Talk:Torture in Ukraine/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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, above. —Michael Z. 17:08, 21 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 Wikipedia 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)

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. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

.

Possible sources
Mucube (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine (PDF version)
 * Amnesty International Report 2021/22: The state of the world’s human rights (PDF version)

Feel free to use them Elinruby (talk) 09:35, 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: 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)
 * 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.
 * 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 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)
 * Indeed it was Cambial Yellowing claiming here above that Given the widespread and detailed coverage in RS of torture in the 2022 Russian invasion, it should be one of the main focuses, and my comment was replying to him. You, on the other hand, claimed many times that the text you removed misrepresented the sources, e.g., this piece of shit article was straight up lying about what's in the sources, which is not true: the text could be improved, but the way it dealt with the sources was quite accurate. On this, see here below my collapsible hat with the title Text removed by VM. Detailed analysis of the sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 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)

Now what did I tell you, Gitz, about doing obnoxious stuff and then complaining that people aren't nice enough the gazillionth time you tie everyone up arguing about the ridiculous? Are you taking a break from claiming that the Russian Constitution is a reliable source? Don't you dare claim that people here are uncivil. I used to make excuses for you, but all that po-boy stuff about how you don't speak English too well doesn't fly any more. AGF one last time: You do a huge amount of damage and if it isn't deliberate you *really* need to learn to listen. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks. This behaviour is unacceptable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You, with an impressive history of being told you are wrong at the endless series of noticeboards where you have dragged the people who took issue with your misrepresentation of sources, *you* have for whatever reason chosen to overturn consensus and you are upset because I described your behaviour? And are continuing on your merry wall of text ways. Nuh uh. If we have the article it needs to be accurate, and you just misrepresented what happened at RSN. Perhaps you actually believe what you are saying, which is even sadder. You're definitely a time sink. Go start a complaint about how I won't let you explain reliable sources to me. I don't know why you, some random lawyer in Italy, choose to devote all this time to Those Poor Misunderstood Russians, but seriously dude, you are embarrassing yourself. I believe in the truth, and I really don't like bullies, and if we gotta document all cases of torture *in* Ukraine, well then fine, but I don't think you will like the results and I will have no sympathy for you. If you think that's a personal attack, which I question, there is really nothing I can say to you so...ciao. Make sure your edits are accurate is all I have to say to you. Elinruby (talk) 12:58, 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, 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: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is policy at en-wikipedia to write about even current events in the past tense. That you don't see the problem with using present tense to describe events that, even if true, happened years ago...Dude, did you read the original post, or are you just reflexively picking an argument in favor of unquestionable Russian propaganda? But ok, if you want to talk about this (dredging up some AGF from somewhere) it needs to be in past tense and attributed, and also match the source. Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * also, and I could swear someone just now explained this to you with respect to your Russian Constitution shenanigans at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, if you want to use a source/statement the onus is on you to prove that the source is reliable *for the statement you are sourcing* . If these units disbanded years ago, I don't see how any source can be reliable for proving that they "are" torturing anyone. Elinruby (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So your comment here above "highly likely", snort refers to the past tense? The only problem with that sentence is that it should have been It is likely that the volunteer battalions WERE responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces. "Were" instead of "are". Is this the OR you were complaining about, right? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s meaningless as long as we have no idea what “the Ukrainian human rights organisations' report” is and what it refers to as “the violations.” —Michael Z. 14:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm referring always to the same source, the one I quoted here above: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * sealioning. I used small words and I think their meaning is pretty clear. We are supposed to tell the truth, yes. That the sentence does not, is reason enough to nuke the sentence, just like all the other untrue sentences we've had to nuke in this piece of garbage article, and *that* is only one of many problems. By the way, you appear to have misread the thread about Encyclopedia of Ukraine. The thread definitely doesn't say that the source is not RS. I don't know if it is in fact biased, but that is a different standard than RS. In a collaborative editing environment, we are supposed to be able to believe what you say to us. Elinruby (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources for "Torture in Ukraine"
The following are 2022 unless noted:

Radio Canada Elinruby (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch Elinruby (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Washington PostElinruby (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Reuters Elinruby (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

BBC

AP Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Business Insider Elinruby (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Global News Elinruby (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

LA Times Elinruby (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Guardian Elinruby (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

France 24 Elinruby (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

NZ HeraldElinruby (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Elinruby (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Der Spiegel

New Yorker

Harvard International Review (2014) [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/new-book-recounts-prisoner-torture-in-russian-occupied-eastern-ukraine/ Atlantic Council]

New Republic

Vice

Le Monde

Guardian

Guardian

ABC

The Hill

[www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61683513.amp BBC] Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Secret detention centers of SBU
How should we report the info on the Secret detention centers of SBU? As you see, we already have a dedicated article on this. The original text of this article, which I have slightly improved, is as follows:

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. Please make a specific proposal about a specific piece of text. Walls of text are a type of bludgeoning, and you have been told this many times. And yet here we are. Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Legislation passed at gunpoint
We should probably include the little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War) and the extrajudicial killings during Euromaidan. Also, did we get to the rapes yet? Elinruby (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * How is this on topic? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * How is it not? Are you asserting that rape cannot be used as a torture tactic? Just trying to clarify your thinking. Meanwhile "vote to secede or I will hurt you" seems pretty torture-like to me. Please answer in a succinct manner. Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * did we get to the rapes yet?, without a source or any reference to make the question meaningful, is not clear. My question "How is this on topic?" referred only to the part of your post that is intelligible: We should probably include the little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War) and the extrajudicial killings during Euromaidan. I doubt that this has anything to do with torture. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not think that a good-faith editor such as yourself would question that there have been many rapes. This can be documented of course, but this is a talk page, and I am trying to understand your comment. Are you claiming that rape is off-topic for the article? If so, an RfD should resolve this. If not, please clarify.


 * Also, I've talked to you before about the way you use speak to me. Please refrain from telling me I am unintelligible, as you have repeatedly done. It is very insulting, unless of course, this is a matter of your English, in which case I will rephrase. As you have repeatedly mentioned, you are not using your first language. Nothing wrong with that and I deal with English problems quite frequently, but you keep taking offense at the question. If you do not have a problem with English, yet you claim you do not understand a simple question, can you see that this is a personal attack that you should stop making? Please consider this a warning. Elinruby (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My English might be defective, but I understand the semantics of did we get to the rapes yet? Honestly I find the question a bit unpleasant and disrespectful, as if we weren't talking about real people; it's also entirely useless from an editorial point of view. I don't understand why you want to pick up a fight with me but I won't reply to this thread any further. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

So you no longer wish me to explain to you how this is not off-topic then?? I am happy to oblige.

Btw I don't want to pick a fight with you, in fact I find your tone extremely unpleasant every time we speak. I do however think it is necessary to oppose your repeated edits contrary to the talk page consensus. And for the record your written English seems quite good. It's your comprehension I was wondering about, as an exercise in AGF. Particularly when you call very simple posts "incomprehensible". But fine: the answer appears to be that no we have not. Several of the sources I have posted above deal with the topic.Elinruby (talk) 20:31, 26 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)
 * We did and still do. Elinruby (talk) 10:40, 24 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)
 * I am not against that if you can find anything in there worth using Elinruby (talk) 10:40, 24 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)
 * Exactly Elinruby (talk) 10:40, 24 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:
 * 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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * —Michael Z. 00:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at de Ploeg. Not a reliable source. Self described “investigative journalist” which is already a huge red flag these days. His journalistic publications are in things I never heard of like something called “Follow the money” and “Dissident voice”. Over the top rhetoric. Weird essays about “decolonizing spirituality” and “subversive potential of spiritual epistemologies”. I don’t know recent history academia page is but it says he is an undergraduate student. Clarity Press, the publisher of the book is not a reputable press. No way we’re using this for controversial info.  Volunteer Marek  21:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at his blog, my initial reaction is skepticism. I certainly don't think people who want to use him have met WP:BURDEN. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:10, 26 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:
 * 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 " 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)
 * And what about your Before the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, according to British expert Taras Kuzio.... How is it better than my According to British expert Taras Kuzio, in 2015... (in quotes)? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another relevant quotation is the following one: (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've found a google books preview here Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:50, 24 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 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)
 * What you just said is false. I don't think you made it on purpose, I assume your good faith, but all the text you removed was impeccably sourced. Anyway, here below you'll find a detailed analysis of the text you removed and the quoted sources. Please read carefully and tell me what do you think about this. Did you actually bother to check the sources or did you just act on the basis of your personal knowledge and expertise?


 * In 2017, Amnesty International reported that during the War in Donbass there was overwhelming evidence of ongoing war crimes, including torture and mass murders of prisoners.

SOURCE AMNESTY: "Overwhelming evidence of ongoing war crimes, including torture and summary killings of prisoners, serve as a stark reminder of the brutal practices being committed on a near-daily basis in eastern Ukraine’s conflict, Amnesty International said in a comprehensive new briefing today"


 * In Eastern Ukraine, Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) operates special hidden prisons for alleged Donbass rebels where unacknowledged detention is accompanied by widespread torture and different kinds of human rights abuses. The Ukrainian government tried to deny the existence of the blacksites, but it was confirmed by multiple reports of the UN monitoring mission in Ukraine, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

SOURCE THE TIMES: "Ukraine’s spy agency, the SBU, is systematically rounding up and torturing suspected rebel sympathisers, the United Nations has told The Times"

SOURCE VOA NEWS: "Arbitrary detentions, sometimes involving torture, are taking place in Eastern Ukraine both by Ukrainian authorities and Russian-backed separatists, according to a joint report released by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Thursday"

SOURCE AMNESTY: "Based on the research findings detailed in this report, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch believe unlawful, unacknowledged detentions have taken place in SBU premises in Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, Izyum, and Mariupol. We received compelling testimony from a range of sources, including recently released detainees, that as of June 2016 as many as 16 people remain in secret detention at the SBU premises in Kharkiv. Ukrainian authorities have denied operating any other detention facilities than their only official temporary detention center in Kyiv and denied having any information regarding the alleged abuses by SBU documented in this report".


 * Dutch journalist Chris Kaspar de Ploeg in his book "Ukraine in the Crossfire " said about the prisons that their "practices happen completely in the dark" emphasizing that the supporting evidence about the facilities has been documented independently by the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

SOURCE DE PLOEG: "In fact, even direct co-operation between volunteer battalions and the regular security forces in regard to torture has been documented by Human Rights Watch.14 In addition, a UN report indicated that secret prisons have been established in Ukraine, whose practices happen completely in the dark.15 Supporting evidence for these secret detentions were later provided in a report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch"


 * In 2018 Amnesty International concluded that "The investigation into the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) for its alleged secret prisons failed to make any progress. Law enforcement officials continued to use torture and other ill-treatment".

SOURCE AMNESTY (now here ): "The investigation into the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) for its alleged secret prisons failed to make any progress. Law enforcement officials continued to use torture and other ill-treatment. The Ukrainian authorities increased pressure on their critics and independent NGOs, including journalists and anti-corruption activists"
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There’s no reason to use disputed source De Ploeg for this. Does no undisputably reliable support what he says here? —Michael Z. 14:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Human Rights Watch, Dispatches: A Damning Silence From Kiev (2014, May 07)
 * Christof Heyns, Ukraine: Lives lost in an accountability vacuum – UN Rapporteur on summary executions and UN special rapporteur on torture issues sharply critical report on Ukraine
 * Amnesty International Ukraine: Authorities must commit to a thorough investigation after 13 people released from secret detention. (2016, August 29)
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Gita, rather than endlessly edit warring against consensus (there’s at least four or five editors here who have raised serious objections and concerns with your edits) how about you: 1) at least make an effort to get the tense right rather than falsely suggesting that this is current practice and 2) stop trying to reinsert sources which have been rejected by multiple editors here. I suggest you make proposals here rather than edit warring again.  Volunteer Marek  21:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree that there is "consensus" to remove the well-sourced material restored by Gitz.Masebrock (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats nice. But in fact there was consensus to just redirect the article to the War Crimes article. Keeping it but cleaning it up off all the garbage was the compromise.  Volunteer Marek   21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * Could you please answer my question? You said that this piece of shit article was straight up lying. Can you point to the lies? Because I see that you have removed lots of texts and sources, and in the edit summaries you've explained whoever put the original text in simply lied about what the source actually says, there's outright lying about what sources say, removing outright lies and misrepresentations of sources, outright lying, and so on, but I checked all the sources and I' sorry: I cannot see a lie.
 * Now you've just removed the text again but you no longer say it's full of lies: the problem is that I didn't get the tense right. So it's a huge improvement, isn't it? And I had just restored a couple of broken links and things like that. But if the tense is wrong, why don't you modify the text instead of removing it entirely? Mind "Do a partial reversion when appropriate".
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I already gave several examples. One was that the sources discussed torture and murder by *Russian separatists* but the text in this article pretended it said “Ukrainians”. Another piece of dishonesty is pretending that stuff that happened before 2014 was actually taking place today. If someone can seriously look at the original version of this article and genuinely think “looks alright to me” then I have no choice but to question their judgement or intention. WP:COMPETENCE is required.  Volunteer Marek   21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide references, make an analysis of the text and the sources, as I did here above, otherwise I don't understand what you're talking about. I know this: I checked all the sources and I'm pretty sure the text is fully verifiable and correct. Mistakes can always happen but you should be more precise. And besides, you could always correct mistakes directly in Ns0, without removing all the text, so as to comply with WP:ONLYREVERT. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead
We should add this sentence (or something similar) to the lead: Any reason why we shouldn't? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * sources? Any reason why we *should* both-sides this? Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of sources: Torture has been perpetrated prior to the Revolution of Dignity (2014) and during the war in Donbas (2014-2022) by law enforcement agencies and the Security Service of Ukraine, the army, and Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary units.
 * You ask Any reason why we *should* both-sides this? This is an article on torture in Ukraine: don't make it an article on the war in Ukraine. The only two sides here are the tortured and the torturers. Is there any reason why we should not talk about torture during the war in Donbas? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

please desists from misrepresenting my comments. I did not advocate not talking about the war in Donbas. You said we should make a change and I asked you to support your proposed change with sources, per WP:ONUS. At the moment there is good reason not to, since (at least when I looked earlier today) there is nothing about this in the body of the article. Elinruby (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t like the mixing up of the stuff from before RoD and even 2014.  Volunteer Marek   05:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good lead. It summarizes the text of the article. Easy improvement over the previous version that bizarrely only mentions torture by Russian forces. Masebrock (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * how do you suggest, @Volunteer Marek, we modify the lead to cover all relevant contents without mixing up stuff? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This is just a polite reminder that the onus is on you to provide sources for the material you want to include. You can't just wave your hands and say they are many. PS: I deleted the screed you left on my talk page, but I did answer you first, in case you missed that.Elinruby (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sources are provided. The lead section does not need citations per MOS:LEADCITE, so we can either publish the sentence with detailed references (here above) or leave them out. Since WP:V and WP:RS are not an issue here, the topic I proposed for discussion is whether this sentence belongs to the lead as it correctly describes (I believe) the content of the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw your reply before you deleted it and in terms of length you far exceeded my "screed", but unfortunately you made no commitment to avoid personal attacks in the future. Too bad. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That is because it is not a personal attack to take issue with another editor's editing. This is why nothing happened in any of the many cases with which you have cluttered the admin boards, claiming to have been personally attacked by editors who disagreed with you.


 * It is not, for example, a personal attack to point out that your proposed lede, which you claim accurately reflects this topic, completely omits the Russian special forces units in Donbas, as well as the regular Russian Army units. Therefore I oppose the text you are proposing.


 * It is good to know that you read the talk page reply though, thanks for that reply.


 * The stuff about length is another red herring. It's my page. Don't like it, don't stalk it, and also, don't misrepresent it. I have asked you not to post there. Since I had just addressed you quite bluntly here, doing so was understandable in this instance, but if you can't understand a regex discussion you shouldn't be trying to use it as proof of my perfidity somehow. Thanks, glad we cleared that up. Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I think trying to nail down a lead would be premature. Yeah, we need one, but until the body is a bit more stable, we can't really say what it should be. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well yeah. Exactly. Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer battalions
How should we report the info on allegations of torture perpetrated by the Volunteer battalions and Special Tasks Patrol Police? The original text of this article used, amongst others, the following source that is no longer available online: I therefore removed the corresponding text. It's not a big deal as it was probably WP:TOOMUCH. The remaining text, slightly edited and fully verifiable, is the following:

What shall we do with this? My proposal: we move the first two paragraphs to Volunteer battalions and Special Tasks Patrol Police, and we keep in this article the third paragraph also adding to it the sentence It is likely that the volunteer battalions were responsible for most of the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian forces (that is, most of the war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces were perpetrated by the volunteer battalions rather than the regular Armed Forces of Ukraine). To me it is particularly important that we keep the reference to the excellent report by Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group and other NGOs, which shows the efforts by parts of Ukrainian civil society to denounce torture and stop the escalation of violence in Donbas. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Didn't we just now talk about wikivoice in that "it is likely" sentence? I have only been intermittently online the past few days, so I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that that happened.


 * The rest of this is TL;DR. Please propose your changes one at a time as they will all need to be verified for accuracy. Elinruby (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with using the probabilistic term "likely" if it is supported by reliable sources, which in this case it is. My only recommendation would be to add the source as a citation along with Hahn. The "Tornado battalion" section is long-standing stable content and should be restored unless consensus is formed on the Talk Page to remove. Masebrock (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought we already had consensus for that, but maybe it was just me agreeing with . Apparently they've been disbanded for years. Stable content isn't really a good argument, when there is a consensus that Wikipedia has been hosting Russian propaganda for seven years. Also, there is some dispute about the Hahn book; I haven't been following the details but there are several posts about it at Talk:Torture in Ukraine Elinruby (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If Tornado has been disbanded, feel free to provide a reliable source for that and we can include it in the article. Your comment about "Russian propaganda" is going to have to expounded on as Der Spiegel is considered a reliable source. I am restoring the stable "Tornado" content unless consensus is achieved otherwise. Masebrock (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He. Already. Did. That. Above: did you read the talk page? Elinruby (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ”Long standing stable content” (sic) is not the argument you think it is when you consider the fact that this whole article was created as over the top POV garbage FORK and stayed that way for a couple months before anyone noticed.  Volunteer Marek   21:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't get to ignore the standard rules of removing long-stable content on Wikipedia by making the absurd claim that "no one noticed" that this page existed. What in the world? Who says? Much of this has been here over a year. Masebrock (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There’s no such rule and for good reason. Garbage is garbage regardless of how long it manages to hang around. YOU don’t get to ignore the very basic rule that sources actually have to support the text they’re citing, which is, like, bare minimum.  Volunteer Marek   22:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCONSENSUS says that until consensis is acheived, the last stable version remains. This is very basic, Wikipedia 101 stuff. Masebrock (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. WP:NOCONSENSUS clearly states "If the dispute relates to verifiability then the disputed content is not included." I have repeatedly said the sources are being misrepresented and the information has failed verification. Now. Please self revert.  Volunteer Marek   23:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now incorporated your suggested changes to the text, so no need to revert. Masebrock (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My "suggestion" (and that of at least three or four other editors) was to remove this junk entirely. What you did is make a cosmetic change, removing the most egregious instance of lying-about-what-sources-say and kept the "spirit" of the POV. Sorry, not good enough.  Volunteer Marek   00:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How is describing the torture by Ukraine as documented in numerous reliable sources a violation of NPOV? Could you be more specific here, and perhaps start a new talk section with your specific objection? Masebrock (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And given the numerous objections raised by multiple editors regarding this material and given the sketchy af history of this article, the consensus is needed for *inclusion* so let’s not play this little game, eh?  Volunteer Marek   21:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Some people have objected" does not override the need for consensus for removal. Because obviously some people have also not objected. "This article is sketchy" is also not an argument to ignore standard editing procedures. Masebrock (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. YOU need consensus for inclusion (good luck with that, seeing as how the material is so problematic that even restoring it could lead to sanctions). Stop making up rules which don't exist to justify your WP:TENDENTIOUS attempts to restore garbage content.  Volunteer Marek   22:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And here is how this whole paragraph - the text included in our Wikipedia article - is bullshit: all three of the sources are about how *Ukrainian* authorities disbanded and initiated an investigation and persecution of one rogue battalion. Yet our text makes no mention of the fact and tries to pretend that this was some emblematic or state sanctioned formation. This is a straight up misrepresentation of sources, additionally, anyone who follows Russian social media knows that this “Tornado battalion” crap is a staple of Russian disinformation and propaganda with all kinds of crazy stories invented. So it very much looks like the creator of this article wrote up the bullshit from one set of unreliable social sources (Putinist and Russian nationalist social media) and then tacked on some reliable sources to the text to make it look legit. It’s just plain old lying.
 * Well finally, we have some substantive content objections from you. You claim that the text tries to "pretend tries to pretend that [Tornado] was some emblematic or state sanctioned formation". Where? How? Which word or line says this?
 * You claim that Der Spiegel's and RadioFreeEurope reporting on this topic are "Russian disinformation and propaganda". Yet these are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. We cannot simply take your opinion of these RS as "disinformation and propaganda" as fact. And if the text of the article is supported by reliable sources, then it doesn't matter if you disagree with the political intentions of the person who wrote the article. Surely a veteran editor such as yourself should know this basic Wikipedia editing standard. Masebrock (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)]
 * "You claim that Der Spiegel's and RadioFreeEurope reporting on this topic are "Russian disinformation and propaganda"" I made no such claim so stop making up stuff I didn't say. I said these sources were being misrepresented. Here is exactly what I said, again, just so you won't try pulling these kinds of stunts again: "all three of the sources are about how *Ukrainian* authorities disbanded and initiated an investigation and persecution of one rogue battalion. Yet our text makes no mention of the fact and tries to pretend that this was some emblematic or state sanctioned formation. ". Nice try though.  Volunteer Marek   22:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "::"our text makes no mention of the fact and tries to pretend that this was some emblematic or state sanctioned formation." Again, please cite the word of phrase that you think implies that the volunteer battaion is state sanctioned. Twice now you have mentioned this and twice now I have asked. Masebrock (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don’t restore this stuff without consensus.  Volunteer Marek   21:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't remove stable content without consensus. Masebrock (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "stable content" and even if it was, it doesn't matter. Don't restore text which blatantly misrepresents sources and uses fringe trash as sources.  Volunteer Marek   22:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article was basically written in February 2019 and was not considered as as over the top POV garbage FORK until three years later, following the 2022 Russian invasion. See how it was in January 2022: . Then, after the invasion, in became a pray to war, and some editors started to shell it with massive content removals, tag-bombing and AfD, while others (such as Ingenuity, EdBever, BeywheelzLetItRip, and more recently Alaexis, Masebrock and myself) tried to counter the deletionist fury. Apparently, since the Ukrainians were invaded by Russia, their suffering at the hands of their government must become invisible, "POV garbage FORK" as you say, and the Ukrainians must become one and the same thing their government, with no dark spot. But no, you have no right to remove well-sourced notable contents without consensus; the article needs improvements and you’re not helping. If you feel that it’s unbalanced, why don’t you write something on torture by pro-Russian separatists? Actually, I think I'll do this myself.
 * text which blatantly misrepresents sources. Please tell me where: which source?
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it happens that an article is written and nobody notices for awhile. There have been cases of trash articles on Wikipedia hanging around for years. This is NOT an argument for keeping garbage content. Bottomline is that the text misrepresents the sources, the text (especially previous version) simply lied about what sources said and where it doesn't it relies on '''unreliable fringe sources.
 * NPOV is non-negotiable. "Oh someone got away with bullshit for a year or two so we must keep it for ever" is not an actual policy.  Volunteer Marek   22:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, for fucks' sake. 1) The sources talk about Russian separatists murdering POWs. The original text falsely said it was Ukrainians. 2) The sources (including Das Spiegel and RFL) are all about how Ukraine is prosecuting the members of this rogue battalion. The text makes no mention of that fact and worse, pretends that somehow the activities of this battalion were sanctioned by Ukrainian government! This is just straight up lying about what sources say. 3) The Ploeg source is from a publisher that has... Scott Ritter as their "featured author". Yes, THAT Scott Ritter, former "junior analyst" that got caught exposing himself to kids and then became a fringe "commentator" defending Putin and Russian war crimes. You can't get more WP:FRINGE then that. And apparently some editors genuinely are trying to convince us with a straight face, that this isn't garbage material and must be kept just because somebody put it in at some point.

Not. How. It. Works.  Volunteer Marek  22:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Clarity Press is not reputable. I see they are also featuring 9/11 conspiracy theorist Cynthia McKinney. I further don't see anything about de Ploeg that suggests to me we should treat him as WP:RS. Definitely the "yes" side of that one has not met WP:BURDEN. So he needs to be removed. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed all references to De Ploeg. I honestly don't know if he's reliable or not, but I know that we don't need him: in fact, I have his book under my eyes and I see that all his claims are supported by other sources (Der Spiegel, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), that he quotes and that we also quote. So there's no point in discussing about this, let's just drop this reference for the sake of harmony. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's a step forward. And how much time did that waste? Just to remove conspiracy theory crap. How many times did you and the other guy restore this garbage under the pretense that it was "long standing"? Now you see why "long standing" is NOT a wikipedia policy???
 * Now. No, it's not true that "Der Spiegel, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch" support De Ploeg. One. More. Time. All of these sources are about how Ukrainian authorities are persecuting one rogue battalion for its abuses. That's it. That's what the sources are about. What does our text say? Oh, instead it makes the unsupported claim that "Ukrainian volunteer battalion "Tornado" became an infamous example of torture and sadistic practices by Ukrainian paramilitary forces". There's NOTHING like that in the source !!!!  The person who put that in was simply lying. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. "Became an infamous example"? Not in the source. Completely made up. "Example of torture and sadistic practices by Ukrainian paramilitary forces"? Not in the source. Completely made up.
 * I would really appreciate it if you stopped restoring falisifications of sources to the article.  Volunteer Marek   22:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I have removed the editorializing claims of calling Tornado "infamous" and describing them as an "example", and added Tornado's prosecution and 2015 disbandment from the source. If you have any further suggested edits or objections please provide them in the talk page. Masebrock (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So after ALL THAT you finally admit that the original text was misrepresenting sources. Jesus christ. Finally. How hard was that? Still, this means that you reverted several times to a version that blatantly lied about what sources said. Which is a violation of half a dozen of Wikipedia policies including WP:TEND, WP:POV, WP:V, WP:BATTLEGROUND.
 * And there's still a problem. The fact that this was a rogue battalion which was persecuted by Ukrainian authorities is still being downplayed in the text. And the info itself is probably undue.  Volunteer Marek   23:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this, but I was actually going to add this source that calls them "scandalous battalion" (Скандальний батальйон) and this source with the charges that led to the commander being sentenced 11 years (including torture, sodomy under threat of violence, and incitement to attempted suicide). It's off-topic, but you might be interested also in this source about the commander having been recently released from prison after he pledged he will continue to fight against the Russians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No! I don't admit that the original text was misrepresenting sources. It was faithfully representing De Ploeg and also Hahn, who in turn were summarising and assessing the findings of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., which describe in details their torturing practices and say they were systematic. Anyway, I find it highly disruptive that in order to remove an "infamous" applied to gentlemen such as those of the Tornado battalion, you delete sources such as HRW, AI, Der Spiegel, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't addressed to you. But if you want to defend the fact that you and Masebrock were repeatedly restoring text which you Masebrock DID just admit was not in the source, that's on you.  Volunteer Marek   00:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that including mention of group notorious enough to be the focus of a RadioFreeEurope article is undue. The article itself describes the cases as "high-profile". Masebrock (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You restored text which was falsifying a source. Multiple times. That's a good indication that you shouldn't be editing this article, or for that matter, this topic.  Volunteer Marek   00:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary editorializing is not "falsifying a source". And at any rate, you reverted 4,500 letters of text because it included the word "infamous". Hard to take your accusations of incompetence seriously. Masebrock (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First source doesn't say anything about torture - it's about some fight these guys got into while in prison. Second source was already in there and it is one of the sources which focus on how Ukrainian authorities persecuted these bandits. The third source I've seen before and it seems to be based on some tweets - I have seen no verification of this info anywhere else.  Volunteer Marek   23:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems you haven't even read the source you're posting. The source does NOT say he was released "after he pledge he will continue to fight against the Russians". Now, since I *do* consistently read pro-Russian propaganda and garbage that's out there, I am actually aware that that's what RT.com and Freyzone, ex-eXile "journalists" and other trash outlets have claimed. So I can actually see where you're getting this info. But that info does not come from the source you're posting! It helps to actually read the sources you are using. Again WP:COMPETENCE is required.  Volunteer Marek   23:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The info comes from the source I posted, which says (google translation) In addition, Onishchenko wrote a statement at the beginning of the Russian aggression about his desire to fight. Whether he will now receive permission to go to the front is unknown. He had served 7 years in prison and he was still in pre-trial detention for a riot in 2018. Anyway, this is off-topic here. You've been removing high quality sources and a decent and verifiable text for no other reason than your enormous POV while shouting about non-existent misrepresentations of sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He was released because he served his sentence, NOT because "he pledged he will continue to fight against the Russians" as you claimed.
 * I've removed 1) instances where reliable sources were being falsified in citing our text and 2) instances of text attributed to garbage sources.
 * You asked for examples of misrepresentation of sources. I've given examples a dozen times. I EVEN provided you a list of diffs of where I do this. Here is the diff of the diffs (for god's sake how long will these mind numbing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games continue???).
 * Hell, both you and the other editor edit warring to keep this junk in the article have *admitted* that most of the text was lying about what was in the source. You both even, reluctantly, removed the worst instances of it once it became clear the misrepresentations were obvious (though keeping the overall POV). So much for "non-existent".  Volunteer Marek   00:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm looking over your eight diffs right now. 1.,3.,4.,5.,6. are already fixed in the article. 7 and 8 are a little ambiguous at to what your objection is, as a plain reading of the Amnesty International Source states that torture was also committed by Ukraine. Perhaps you are referencing some older version of the article, I'm not sure. Objection number 2 (that the Amnesty source only says that prisoner execution was done by Russia, not Ukraine) is easily fixable without reverting the entire contents. Really, we should probably just delete the prisoner execution bit as I'm not sure if RS would describe that as torture (perhaps better fitting under the war crimes article). Masebrock (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Section - Before Euromaidan
Says: In 2010, before the Revolution of Dignity, Russia was de facto a Russian client state. 🧐 - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the likely intended bold and unsourced claim ("Ukraine was a client state of Russia") cannot be found in the Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, or History of Ukraine pages. Masebrock (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the editor who inserted the typo apparently believes that prior to 2014 Ukraine was ruled by the Soviet Union, it's quite likely that the unsupported claim that Ukraine at the time was a client state of Russia is false. I suggest a reading of Orange Revolution and Viktor Yushchenko. I'm therefore reverting the inclusion Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The contributor was probably in a hurry and mistaken. He/she probably meant that during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych (i.e. just before the Revolution of Dignity) "Ukraine was ..." My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)