Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of the press in Ukraine

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

Greatest freedom of the press?

[edit]

Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all ahead of Ukraine on this page, the latter three substantially: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index --198.103.152.52 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought Estonia, Lituania and Latvia have freer press'. Poland was a Warsaw Pact country.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole1982 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The repressive media landscape in the former Soviet Union is illuminated by the fact that 10 of the 12 non-Baltic post-Soviet states are ranked as Not Free. The only two that enjoy Partly Free status, Georgia and Ukraine, have recently experienced political upheaval and democratic opening. [...] By contrast, all of the countries of Central Europe and the three Baltic states, which themselves needed to overcome a decades-long legacy of Soviet media culture and control, are assessed as Free." - http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&year=2007
With that, I'm removing "Although press freedom in Ukraine has never been rated higher that "partly free" by Freedom House it is still considered the freest of all post-Soviet states.[1]" and "Freedom House stated in 2007 that Ukraine had the freest press of all post-Soviet states and had had achieved a level of freedom previously unthinkable.[1]" from the article. --VillemVillemVillem (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whith adding the word "amongst" to the sentences mentioned by VillemVillemVillem I made them perfectly true. I do admit that the DYK-line was thus not perfect(ly true); but discussion and improving are good thing! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It never was listed as Free by Freedom House

[edit]

According to the Freedom house website Ukraine was Partly Free in 2009 (see here). So it can not have lost it's Free status in 2010 since it never had it... Even though Freedom house (on January 13, 2011) has said it has lost it's free status in 2010.. They don't know there own assessments it seems... Please colleagues do not blindly trust media reports about Ukraine; for instance I have noticed, through personal contacts, Western media it often exaggerates the "Pro-Russiannes" of the Donbass and Crimea.
— Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia) • Talk to me! 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A possible move to more balanced TV coverage

[edit]

There are observations (see here and here) that the TV news in Ukraine is getting more balanced. This is something to look out for as we per WP:CRYSTALBALL can not report about it for now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Law No. 3879 be included in this article?

[edit]

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/01/17/ukraine-stifles-freedom-of-speech-peaceful-protest-with-new-law/ <--reference to that Ukraine law. 104.34.250.89 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant material being inserted into the article

[edit]

I do not see the relevance of the following paragraph to the article:

On 10 February 2015, Amnesty International reported that an Ukrainian journalists called Ruslan Kotsaba was jailed by Ukrainian authorities for 15 years for "treason and obstructing the military" in reaction to his statement that he would rather go to prison than be drafted by Ukrianian Army. Amnesty International has appealed to Ukrainian authorities to free him immediately and declared Kotsaba a prisoner of conscience. Tetiana Mazur, director of Amnesty International in Ukraine stated that "the Ukrainian authorities are violating the key human right of freedom of thought, which Ukrainians stood up for on the Maidan” .In response Ukrainian SBU declared that they have found “evidence of serious crimes” but declined to elaborate.[1]
  1. ^ "Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters ". The Guardian. 10 February 2015.

The paragraph is about draft-dodging by the man. It is not about press freedom. Draft dodging is a crime just like tax-evasion. His draft-dodging was not relevant to his work as a journalist.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The paragraph in question was added at 11:30, 3 May 2015‎ by Tobby72, deleted at 12:05, 3 May 2015‎ by Toddy1, added again at 03:40, 4 May 2015‎ by MyMoloboaccount, and then deleted and moved to Human rights in Ukraine#Freedom of expression and conscience at 10:16, 4 May 2015 by me. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe the full extent of the information should be here, I am not categorically opposed to moving the bulk of information there. However imprisonment of journalists by current government in Kiev should be noted.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not relevant. He committed a crime unconnected with his work. He got sent to prison. The English have sent one of their journalists to prison too. But it would be stupid to suggest that sending someone who was the deputy news editor of the Sunday Telegraph to prison for 10 years was an attack on press freedom in England. Ukraine is just copying the English example.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can only write what RS says. While I appreciate your view that he committed crime, RS say this was a violation of human rights and freedom of expression.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that we can only write what an RS says. And the cited RS here says that this was a violation of "the key human right of freedom of thought" and that Kotsaba is "a prisoner of conscience", but it does not say that it was a violation of freedom of the press or of freedom of expression. So the information is a better fit for the Human rights in Ukraine article where I moved it. If you feel that the information should be included here, you'll need to find an RS that says that this was a violation of the right to freedom of the press or that the arrest was motivated by some action that Kotsaba took as a journalist. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

post-Maidan violations omitted - NPOV?

[edit]

The article claims that political press interference has reduced after the Euromaidan. It ignores post-Maidan violations such as the long trial of Ruslan Kotsaba, the ongoing tribulations of Vasilets and Timonin, and a law banning expression of Communist ideas. It mentions the journalists displaced by the Donbass conflict from the Donbass to Kiev, but not the journalists displaced in the other direction (I can name at least one, Anna Dolgareva). Is there any hope for NPOV here? Ramendik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read article talk pages before reiterating the same comments/questions. This is addressed directly above here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a lot of info omitted after Maidan. I have added some. emijrp (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Freedom of the press in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Freedom" House

[edit]

Isn't U.S. Government funded NGO Freedom House POV given undue weight? In the lead, "Freedom House" is named four times. emijrp (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "NGO" means 'non-government organization'. There are thousands of NGOs who may receive some funding from governments, businesses, private donations, etc. This does not mean that they have any affiliations with the governments, nor are they under any obligation to toe the line any government or business line. If you're referencing the Wikipedia article, I'd suggest that you read WP:WINARS... because the entire article is spurious at best. If you want push your WP:OR as you did here, I'd suggest that you find something far more concrete than Wikipedia's own neglected WP:COATRACK article which is a load of really bad WP:SYNTH and innuendo.
Secondly, if you wish to expand on an article, do not engage in even more WP:SYNTH to do so. Extrapolating this and this is 1) WP:CHERRY (i.e., intentional misrepresentation of the circumstances as surrounding the banning of the 2 journalists); 2) the usage of 2 op-ed pieces by the one journalist (including an intext wad of a quote) to create a padded out piece of WP:ASSERTion that does not adhere to WP:WEIGHT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article already mentions various instances of banning of specified "foreign journalists and bloggers" in the section Freedom of the press in Ukraine#Euromaidan revolution and Poroshenko presidency (2014). There is no benefit in creating a new section Situation in Ukraine to duplicate coverage of this. It is also important that the reader can see the temporal flow of things. Things were better before the so-called "Euromaidan revolution" and the Russian-destablisation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: The very Freedom House article states in the lead that it is founded by US government, it is relevant as it is 66-85% of the total money. If it were a Russian founded organization, it would be added every time the org were named. You didn't reply to the undue weight to Freedom House in the lead (4 times). About the POV of HRW, it is relevant and reliable source, and you delete it all. Are you only to allow the US government Freedom House POV in this article? Weird way to balance its contents. emijrp (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current first sentence to the article reads like the parody in WP:YESPOV. The only thing missing is the "but David Irving disputes this analysis" part. Do you have sensible sources that dispute Freedom House's analysis?-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are reliable sources that dispute the statement in the first sentence, I propose to remove the words struck through:
According to the U.S. Government funded NGO Freedom House, freedom of the press in Ukraine was considered in 2013 to be among the best of the post-Soviet states other than the Baltic states.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a statement by "Freedom" House. You can't put such a statement in Wikipedia voice. But to be honest, FH didn't say so, it said Ukraine was "partly free", "among the best" is disputable. At the most, we could say "among the partly free". emijrp (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But are there reliable sources that dispute the statement?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't need for a statement to be disputed to add "According to FH...". The lead is full of "FH classifies... FH perceived... FH reported...". Why do you want to remove the "According to FH" specifically? emijrp (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A strange query, indeed, Emijrp. Again, read WP:YESPOV. In-text attribution is only constructive where reliable sources are at odds with each other, in which case WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is appropriate, not where you are trying to make a point as to your personal doubts and showcase them in Wikipedia's voice. For the same reason, we don't preface reports from RT with, "According to the Russian Federation's state mouthpiece and media outlet Russia Today..." (or TASS, or Sputnik, or any of the other state media agencies not regarded as RS). I agree with Toddy1 that the attribution is WP:POINTy and should be struck. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph read:

Freedom of the press in Ukraine was considered in 2013 to be among the best of the post-Soviet states other than the Baltic states.[nb 1][1][2][3][4]
  1. "Freedom of the Press 2010". freedomhouse.org. 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
  2. "Freedom of the Press 2009". freedomhouse.org. 2009. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
  3. Ukraine (Country Guide) by Sarah Johnstone and Greg Bloom, Lonely Planet, 2008, ISBN 978-1-74104-481-2 (page 39)
  4. Freedom of the Press 2007: A Global Survey of Media Independence by Freedom House, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, ISBN 978-0-7425-5582-2 (page 11/12)

Comments on the sources

  1. This was published in 2010 and describes the situation in 2009, not 2013. Says "Improvements were noted in several countries, including Bulgaria and Ukraine, primarily due to fewer cases of physical attacks and harassment, as well as greater editorial and ownership diversity."
  2. This was published in 2009 and describes the situation in 2009, not 2013. Does not mention the word "Ukraine".
  3. The edition of the book linked to was published in 2008. The link does not give access to the text. You need to read the book, though it cannot tell you anything about 2013.
  4. This was published in 2008 and describes the situation in 2006. It says that in 2006, the press in the three Baltic states is free, and partly free in Georgia and Ukraine, and unfree in the rest.

I am therefore deleting the first paragraph of the article as being entirely unsupported by its citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is still suffering from WP:SYNTH problems which are, in turn, reflected in an unbalanced lead. I do think that the beginnings of reformatting the content by period (presidency, et al) was the right step forward in untangling the sloppy interchange of refs for mini 'epochs' in order that the reader get a better overview of the instability since independence, and the inheritance of an already entrenched legacy of corruption from the Soviet era at its worst. While the title is prohibitive, the 'history' should provide a little more of a background than the ideological equivalent of Ukraine only having suddenly come into existence in the 1990s. At the moment it just lurches from virtually no background to the Poroshenko government in a single breath. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The worst is when people change the article, but do not change the citations. One solution would be to go back to a more reliable version such as this and then build back in those of the recent additions that truly are supported by their citations, perhaps in a different structure.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent suggestion. In that way, reliably sourced additional information can be reintroduced in a logical manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom of the press in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media suppression in 2021

[edit]

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-zelenskiy-bans-three-opposition-tv-stations/a-56438505

https://www.voanews.com/a/sudden-closure-of-kyiv-english-language-newspaper-worries-ukraine-media-/6316403.html
Ukraine's crackdown on media, assembly violates rights - U.N. https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-russia-un-idUSL8N2T01YG
Should I write a new section about this?
Keith McClary (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of reporters killed

[edit]

List of journalists murdered in Ukraine exists; that had been getting bloated with wartime fatalities that aren't murders, so I split those off to List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War. In light of those, does this article need to have its own redundant timeline, with fewer entries, leading to duplication of effort? Seems like it would be better for this article to just note a few of the most notable deaths and let the two lists handle the rest.

I would propose that any useful content from Template:Timeline of reporters killed in Ukraine be merged into those two lists (the former of which could really use some love), and that the template then be taken to TfD, because content isn't really supposed to be stored in templates regardless. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add more information about Zelensky bans of Ukrainian media

[edit]

Even before war at 2022 Zelensky has been banning Ukrainian media and channels.

After the war has started this situation is even worse - they’re also banning YouTube channels and literally all of the .ru websites not related to the news/politics topics at all. 5.53.113.77 (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of journalists murdered in Ukraine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate sentences

[edit]

Freedom of the press in Ukraine#Orange revolution and Yushchenko presidency (2004–2010)

In 2007, in Ukraine's provinces numerous, anonymous attacks and threats persisted against journalists, who investigated or exposed corruption or other government misdeeds. The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists concluded in 2007 that these attacks, and police reluctance in some cases to pursue the perpetrators, were "helping to foster an atmosphere of impunity against independent journalists."

In Ukraine's provinces numerous, anonymous attacks and threats persisted against journalists, who investigated or exposed corruption or other government misdeeds. The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists concluded in 2007 that these attacks, and police reluctance in some cases to pursue the perpetrators, were "helping to foster an atmosphere of impunity against independent journalists." Media watchdogs have stated attacks and pressure on journalists have increased since the February 2010 election of Viktor Yanukovych as President.''

Please update the paragraphs. Thank you! 2402:800:63A8:A589:CDFA:45FA:5AD1:2D7D (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poland and Slovakia not part of the Soviet Union?

[edit]

Manyareasexpert has undone my revision to the claim that the only post-Soviet states listed as having "free" media are the Baltics. i removed this assertion based on the source provided, which includes Slovakia and Poland as having "free" media. i would be interested to know why these two post-Soviet states are not post-Soviet. hopefully Manyareasexpert will come and explain it here for me. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_the_press_in_Ukraine&oldid=1248531724"