Talk:Mikheyev v. Russia

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

IP wants to know[edit]

how does it work? 74.100.161.64 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong statement[edit]

"According to RFE/RL report, this method is "so common" that it even has a name: the "phone call to Putin." [2]" The source did not say that. Kulikovsky (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it tells precisely that: "Torture is so common in Russian police stations that the method used on Mikheyev even has a name: the "phone call to Putin." - please see the source.Biophys (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not the same. "so common" is about torture, not this method. I will revert this OR again. Kulikovsky (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope we are not going to create an encyclopedia of Torture in Russia? There are many other methods: "an elephant", "a swallow", and so on.Biophys (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a better article would be "Torture in Russia", but I would prefer not to create it.Biophys (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues[edit]

  1. "the first serious victory in a case of torture" is a non-notable opinion of some lawyer and does not belong to WP as a view of a tiny minority.
  2. The article contains offtopic material. Court's decision and general situation in Russia are very loosely related to the topic. See WP:Coatrack. Kulikovsky (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please include "majority" opinion per sources.Biophys (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a better article would be "Torture in Russia", but I would prefer not to create it.Biophys (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removals of context[edit]

Why was the context recently removed? Kulikovsky (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

I see some content was removed from the article by User:Smith Jones. I'm not sure why it was removed, so I reverted. I did agree with the removal of some of the content though, as it was overly vague. The removal of citations from content that is appropriate in the article is a confusing action on his part. --Deskana (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please review my edits propaly. I did not "remove" any content. in two locations, the article states that "this procedure is widely used in RUssia" id idnt think that the article needed to repeat the same thing twice, wos what i did was I deleted one fot eh instances and moved the sources (which mostl said yhe same thing) to the other instance. it was you who deleted them in they're entirety. Smith Jones (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the way that you made the edits caused me to confuse your edits with removals of references. My apologies. --Deskana (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no id houlf hsbr msrf by edit summarys a bit ore explicit as well sorry for zat Smith Jones (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

title[edit]

Perhaps the title should be Phone call to Putin (pending the outcome at DRV). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite[edit]

Afd was closed with keep. However there was an opinion that this article has to be renamed and rewritten accordingly. My suggestions are

Your thoughts? (Igny (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So I guess there are no objections to move. (Igny (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Mikheyev v Russia is the most likely and most notable subject - the term and Mikheyev himself would be unknown if it weren't for the court case. As there were no sources forthcoming which gave notability to this term outside of Mikheyev's case, that is fine by me. --Russavia Dialogue 17:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the only question which would remain is v with or without the . (period)? I think it is without. --Russavia Dialogue 17:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite common the person gained notability by participating in a notable event. The case itself should have an official name by which it was referred in the court. (Igny (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'd be looking at WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. He isn't notable per se due to the treatment that he did or didn't receive, but because of the court case. We need to look at what is really notable here is the first serious victory in a case of torture, that being in Mikheyev v. Russia (it appears court cases are with the period). The term and, dare I say it, Mikheyev himself are non-notable in the overall scheme of things. I'd be moving it to the court case. --Russavia Dialogue 18:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of case of Chesley Sullenberger who gained notability due to one notable event. But may be you are right. In either case, as Afd showed, rename and a rewrite is in order, contrary to Biophys' beliefs.(Igny (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
That is a prime example of a person having their 15 minutes of fame, which is exactly what we aren't on WP. Unfortunately there isn't any conspiracy theories or fringe POVs relating to Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River, so I doubt that an article on the pilot of that flight is a priority for many. You are right, the AfD was showed consensus for a rename and rewrite, the only thing that could have been done better is that an article on the case be started during the AfD in order to show that this needs to be merged. Unfortunately, Biophys will resist any move to merge or move any articles regardless of the validity of reasoning. Claims have been made that this term is known by almost everyone in Russia, and that it is known outside of the Mikheyev case, however all available evidence says otherwise, so there will be much struggle on editors parts if they want to do what is the right thing. --Russavia Dialogue 21:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, AfD did not show consensus to rename. Renaming and deletion of articles are two different questions that should be debated separately.Biophys (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This article is not about a person, and it is not about a court case. It is about a particular expression and it was decided to be kept as such. This does not preclude creation of other articles, like Mikheyev v. Russia - about the judicial case or Mikheyev - about a person. Please see my comment here.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking this article a bit too personally. The article's content was decided to be kept as useful information. However, its title and wording is up for debate. And there was no such conclusion in AFD "as such". Needless to remind you, wikipedia is not dictionary of Russian slang. (Igny (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • No, it was decided to keep this article, not the content of this article.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may insist on your POV, but you will eventually see what I mean as soon as you remove your blindfold and read carefully in the AfD:
The result was no consensus to delete. Whether or not it should be merged is an editorial matter and need not be decided here.
As you can see I can use bold as well. (Igny (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
"no consensus to deletE" is not the same as "keep". if thesre is no consensus to delet,e then eprhaps antoher WP:AFD ill galvanize better arguments and lead to final deletion, que? Smith Jones (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)if not then i suggest merging the article into a blanket article called Russian torture techniques or use of torture in russia or human rights violations in russia Smith Jones (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real-world usage[edit]

I would suggest any interested person to perform a googling in Russian. Except Julia Latynina article dated 09.08.2004 there are no mentions of this "widely known" term in the context of tortures. All of the media use phone call to/from Putin to refer to actual phone call. E.g. "Timoshenko waits for phone call from Putin", Saakashvili and so on.

Also Google conceals any information about usage of this brutality to any other person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volodymir k (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked several of my friends/relatives who reside in Russia, watch news and participate in political debates regularly. Not a single one has ever heard about this term with regard to the torture method. So it is a slang term used by a small community ( in this case just a few cops) Is there any of the contributors to this article who claim the widespread usage, who actually heard this term used in a conversation? If so, how did the topic come up? In fact, try to describe an example of usage of this term in dialogue with a few sentences. To me it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petukh all over again. (Igny (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Check with Biophys on this one, for on the AfD he claimed that he had heard of the term before it even became known due to the Mikheyev case and also claimed that almost everyone in Russia knows the term. --Russavia Dialogue 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem now. It is clear it is not widely known, but how can I prove it with a reference? I mean who would argue that some obscure term is indeed obscure and not widespread? Now I expect that a bunch of editors will jump at that sentence and remove as unreferenced. Should they instead prove it somehow that it is indeed widespread? (Igny (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It's the same problem that one experiences with conspiracy theories, how can you disprove a conspiracy theory? Much less when only the conspiracy has received comment on. We have a magazine, with Russophobic tendencies (i.e. Newsweek) claiming that it is widely known. However, we know for a fact that it is not. It needs to be attributed as a claim to Newsweek in the article. But even then, news media often do make mistakes, and many times these mistakes go unnoticed. And sometimes media says things that are not true and are not reality, and many times this propaganda goes unanswered. But then again, this is an article on Mikheyev v Russia, and I think we need to move it there, and if there is consensus to move it, those who oppose it need to abide by this consensus. And not consensus based upon our own POV, but on well written policies and guidelines. --Russavia Dialogue 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do we take this to WP:DRV again, or do we just move the article as there seems to be some consensus for doing, from both on the AfD and on this talk page? --Russavia Dialogue 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move and copyedit[edit]

I am done with copyediting. However I noticed that I made a typo in the title, and was unable to make a move to the correct title. (Igny (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Igny, I support the move, and have requested speedy deletion of the correct title, so that all articles can redirect to the correct title once it is speedied. --Russavia Dialogue 16:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the move. Feel free to comment on other similar titles I'm listing here. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a relevant discussion here. (Igny (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
To accommodate Biophys, I have restored old version of Phone call to Putin. To establish consensus on title if there is any, please participate in discussion here.(Igny (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mikheyev v. Russia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mikheyev_v._Russia&oldid=1199924796"