Talk:Torture in Ukraine

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


 * Sorry, @Adoring nanny, I missed this thread. I noticed it now because I'm reviewing the discussions for the thread at ANI. The source is Kuzio 2015, p. 482, which has been misquoted, as you rightly noted. This is not a hoax, it's just the usual sloppy treatment of sources; the author of the article wrongly added Currently to Kuzio and changed "EU’s Eastern Partnership" with European nations. Here's the full quotation by Kuzio: . "Failed implementation" means that as 2010 Ukraine had failed to up the so-called National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) for the prevention of torture. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukraine informed the UN OHCHR that it had designated an agency as NPM in December 2012. I’m no expert, but I think that means the passage was outdated and misleading. —Michael Z. 14:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, both outdated and misleading. No one reverted Adoring nanny when they removed it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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


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

DECENT AND WELL-SOURCED ARTICLE. DECENT AND WELL-SOURCED ARTICLE???? Look, Michael told you that AfD relates to the notability of the topic. Only. No shame in not knowing that; I didn't either when I nominated the article for deletion. I nominated because it was a cynical and I will say it, evil piece of disinformation and it revolted me. That is apparently the wrong reason to AfD; live and learn. I agree that the topic is notable. I also agree that the article as written was almost entirely false. What sends my blood pressure skyrocketing here is that you know you know you know that, you have been told that on this very page, and there is no way you could not have seen that point made. Do you giggle when you write this stuff???? Elinruby (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article is extremely incomplete and extremely biased. Welcome to improve. Unfortunately, I can not help much because I am busy and uncomfortable with editing such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * unless he is topic banned he will simply edit it back to say that Ukrainians did something bad, then when someone objects he will complain that he is being personally attacked. Been doing this since at least June. Elinruby (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can request that the article be locked, so we can prevent this kind of back and forth again. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

And more over the top blatant POV not based on sources
- Please provide a citation for the text " numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented" which you added to the lede here. Otherwise self revert. Including highly POV text with no citations and unbacked by reliable sources is quintessential WP:TEND and WP:POV editing.  Volunteer Marek  01:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently there are four sources given for this claim.

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

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

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

...

...

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

...

I feel sick. Going outside to breath.

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


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


 * I realize that we are all affected by these horrors. I personally cannot look at this right now. Not enough bandwidth, too much everything. Somebody please verify Gitz's fix. I had to stop myself from putting that in quotes. AGF he has now realized the problem? Peace out for now, but I'll be back. VM, breathe, buddy. Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see Gitz6666 reverts that appear to misrepresent sources (putting in very mildly) problematic. I honestly I do... - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to tag sources that you think are misrepresented, or at bring them up on the talk page. Vaguely gesturing at an article with 25 different sources isn't useful. Masebrock (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes @GizzyCatBella, please, tell us which sources are misrepresented here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 [32 ] [33 ] [34 ] [35 ]. It appears to me that these are the sources. (I did a fast general scan. Am my mistaken? Let me investigate again..tomorrow okay?) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @GizzyCatBella, sorry to be pushy, but I was reviewing the discussions in light of the ongoing thread at ANI. Did you find the time to check if any of my reverts misrepresented sources? I'm pretty sure I never misrepresented any source here, but everybody makes mistakes and I'd like to be sure I didn't miss anything, so if you have diff to share that would be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This issue has now been corrected. There was a brief version of this article where these sources were accidentally being misrepresented (someone had swapped out all sources of torture by Ukrainian forces out of the lead and replaced them with Russian forces, leading to a bit of chaos). This version was up for a few hours, but it has now fixed. Masebrock (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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


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

An even simpler approach is to turn this page into a disambiguation page, as in:
 * This page may refer to:
 * Human rights in Ukraine
 * War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

--K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Humanitarian_situation_during_the_war_in_Donbas to cover the period between 2014 and 2022. Alaexis¿question? 11:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


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

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


 * Agree. One issue here is content forking. Most of the torture was happening during the war(s) (i.e. War in Donbas (2014–2022), etc.) and on the territories not controlled by the Ukrainian government. Some of them are war crimes and therefore were described on other pages. On the other hand, a page "Torture in Ukraine" (not by Ukraine) must include everything at the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, i.e. such materials do belong to such page. Another issue is that sections "Before Euromaidan" and "Torture during the 2014 Russian invasion" are written essentially as an anti-Ukrainian "attack page", and in general, this page is poorly written. Overall, I feel that suggestion K.e.coffman to merge and redirect was reasonable. My very best wishes (talk)
 * Agree with User:K.e.coffman. This never happens, but I do. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is not a lot of content on the pre-2014 period and I don't think that mixing pre-war 'civilian' torture and wartime torture makes sense. One more desambig alternative we should have is Humanitarian_situation_during_the_war_in_Donbas which covers the period between 2014 and 2022. Alaexis¿question? 09:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Having seen u:Masebrock's !vote, I wanted to clarify that the information from this article which is not present in the main articles should be incorporated there. Alaexis¿question? 14:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is a good idea, as long as it doesn't result in the loss of notable content and reliable sources of this article. If they are not redundant, the pre-2022 contents of this article should be merged with that section Human rights in Ukraine, which is indeed quite poor and in need of more materials.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Disgaree. User K.e.coffman has indicated on the talk page of Human Rights in Ukraine that he does NOT intend to merge the content from this page to the Human rights in Ukraine page as he suggested in this proposal, but instead intends to blank the section of torture, removing all sources from organizations such as the New York Times, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations. His rationale is that the current sources "focus on specific periods, stages of the conflict, or individual incidents" instead of providing a general overview. I disagree with his assumption that human rights pages must only speak in generalities, and I also disagree on the merits that the provided sources only speak in narrow case-specific language. And I find the argument that 2016 is too historical to be included a human rights page highly questionable at best. But anyway, this is not a proposal to merge. K.e.coffman is proposing to delete. All well sourced material describing torture by the government of Ukraine (a notable, verifiable topic) will be scrubbed from Wikipedia.  Masebrock (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I should have been more specific and perhaps should have continued the discussion here, instead of starting a new one. I'm reposting my comment from Talk:Human_rights_in_Ukraine, with links added for clarity:
 * I'm actually leaning towards blanking the section (Human_rights_in_Ukraine) and only including links to other articles via the "Further" template. My rationale is that it's currently impossible to create a balanced, stand-alone overview article / section, given the lack of sources that provide such an overview. There's press coverage and reports by human rights organizations, but they focus on specific periods, stages of the conflict, or individual incidents. I've not seen sources that discuss the topic of "torture in Ukraine" since independence (1991) to the present time (2022) in an overarching format, to establish the right balance of coverage. That's why I think that, at the current time, no overview article or even section is possible.
 * Adding here: The Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas exists and I'm not proposing to blank it; but instead use the 2016 sources there, if they are not already included. Here was my additional comment:
 * If not already used there, this 2016 coverage can be used at Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas; there are sections "Abductions and torture" and "War crimes". It would be topical there and would avoid the issue of WEIGHT in Human rights in Ukraine.
 * Does this make sense? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where the discussion should take place. I've just added my remarks to Talk:Human rights in Ukraine. In my view, the decision to redirect the name of the article to Human rights in Ukraine, which I welcome in principle, is purely editorial, meaning that it doesn't affect in any way the admittedly very controversial question of what content and sources should be reported in that section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's continue the discussion about the contents of the section in question at Talk:Human rights in Ukraine. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on the process for this. It seems like most people here agree. Does that mean we just make the redirect and do the merge? Do we need an AfD? Something else? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I redirected the article to the section Human_rights_in_Ukraine. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

WP: BLUE in a time of 1RR
Yanukovych was a Russian puppet. It had not occurred to me that a good-faith editor familiar with the history would dispute this, but ok... apparently this can be done. I took issue at ANI with the contemptuous removal of this rather factual statement; Yanukovych disputed his removal after fleeing to Moscow, for heaven's sake. Since I substantiated the material with three rather good references, I think the statement should be restored, as it is important context to some of the early instances of torture.

I don't usually revert at all let alone operate in 1RR environments, so I am uncertain of the proper way to proceed. Since I just got home after some rather harrowing travel, for tonight I plan to limit myself here to this post and go edit grammar in medieval Sri Lanka articles or something. Will check in tomorrow. Thank you for any thoughts Elinruby (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Pre-2014 Ukraine was a client state of Russia" is the kind of highly contentious claim that is sort of the opposite of "WP:SKY_IS_BLUE", but if you have reliable sources feel free to add it back in. Masebrock (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're a funny guy. You were also joking when you said that that the statement must be untrue because three Wikipedia pages didn't say so, right? Right? The sources for the statement are a Guardian think piece, a Barack Obama State of the Union address, and a Merriam Webster entry, all of which explicitly say exactly that. All jokes aside, I am going to await further input and go work on something uncontroversial for tonight, too tired and frazzled to put up with editors who seem to think that I need their permission. Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * The sources I provided in the ANI thread were: a Guardian think piece, Barack Obama in a State of the Union speech, and Merriam Webster. I will fish them out and bring them over here shortly. I am not insistent that we use that exact wording, as I said, but I am pretty sure Ukraine wasn't exactly fully independent at the time either. I wasn't accusing you of removing the text; I haven't looked to see who it was, but odds are that it was the person who had so much fun saying that it was removed in their dissertation on my supposedly disgraceful editing. I'm not even mad about it at this point, but I do think something along those lines needs to be considered in the "in Ukraine" articles. Mass media: murky subject as I said, but some of the information war materials I've looked at thought the ownership was important. I tried to update the en.wikipedia articles, but there are a lot of shell companies and ambiguous mergers/partnerships involved. We don't need to explicitly get into all that here, but it is a factor. I do not think the level of press freedom is comparable to North America's. If you have good sources about this at your fingertips, I could use them at my talk page, since talking about this here has reminded me of Mass media in Ukraine, and the fact that it most likely still needs work. If you don't have them at your fingertips, don't worry about it; I can look when I come back to this. Oh and btw I didn't think much of client state either. Elinruby (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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


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


 * A
 * B Adoring nanny (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


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


 * is there not a legitimate question as to Russia's influence over Ukraine in the period? I think you are off in the weeds a bit. A lot of your objections to these specific sources are reasonable. I think I can find sources for this or some other wording, and the article would be better for the objection. My point with the journalist posted to Moscow was that this might make him an expert on Russia, but ok, this not the same as on the ground in Ukraine. But I suspect that other editors would object to a Ukrainian source. Which leaves what, the World Bank? I am pretty sure I can source some statement all my these lines, and I am not trying to include it unsourced. I've been quiet because I've been on pain meds and asleep, not because it isn't possible to find a source for this. Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a question. The answer is not “client state” with iffy references. Find an expert that actually says it. Journalism might not be the right place. Look for academic articles or popular-academic books on Google Books or Scholar.
 * Anyway, I think the answer is probably not “client state” at all. Perhaps that is not a well defined academic term (I don’t really know). My dictionary says “a nation that is dependent on another, more powerful nation,” which is inherently vague, and light years from exactly black-and-white in this age of globalization and multiple different interdependencies.
 * IMO Putin never succeeded to the degree that you can call Ukraine an unqualified “client state.” The political situation was complex and changing. Ukrainians revolted when it looked like Yanukovych was going to turn their country into a client state and headed it off.
 * Until late November 2013 Ukraine was actively planning European integration. Two days later, the nation was actively revolting against a government that tried to scupper the effort. In February the “patron” state was grasping at its influence so desperately that it invaded. In March 2014 Ukraine signed the Association Agreement. To me this was never a client state. —Michael Z. 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is way too much time spent on a contested term. In the article, explain what you actually mean, or just use terminology no one disagrees with.
 * I’m taking a break from this thread unless something new appears. —Michael Z. 17:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this article is on "Torture in Ukraine", this conversation would be more in-topic at Russia–Ukraine relations, History of Ukraine or Viktor Yanukovych. However, it is simply false, and not supported by any RSs, that pre-Maidan Ukraine was a Russian client state. The pro-Russian Yanukovych himself had spent half of his presedency negotiating the association agreement wiht the EU and was more than willing to sign it; he gave up not because of a free political choice but because of strong Russian pressure (you don't start a trade war with your client state, would you?). In any case, even if one could find an RS claiming that pre-Maidan Ukraine was a client state of Russia, this nonsense would be off-topic in this article, which is about torture. If I understand the general political intent of the edit I reverted, its author should rather be looking for a source claiming that the use of torture decreased after Euromaidan and/or a source on the commitment of post-2014 governments to combat the practice of torture: anything else would be WP:SYNTH. So far I haven't been able to find an RS like that, but I don't doubt that it would be in-topic in this article and that we could publish (with attribution) the corresponding content. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Moot at this point, but I tend to agree with that. Yanukovich could reasonably be described as a Russian client individual. One could even make a case that he would have preferred that Ukraine become a Russian client state. But he was never the state, and it did not. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)