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

We may well have an article Torture during the Russian invasion of Ukraine or Torture during the Russo-Ukrainian war. Perhaps we'll need to write one, as War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is becoming too long. But this article has a different subject, which is not relevant for the ongoing war but is relevant for the Ukrainian people and for anybody who is interested in the practice of torture. Could we stop seeing everything through the lens of war? I think this war has made everybody go crazy if we think that an article on "Torture in Ukraine" must be an article about Russians torturing Ukrainians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

United States hasn’t been invaded by anyone and the obvious difference is that the majority of torture in United States HAVE NOT been committed by an outside force. The topic is torture ***IN*** Ukraine, not “Torture ***BY*** Ukrainians” (which would be POV and WP:POINT). And trying to have an article “Torture by Ukrainians” but masking it and sneaking it in (to avoid scrutiny and circumvent NPOV) as “Torture in Ukraine” is not only POV but also dishonest. This is what the original creator of the article clearly did. Trying to restore and replicate their behavior is then on par with what they attempted to do. Ban worthy. Volunteer Marek 15:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

And yes, an article on “Torture in Ukraine” should in fact be substantially about Russians torturing Ukrainians, since that is precisely who has been responsible for majority of torture in Ukraine. That’s just very elementary NPOV. Volunteer Marek 15:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

File a move request if you want to re-scope the article. To me, “Torture in Ukraine” means torture in Ukraine.

It should include history going back to at least the period of Kyivan Rus, although weren’t the Scythians documented as torturing their military conquests? —Michael Z. 16:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I glanced at the standard histories. The only one with an entry for torture in the index is Plokhy, The Gates of Europe, p 114, about the torture and killing of Ivan Vyhovsky’s brother Danylo by the Muscovite voevodas in 1660.  —Michael Z. 17:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. Why are you talking about Kyivan Rus, Scythians and king Danylo? Filing a move request is not necessary as this article survived the AfD in May 2022 when its subject was clearly stated in the lead: Torture in Ukraine includes documented and alleged cases of torture committed by members of the Ukrainian government, the military, law enforcement agencies, the Security Service of Ukraine, and Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary units. So if you want to broaden the scope of the article, e.g. by adding a section on "Torture by Russian and Russian-affiliated forces in Ukraine", be it. But that should in no way prevent editors from reporting about torture committed by members of the Ukrainian government, the military, law enforcement agencies. This article has been basically wiped out and valuable sources removed with no effort to the check them and improve the text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

AfDs, as you well know, only determine the notability of the topic. You are also conveniently failing to mention the fact that almost all those who voted "Keep" stated the article should be rewritten and... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... specifically suggested adding torture by Russia!!! (which is what you're so vehemently objecting to here, while simultaneously hiding behind the AfD result). Volunteer Marek 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

And there certainly was "an effort to check them" (sources). That's how I know that the original author of this article simply lied about what was in the sources. Just because YOU didn't check the sources before blind reverting (WP:STALK), doesn't mean the other users haven't. Indeed, it's pretty clear from the discussions above that the proposal to merge, redirect or rewrite was primarily motivated by other users checking the sources. If you haven't - that's on you. Volunteer Marek 18:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that the consensus for the title “Torture in Ukraine” implies a consensus on its subject being torture, in Ukraine. Not “Torture by Ukraine.”

But you can start a conversation to confirm the consensus on defining the subject and its scope too, if you want. It seems to be clear that the current consensus is against the article, as it stood a few days ago, altogether.

Anyway, the Muscovite voevodas whose torture Plokhy referred to were representatives of the colonial government in Ukraine in 1660.  —Michael Z. 18:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is correct, the topic is defined by the article title, and the Keep votes were for this article title (and this topic). Trying to make an article whose topic is unambiguous into an article about something else is disruptive editing. Don't do that. Given the widespread and detailed coverage in RS of torture in the 2022 Russian invasion, it should be one of the main focuses. The other major focus, also well represented in RS, would be the previous time Russia invaded the country and tortured Ukrainians. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So because the Ukrainian people have been invaded, killed and tortured by the Russian regime, reporting that they've also suffered at the hands of their own government becomes inherently UNDUE. Ukrainian human rights organisations have been vocal in denouncing the practice of torture by government officials and agents, and amongst other things they've published a courageous report on Unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine. And what do we do while brandishing NPOV? We remove this source and silence them because our task is to keep the right balance between Russian and Ukrainian torturers rather than informing about torture in Ukraine. This is a consequence of the way we re-framed the subject of this article by making it an article on the war in Ukraine: the efforts of human rights organisations in documenting torture perpetrated by state authorities must now be balanced and outweighed by the numerous news reports on torture inflicted by Russians forces.

But this is not a consequence of our commitment to NPOV and is entirely at odds with what has been done in all our "Torture in (country XY)" articles: the reason we focus on country XY is because it bears some responsibility for torture rather than because torture took place within its borders. This reshaping of the article's subject from the original Torture in Ukraine includes documented and alleged cases of torture committed by members of the Ukrainian government, the military, law enforcement agencies, the Security Service of Ukraine, and Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary units to the present Torture in Ukraine involves documented and alleged cases of torture committed within the borders of Ukraine is neither in the interest of the Ukrainian people nor in the the interest of the Encyclopaedia: from this defective but promising article we have now reached the present ridiculous, useless stub, which is ready to be transformed into a redirect to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, thus accomplishing what the AfD didn't achieve. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said it was "undue" to include torture by Ukrainians. Please cut it out with the attempted bait-and-switch, no one here is falling for it. If someone says "Article should include X" and then you come along and start yelling "SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT Y is UNDUE" that's not a good faithed conversation.

The stuff about torture by Ukrainian services can be included. What CANNOT be done though is falsely presenting this torture which happened before 2014 and the Revolution of Dignity in present tense. I assume you know how temporality works, so you're aware that pre-2014 is different than 2022 and hence pretending that what was happening in, say 2012 (when Ukrainian government was dominated by Russian puppets) is what is happening is 2022 is simply dishonest. This is exactly what the original text written by the original author tried to do. You can put in stuff about torture in Ukraine by Ukrainian security forces under Yanukovych and other pro-Russian puppets (as an aside why do you think the Euromaidan happened in the first place???) just stop pretending that it wasn't them but is happening now. Volunteer Marek 00:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

YOU REMOVED IT! That's incredible, Nobody said it was "undue". Please, note what you've done:

• removing In 2017, Amnesty International reported that during the War in Donbass there was overwhelming evidence of ongoing war crimes, including torture and mass murders;
• removing In a 2017 report on unlawful detentions and torture committed by Ukrainian side in Eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group and other NGOs documented 19 cases of torture and ill-treatment mostly taking place in 2014-2015;
• again removing the same text (and more).

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

jfc, look at the very first diff you provide. What does the edit summary say? What does that word mean? Volunteer Marek 01:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to provide any diffs where I am removing stuff because I claim it is "undue". If you can't then you should strike the above claim. Volunteer Marek 01:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Also please stop lecturing us about what is "in the interest of Ukrainian people". It's... obnoxious, to put it mildly, especially given your editing history. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Kuzio

Is there an online way to check references to the Kuzio book? Adoring nanny (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I checked it. It was correct, but I slightly modified it and improved the reference; I also quoted verbatim from the book. The text I published (which you removed ) was the following:

According to British expert Taras Kuzio, in 2015 the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs possessed "the worst reputation of any of Ukraine's security forces because of human rights abuses and mistreatment, and little has changed since the Soviet era in police culture".

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Does Kuzio says "in 2015" or is that just when the book was published? Volunteer Marek 00:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's when the book was published. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

So the "in 2015 <this and this>" is original research and synthesis. Volunteer Marek 01:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifying the year of the source so as to contextualise its claims is no OR. It's good editorial practice and we all do it all the time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

But you’re NOT “specifying the year of the source”!!! What you are doing is taking the year of the publication and pretending, falsely, that any quote pulled from that book applies to that particular year. The text you’re trying to cram in there is NOT “in a book published in 2015 this author said…”, the text you’re trying to cram in there is basically “in the year of our lord 2015 thing was true”. You’re jumping from “book was published in 2015 about stuff that happened prior to its publication” (obviously) to “the stuff that happened happened in the year the book was published”. THAT is original research (and POV). Volunteer Marek 08:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the text Before the Revolution of Dignity in 2014 that you placed before the quotation by Kuzio : that's a good example of original research. I write "In 2015 Kuzio said things were bad", and that's OR because Kuzio said "things are bad" in a book published in 2015; you write "Before the Revolution of Dignity Kuzio said things were bad", thus implying that they improved after the Revolution, and that's not an OR! It's amazing, how do you explain this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ummmm, no, you didn’t write “In 2015 Kuzio said things were bad” so I don’t know why you’re putting that in quotes and pretending that’s what the argument is about. Volunteer Marek 08:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Another relevant quotation is the following one:

Conditions in Ukraine's policy custody and prisons have never been good and have not dramatically improved since 1991, and large numbers of Ukrainians continue to be victims of police mistreatment with torture remaining commonplace

(p.482) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, this "never" and "since 1991" actually means "never up until 2014" and "between 1991 and 2014" since this is when the book was published. Volunteer Marek 00:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My purpose here is not to complain about anyone's edits. I'm just wondering if there is an online way to check the actual source. At the moment, my impression is that the answer is no? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, about my xx:23 edit, I went to self revert part of it, possibly the Kuzio part, but then found there had been a further big edit at xx:25. It might have been the Kuzio part. Basically, my edit did more than I wanted, but subsequent changes made that hard to untangle and I gave up. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The answer is "No", as far as I know, but I have the book. I was not complaining, but the article was perfectible but not disastrous. As passionate editors we should have helped it. There were a few POV claims that were not supported by sources, but there were many verifiable claims and, as far as I could see, the sources were not misrepresented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know man, text outright lying about what sources say would put it in the "disastrous" category in my book but I guess different editors have different standards. Volunteer Marek 01:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The worst sub-standard treatment of sources I can spot - I wouldn't say "outright lying" - is what you did when you removed relevant and well-sourced materials (Amnesty international, Ukrainian HR organisations) and added misrepresentations of sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean when I removed the claim, fake-sourced to Amnesty, that the murders and torture were committed by Ukrainians (what the text you restored claimed) rather than by Russian forces and proxies (what Amnesty source actually said). Yeah, I did that. Of course.

Here’s how it works. “Relevant and well sourced” is necessary. But what is also necessary, in addition to “relevance” and “reliability”, and I can’t believe I actually have to explain this to you, is that the text we include actually reflects the source</ref> rather than lies about what’s in it.

And here you are pretending that removing fake sourcing and lies is… “misrepresenting sources”. Seriously? Volunteer Marek 08:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• NA-Class Crime-related pages
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• NA-Class Human rights pages
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Redirect-Class Philosophy pages
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• Redirect-Class ethics pages
• Low-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• Redirect-Class social and political philosophy pages
• Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• NA-Class psychology pages
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Redirect-Class Ukraine pages
• Low-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Ukraine