Talk:Right Sector/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

RfC: Should we say in the lead say that group members are neofascist?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: The lead may describe RS as neo-fascist or neo-Nazi, but only with attribution. RT should not be used on its own for attribution.

The question posed is a little problematic, because it might be taken to mean that WP has licence to describe the group in certain way in WP's voice once three "top-quality" sources have been found. There's a strong argument that this threshold has been met, but it seems clear to me, taking into account both oppose and support votes, that there is not consensus that WP has such a licence.

There were two supports, one of which appears to be conditional upon attribution. There were six opposes. Two of these appear to support the idea that RS can be described in any way so long as there are multiple sources, so they are not opposes to including content per se. Three opposes appear to support inclusion of the content so long as there is attribution. So, on balance, there is consensus to include reference to RS as "neo-fascist" or "neo-Nazi", but only with attribution.

Concern was expressed by some editors about the article attributing the view to RT. Since some readers will, not without reason, be wary of RT's characterisation of anything to do with recent Ukrainian politics, this might be seen as poisoning the well. This wasn't extensively discussed, but it is clear that other sources and, in particular, sources outside Russia, have made similar characterisations. These should not be excluded, although there is no consensus on how precisely to word to attribution.

Should the article say in the lead that the group (or that some of its constituent groups) are neofascist or neo-Nazi, without citing a minimum of 3 top-quality sources? 04:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A few policies (pertinent or not) (emphasis in original)
PUBLICFIGURE. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources. (Example: Multiple major newspapers publish the allegations.) If an allegation is ... well documented, it belongs in the article. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation, leave it out.
“major,” Dictionary.com. Greater in size, extent, or importance. Major may refer to greatness of importance, number, or quantity.
Legal persons and BLP. Companies are, at the end of the day, just groups of people... There are very strong BLP considerations for groups of people just as there are for individual people.
RSOPINION. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier. A prime example of this are opinion pieces.
UNDUE. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... quantity of text and prominence of placement... Present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Dervorguilla (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose inclusion of allegation in lead, until 3 high-quality articles in the larger news media can be cited. (PUBLICFIGURE, UNDUE) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion the allegation in the lead with fewer that 3 reliable sources, which I personally regard like the NY Times and some of the other big news organizations. I did take the time to read all the info about this rfc, and it looks like you two most active participants in the discussion might not be able to agree on which sources would be considered reliable and good enough to be called major RS. Carriearchdale (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support including the statement that Right Sector's ideology and constituent groups have been described as neo-fascist in the lead, as reported by the The New York Times, Die Welt, Le Monde Diplomatique, RT, The Nation, and stated or implied by other papers and scholars ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]). -Darouet (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Lead already contains the sentence "It has been described by some publications including Moscow's RT TV News as a neofascist group"; altering the curent lead (to make it say that the group (or that some of its constituent groups) are neofascist or neo-Nazi) looks POV-pushy to me. Besides that would make the lead less NPOV then the lead of the Wiki-article on the Nazi Party... (that can't be right...) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons of assigning increased competence to what are deemed top-quality sources like newspapers in matters that are best dealt with within the field of scholarly discussion. The whole affair touches on a matter that has in recent times amounted to little more than name-calling. These names get reported. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be different from a newspaper, isn't it? Latreia (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Yulia Romero but support keeping the mention in the lead. We shouldn't, in my view, cite the "RT" source here since it's hardly a reliable source for statements relating to the political alignment of Ukrainian political factions. The collection of sources above is excellent, we could say e.g. that "Some elements of the Right Sector have been described as neofascist", since the sources as a group tend to say parts of RS are neofascist, rather than the whole thing. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• The current version seems to have it about right as there are a variety of descriptions - selecting any one of those descriptions above any other as the defining description would require a wider and more consistent use of such a description. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per yulia. Weighty issues here. Agree with Dailycare that RT shouldnt be cited in the lede at all. --Львівське (говорити) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any reference to party members as neofascist in the lede, and any characterization of party members as neofascist unless supported by multiple reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• To date one major RS (a New York Times article) has been cited to support the allegation — but only one. Most major high-quality sources, including other New York Times articles, BBC News, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Time, the Wall Street Journal, and the Guardian now describe the group as far-right, nationalist, or ultranationalist and its subgroups as nationalist or ultranationalist. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Many important and high quality news sources have reported that Right Sector's ideology, or its constituent groups, are neo-fascist. These are reviewed endlessly above in the talk page discussions. Excluding this reporting requires deciding that The New York Times, Die Welt, Le Monde Diplomatique, RT, and The Nation are not significant news sources, and that we should more or less ignore reporting from Haaretz, USA Today, Time, and wholly ignore commentaries from scholars including Cas Mudde, Anton Shekhovstov, Conn Hallinan, Volodymyr Ishchenko and Michael Emmerson. -Darouet (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should flat-out ignore things from major newspapers. But a degree of caution is very much in order in trying to trace the development of the newspaper's understanding of the situation. Please have a look at this case in point (there is an English version of the text halfway down the page). Unfortunately, I cannot argue this point solely on the basis of mechanical interpretation of WP policies. I've been involved in some, let's say, establishing of contacts between some Western entities (including _top_ newspapers) and Ukrainian entities. I have seen how the understanding of the situation shifted as those sources (who would previously, e.g., have a permanent rep only in Moscow) began to work more closely with Ukrainian realities. This is very much OR on my part :). However, the above cited example of a rebuttal of Haaretz's gist of reporting by the very entity on whom Haaretz was reporting, shows that some caution is in order. Specifically, we should make a definite distinction between reporting and reliable categorization, the latter being only gradually developed by non-specialized publications that newspapers are. Clinging to earlier categorizations whereas publications have changed their stance with time, as Dervorguilla rightly points out, obfuscates the process of the publications themselves figuring out things better with time. It _is_ a real process. Newspapers are not infallible. Latreia (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

More about the citations by Darouet to Shekhovtsov’s commentary. The source describes Right Sector’s main constituent group as having a “national conservative” ideology.

“The main group behind the Right Sector is ‘Tryzub’ (Trident) which is far from neo-Nazism, racism and anti-Semitism. Its ideology can be interpreted as national conservative.”

The source is cited in the lead; the description isn’t. (And we’re describing a BLPGROUP.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

I have been doing a bit of research on all the references I saw regarding the list of five posted above. are these five The New York Times, Die Welt, Le Monde Diplomatique, RT, and The Nation  ??? ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• One of Right Sector's constituents, the Social National Assembly, is described as a neo-Nazi group by Anton Shekhovstov in his book chapter "From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda." He writes, "At the same time, Nova Syla's Yuriy Zbitnyev is one of the leaders of the neo-Nazi group Social-National Assembly, an organization that is also close to the younger members of Svoboda, but Nova Syla itself, while remaining on the fringes of Ukrainian politics, is not much influenced by these relations." The chapter appears in Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse, 2013, A&C Black [14]. -Darouet (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Page Not Found. But the chapter he wrote is available. Note that he doesn’t cite a source for the allegation; perhaps he couldn’t find one. He describes himself as a student. “Research student - Candidate of Political Sciences.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

He’s also an eminent fascism- and nationalism-researcher and conspiracy theorist. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Usually such descriptions should not be based on newspaper titles or editorials, but instead preferably on schorarly pieces by political scientists. Le Monde, the Guardian and the Nation are self-identified left-wing newspapers, which may or may not have more critical views on right-wing movements. It doesn't make those views less notable, but it doesn't make them "objective" either. On the other hand, one of them, die Welt, is a self-identified conservative publication. In any case, I don't think descriptions by newspapers should be given that much focus. --Pudeo' 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment News media are not good sources for classifications of political parties and movements. Their role is to report what happened. We should be using academic books or articles by political scientists that provide a classification, explain what it means, and whether there is consensus that it applies. Usually social scientists use the terms neo-nazi and neo-fascist to describe groups that have continuity with and/or identify with historical nazism and fascism. For example, the American Nazi Party. But anti-fascist groups frequently use broader criteria. TFD (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

TFD, what have you read from academic sources about Right Sector or its history? How does that inform your view of Right Sector and the groups who organized to form it?

We have multiple academic sources describing Right Sector's constituent groups as "neo-Nazi." For instance, Anton Shekhovtsov writes in the book "Right Wing Populism in Europe" (Blumsbury Academic, 2013, with editors Ruth Wodak, Brigitte Mral and Majid Khosravinik) that "Nova Syla's Yuriy is one of the leaders of the neo-Nazi group Social-National Assembly." The Social-National Assembly is one of the groups that helped form Right Sector and is currently engaged in military operations in Ukraine, according to Human Rights Watch.

Volodomyr Ishchenko writes in the journal "Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe" (Routledge, 2011) about "Chaika’s connections with rightist football hooligans and his membership in the “SICH” (“Glory and Honor”) organization, a participant in the Social-Nationalist Assembly together with the neo-Nazi group Patriots of Ukraine." Patriots of Ukraine is also a group that helped form Right Sector.

It's hard to find academic literature on an organization like Right Sector that is younger than the academic publishing cycle. But news reports have backed up the writing of academic sources (The New York Times, Die Welt writing about Right Sector's fascist/neo-Nazi constituents), and some describe Right Sector in a similar vein. Moreover, the closest thing I can find to an academic source mentioning Right Sector - by Michael Emmerson in the Centre for European Policy Studies - describes "Right Sector and neo-fascist elements in the west" in the same breath. -Darouet (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That constituent groups in the Right Sector are neonazis does not mean the group itself is. I mean we do not call Left parties in Europe Communists, just because they may include Communists. It could be that the academic world has not passed judgment yet, but that does not mean we should. TFD (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The book Right-Wing Populism in Europe (2013) has a section called "Main actors on the Ukrainian far-right scene", which discusses the parties that developed into the Right Sector (pp. 250ff.)[15] While a couple of pages are not shown, it appears to refer to only the Social-National Assembly as neonazi. TFD (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla apologizes to Putin

Putin: Owe you apology for implying RT not a “mainstream” publication. RT is transnational mainstream media. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha. The article looks pretty good right now, I think. Sorry for dropping the ball on dispute resolution: life has been busy. One thing I think, for whatever it's worth, is that we emphasize Russian media describing Right Sector as "fascist" above other, western sources that do the same thing. That sort of implies that Russia has been at the forefront of a campaign to describe Right Sector in that way, though as far as I know, western media was reporting on this from early on. -Darouet (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rebalanced version G:

Right Sector is described by many mainstream publications, including Russia's RIA Novosti news service, as right-wing, far-right, nationalist, or ultranationalist. It is described as neofascist or neo-Nazi by a few, including Russia's RT TV News.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 05:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It still misses out on Le Monde, Die Welt, etc. -Darouet (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Addressing Darouet’s comment:

Die Welt is left out because it doesn’t call the subject group a neofascist or neo-Nazi group. See helpful material above.

Also, Die Welt is mentioned in a comment by Pudeo at the RfC, 'Should we say in the lead say that group members are neofascist?'.

Pudeo’s comment mentions Le Monde and the Guardian, too.

It says that Die Welt is a “self-identified conservative publication”. And it says that Le Monde and the Guardian are “self-identified left-wing newspapers”.

Le Monde is also mentioned in a comment by Lvivske.

Lvivske’s comment says that Le Monde is a “left-wing newspaper so their stance on right-wing matters holds a bit of conflict of interest.”

Conclusion: Perhaps all 3 publications can be omitted without harm. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay I finally have time now to read the intro and see what the dispute's at and all I've got to say is why the heck are we bringing up Russia twice, and specifically naming RIA and RT as authoritative sources of the definition of words? RT is the equivalent of a supercharged tabloid, and RIA should have s much weight as any other european national news service. That's what it reads like, at least. Saying RIA is a "mainstream" source and authority ("including...") and why even bring RT up at all? I find the current state of the intro very confusing.--Львівське (говорити) 14:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

RIA Novosti and RT TV News as mainstream media

“Mainstream media are those disseminated via the largest distribution channels; they represent what the majority of media consumers are likely to encounter.… Press TV, Al Jazeera English and RT have been cited as examples of media forms which challenge the narrative of other transnational mainstream media.”

Mainstream media, WP.

“RT [TV News] has bureaus in 19 countries … and employs over 1,000 media professionals around the globe.”

About Us, RT.

“RT’s UK audience has grown to more than 2 million people, according to a Kantar Media survey…. In the UK Audience Research Board’s official rankings, RT has been consistently and significantly outperforming other foreign channels…. According to Nielsen research, over 5 million people watch RT Arabic in seven Arab countries…. A 2011 Nielsen survey indicates that viewers in Washington and New York prefer RT to other international news channels. In Washington, RT’s audience is [two] times larger than the [total] audience of Euronews and France 24.”

Distribution, RT. But is that because the NSA’s headquarters are located in Washington?? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

“RIA Novosti is Russia’s leading news agency in terms of … website audience reach and quoting by the Russian media.”

About RIA Novosti, RIA Novosti.

“Rossiya Segodnya’s team of international media professionals operates in more than 40 news bureaus worldwide.… [It] produces over 15 newswires in Russian, English and Spanish.”

About Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, RIA Novosti: Newswires. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP doesn't use political-science scholars as BLP sources

The article currently cites two publications by Anton Shekhovtsov, a self-professed conspiracy theorist. Cf. Stephen Velychenko, “The EU as Ukraine’s Lesser Evil,” 10 March 2014.

“During the past months pro-Kremlin opinion concerning events in Ukraine has been espoused by supposedly ‘liberal’ academics ….

“Some of these de facto politically pro-Kremlin leftists must be considered dishonest because they do not openly declare they are funded by the Kremlin.… Anton Shekhovtsov is currently studying these groups (… anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.ca).”

Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research. “This website is developed within the project ‘National Initiatives to Enhance Reforms,’ funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by Pact Ukraine.”

Passages cited to political-science academics can’t be used in BLPGROUPs. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC) 03:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I don't know about the specifics but where in the hey do you get that Anton Shekhovtsov is a "self-professed conspiracy theorist"? And where do you get the idea that BLPGROUP implies we can't use political-science academics? That just doesn't make any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going no further on this until you show where he is a self-professed conspiracy theorist. Heck, I'll ask him right now.--Львівське (говорити) 04:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry about BLP on this page, Volunteer Marek.

Compare

Dictionary.com, “conspiracy theory. 1. A theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization. — conspiracy theorist”,

with

Shekhovtsov, “Pro-Russian network behind the anti-Ukrainian defamation campaign”, Anton Shekhovtsov’s Blog, 3 February 2014.

Here is a list of selected publications that this Eurasianist Kremlin-inspired network has produced so far…

Those people … are obviously ideologically driven anti-democratic activists engaged in the anti-Ukrainian and, eventually, anti-European subversive operations.

* Due to the threats of legal action from Viktor Medvedchuk, I decided to change the wording of the first part of the sentence.

What evidence would suggest that Shekhovtsov wouldn’t be proud to agree that he’s presenting a theory (his own original theory) that explains the campaign as being the ‘result of a plot by a covert group or organization’?

See generally BLPSELFPUB. Shekhovtsov’s presentation of the theory as his own is not unduly self-serving; and there’s no reasonable doubt as to the entry’s authenticity. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 08:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) 22:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... that is nowhere near enough to support the charge that he is a "self-professed conspiracy theorist". In fact it's a huge cry from that. Again, remember that BLP applies to talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And to article pages. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And now I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov says he had to change his statement due to “threats of legal action” against him by the subject of his statement. Nothing more I can add. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's true, this isn't relevant. It's sort of ironic that we would slander the scholar who might be the most well-known researcher on this subject in the name of WP:BLPGROUP. In any event there's no evidence to suggest that Shekhovstov is a "conspiracy theorist," self-confessed or otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Were we to republish Shekhovtsov’s original statement about Medvedchuk, Volunteer Marek, might WP have to change it “due to threats of legal action” from Medvedchuk against WP? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't follow. Is Medvechuk even mentioned in the article? In fact, looking through the references, I don't even see where the article uses Shekhovtsov as a source. Can you point them out? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Add: Ah. I see where Shekhovtsov was used in an earlier version. Still, that wasn't his blog, but rather an article in (I think) a reliable source. Having said that, the text that was being taken from Shekhovtsov was not particularly good or illuminating. It read like somebody picked some random quotes from that article (rather than something that describes Shekhovtsov's actual point) and put them in haphazardly into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has given any credibility to the claim that Shekhovstov isn't a reliable source. He's published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes. Among others:

• "From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda", in Ruth Wodak, Brigitte Mral, Majid KhosraviNik (eds), Right Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), pp. 249-263.

• "Religious Nationalist Radicalism and the Political Process (The Case of the Russian Orthodox National-Socialist Movement)", in Alexander Verkhovsky (ed.), Verkhi i nizy russkogo natsionalizma (Moscow: Informatsionno-analiticheskiy tsentr "SOVA", 2007), pp. 209-222.

• (Co-authored with Andreas Umland) "Ultraright Party Politics in Post-Soviet Ukraine and the Puzzle of the Electoral Marginalism of Ukrainian Ultranationalists in 1994-2009", Russian Politics and Law, Vol. 51, No. 5 (2013), pp. 33-58.

• "The 'Orange Revolution' and the 'Sacred' Birth of a Modern Ukrainian Nation", Nationalities Papers (2013).

• "The Creeping Resurgence of the Ukrainian Radical Right? The Case of the Freedom Party", Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 63, No. 2 (2011), pp. 203-228.

• (Co-authored with Andreas Umland) "Is Aleksandr Dugin a Traditionalist? 'Neo-Eurasianism' and Perennial Philosophy'", The Russian Review, Vol. 68, No. 4 (2009), pp. 662-678.

• "By Cross and Sword: 'Clerical Fascism' in Interwar Western Ukraine", Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2007), pp. 271-285.

The fact that he's co-authoring articles with Umland, being invited to contribute book chapters, and has a wealth of articles accepted in academic journals means that he's a respectable resource and the very definition of a reliable source by wikipedia standards. He's also a very valuable source for us because there aren't enough academic articles written on recent Ukrainian far-right nationalism.

Dervorguilla, in earlier discussions above you sought to provide reasons for excluding all kinds of other, journalistic reliable sources. You wrote that Die Welt is conservative and therefore biased. You wrote that Le Monde Diplomatique is left wing and therefore biased. The Nation had described Right Sector in different ways, so the description "fascist" shouldn't be used.

Now, are you really going to argue that Anton Shekhovstov, one of the most prolific academic authors on Ukrainian far-right nationalism, isn't a reliable source because you've personally found evidence on the internet convincing you that he's a conspiracy theorist? This isn't credible and it is harming this page. -Darouet (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My only knock on Shekh' is that he may exaggerate his claims. He specializes in this field and is passionate and thus tends be liberal with the buzzword labels. He's entirely citable, though.--Львівське (говорити) 18:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

He does specialize in this field, and his use of terminology is therefore professional at the least. -Darouet (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

in fairness, we are talking about his personal blog, no? --Львівське (говорити) 18:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that in his personal blog, his use of those terms isn't reliable (someone could perhaps make a case that they're notable, though I won't here). In published literature however those terms mean real things. -Darouet (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We’re talking about a personal blog entry and a published article, Lvivske. Anton Shekhovtsov, “Pro-Russian Network behind the Anti-Ukrainian Defamation Campaign,” Kyiv Post, February 3, 2014. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

RSVETTING
Annotated checklist

• Does the ref indeed support the material?
  • Doesn’t seem to.

“White Hammer was expelled in March 2014.”^[5]

5. ^ “Shekhovtsov, Anton (2013).”

Other helpful questions: Q3, Q6, Q10, Q12 & Q15. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were the one who originally added that information, citing their own website when you did it at the time. -Darouet (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Revision as of 19:43, 6 March 2014 by Lvivske.

Also, the ref he added supports the material he added. SELFSOURCE.

No more unsupported comments please. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If Right Sector makes an official statement about White Hammer, how is that unqualified? They are allowed to make statements about themselves.--Львівське (говорити) 03:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a bad edit, I was just pointing out that I didn't use Shekhovstov as a source for that information. -Darouet (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither Львівське nor Dervorguilla seem to have used the 2013 Shekhovtsov ref as a source for the information about the 2014 event. See Revision as of 17:54, 14 May 2014 by Darouet. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the refs one sentence later than I meant to, and can correct the mistake. -Darouet (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

To confirm: Dervorguilla was not “the one who originally added that information”. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Did the former EU ambassador indicate that the subject is neofascist?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article say that the former EU Ambassador to Moscow described the subject Ukrainian paramilitary group as neofascist? --06:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A former EU ambassador to Moscow has described one of the sides in an ongoing paramilitary confrontation as "the Right Sector and neo-fascist elements concentrated in the West".

Did he mean (1) "the neo-fascist Right Sector elements ..." or (2) "the Right Sector ..." + "neo-fascist elements ..."?

1 would indicate that he believes the subject paramilitary group is neo-fascist; 2, that he believes it isn't.

(Alternative 3 would be that he didn't indicate he believes either 1 or 2.)

"Radicalisation could deepen on both sides, from the Right Sector and neo-fascist elements concentrated in the West against militant pro-Russians concentrated in the East." Michael Emerson, editorial, "Preparing for a Post-Yanukovich Ukraine," CEPS European Neighbourhood Watch (Brussels), February 2014. --06:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• 2 or 3. (No.) If he'd meant to indicate #1, he'd most likely have written #1. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 07:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• No. I have no interest in guessing the authorial intention, but if he didn't explicitly say that the subject group was neofascist then then we shouldn't state that he did. 'Indicate' is a little evasive, it seems to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Dervorguilla, scholarly sources clearly describe some of Right Sector's constituent groups as fascist, but you do show here that Emerson can't really be said to describe Right Sector as such, though it does look like he mentions them in the same breath for a reason. -Darouet (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Emerson (Oxford '62) is the former EU ambassador to Russia. He's used to writing nuanced Standard English prose. As a career diplomat, he has an incentive to sound formal and professional. In formal English, "X and Y" implies that X ≠ Y, and that X isn't a subset of Y. #1 would imply that he'd been using "Right Sector" as a suspended proper-noun adjective. Such usage would be less concise and much less conventional. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

When looking for sources about the Right Sector or any topic, one should find articles actually about the topic, not ones that just mention it in passing. With thousands of mentions of them it is certainly possible to find one that could be read to say anything one wanted. I do not see anyway that the phrasing contradicts what relevant sources say. The Right Sector contains neo-nazis, neo-fascist and other far right elements. It is not itself neo-fascist. TFD (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources describing Patriots of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly as neo-Nazi or racist

We already had a number of news groups (New York Times, Die Welt) describing Right Sector's constituents as neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist. So I've been reading through journal articles on Ukrainian far-right politics, and found that Patriots of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly are consistently described as racist, anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi. I've also found references to political violence against minorities by these groups. I'll add in the references here (they're already on the main page), but you can also visit their websites. The Social-National Assembly for instance is quite proud and open about their ideology, and physical attacks on minorities. -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to Shekhovtsov's 3 March 2014 article criticizing Mudde's article on the Right Sector. He quotes Mudde as saying, "Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) is a coalition of mostly smaller far right groups, including various neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, which came together during the protests." While Shekhovtsov disagrees with much of what Mudde wrote, he does not dispute that and it is the best source we have for categorizing the group. It includes neo-nazis and neo-fascists, but includes other far right groups as well, hence it would be wrong to describe it as neo-nazi or neo-fascist. TFD (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We certainly need to mention those groups who are neo-Nazi as such: their military garb and neo-Nazi symbols are visible in photographs appearing to show Right Sector demonstrations, and in one of the only interviews of Right Sector members - by the BBC - they repeat the same neo-Nazi rhetoric as these groups. -Darouet (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

“snaua.info” has an ip address of: 128.242.54.18#53 (Boca Raton, US); 176.9.17.86 (Gunzenhausen, DE). IP Address by Hostname. None of the top-5 sites linking in to “snaua.info” are from Ukraine. Site Overview Relevant policy at SELFSOURCE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 02:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not relevant, Dervorguilla: researcher Volodymyr Ishchenko links the same website as their homepage in an academic journal article, as does the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union. Websites can be hosted in many countries, and the SNA was persecuted by the Ukrainian government for alleged terrorist activity until very recently (maybe they weren't allowed to set up their website in Ukraine). Do you have any indication that these are fake websites set up by people pretending to be the SNA, and do you have another website that you maintain is really theirs? -Darouet (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Dervorguilla is your argument about the Social-National Assembly's political beliefs really based on the proposition that their own website is not their own website? -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Authenticity verified. Pravy Sektor, Contacts. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not just say what Mudde says, that it is a coalition of far right nationalists, including neonazis and neofascists? If you want to comment on the terminology used by the NYT, RT, etc. then you need an article discussing the terminology used by the NYT, RT, etc., otherwise is OR and undue weight. If Mudde thinks it is too trivial to mention, that is a good reason not to mention it. TFD (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, TFD, when you recommend Mudde's viewpoint: it is shared by virtually every source writing on the subject, and we also have academic sources that back up the descriptions in the press (of Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly… I think that White Hammer is more or less out of the question, though we have few sources describing it). Regarding RT, the NYT: this is the place where their descriptions of Right Sector would be written. But no matter. What do you think about the current wording regarding constituent groups in the lead?

The coalition was organized in November 2013.[2] Founding far-right groups include Trident (Tryzub), led by Dmytro Yarosh and Andriy Tarasenko, and the Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO), a political/paramilitary group.[2][3] Other far-right, racist and Ukrainian neo-Nazi founding groups include the Patriots of Ukraine, White Hammer and the Social-National Assembly.[4][5]

Or what do you think about the following wording? I favor it less because Shekhovstov, disagreeing with Mudde, states that Tryzub isn't neo-Nazi:

Founding far-right, ultra-nationalist or neo-Nazi groups include Trident (Tryzub) led by Dmytro Yarosh and Andriy Tarasenko, the paramilitary group Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO),[2][3] Patriots of Ukraine, White Hammer and the Social-National Assembly.[4][5]

We could propose other wordings too. -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the first wording too. From my reading, Mudde did not call Trident neonazi but was criticised for failing to take into account its significance in the Right Sector. I do not think he would have called them that. TFD (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right. -Darouet (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov

Dervorguilla has reported Anton Shekhovtsov to ibidem-Verlag on suspicion of making the assertion that the publishing house has given him authority to act as a book-series editor.

“I am General Editor of the Explorations of the Far Right book series at ibidem-Verlag….” Anton Shekhovtsov page, Radicalism and New Media Research Group.

“About: - General Editor of the ‘Explorations of the Far Right’ book series at ibidem-Verlag.” Anton Shekhovstov, “Anton Shekhovtsov: University College London”, Academia.edu.

“Candidate of Political Sciences (Kandydat politychnykh nauk). Current posts: - Editor of the ‘Explorations of the Far Right’ book series at ibidem-Verlag.” Home page, Anton Shekhovtsov.

“Anton Shekhovtsov … is also editor of the ‘Explorations of the Far Right’ book series at ibidem-Verlag.” Anton Shekhovtsov, “Security Threats and the Ukrainian Far Right”, openDemocracy.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 23:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you know whether or not he is an editor and what relevance does it have to this article? TFD (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

After a diligent search, no evidence has been found (on the publisher’s site or elsewhere) that would support Shekhovtsov’s most impressive assertion.

And wouldn’t it be an extreme departure from ordinary academic-publishing standards, TFD, for a house like ibidem-Verlag to give a student like Shekh' the ongoing authority to decide what writers to publish?

We can and should treat the student’s extraordinary impressive assertion as erroneous.

Relevance: BLPGROUP and RS (reliability of work’s writer can affect reliability of work). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 23:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I’ve now found a source that does support Shekh’s assertion. At Amazon. Shekh is indeed a book-series editor at ibidem-Verlag. My comment was in error. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This effort to somehow discredit one of a few authoritative, academic sources on Ukrainian far-right politics never had any basis in wikipedia's policies. -Darouet (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case the effort to document the source’s assertion worked. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

PhD from Sevastopol NTU

Some helpful background material. Brill Publishing, “Editorial Board: Fascism”

Anton Shekhovtsov, Sevastopol National Technical University, UA

Shekhovtsov, “Nazis and Stalinists Thrive on May 1 in Moscow,” Anton Shekhovtsov’s Blog, May 2, 2014:

I share the deep concern expressed by Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs over the Nazi/Stalinist orgy in Russian cities on the 1st of May.… This is how some Russians celebrated … in Moscow: Nazis …”

Shekh keeps using that epithet, TFD. But the Ministry doesn’t. Would this suggest that the term doesn’t mean what Shekh thinks it means?

Here are a couple of questions that have direct relevance to this article:

1. Is Shekh’s former employer now controlled by Russia as opposed to Ukraine?

2. Is there more “reason to believe” that Shekh is (A) a “disinterested investigator” or (B) a “polemicist” (an aggressive controversialist) with an “incentive”?

See WP:RSVETTING. And we ought to consider that the subject is a BLP group. More at Jimbo talk: Legal persons and BLP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He didn't use Nazis as an epithet, neo-Nazis literally celebrated (though I thought it was moreso in St Petes than in Moscow) --Львівське (говорити) 04:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

“epithet. 1. A characterizing word or phrase.” Would you agree that he does use it as an epithet in that sense, Львівське? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I guess, depending on the definition. All I'm saying is he used the word factually and not as a nickname or characterization. [16] "neo-Nazis who marched through many Russian cities on May 1 should not be given a chance to advertise themselves on Russian television, They are however real"--Львівське (говорити) 05:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We do agree that he used it factually, Львівське. There’s nothing to argue about – I’ve never implied they were or weren’t real. (Also, the source you’re citing is a “Website created with the support of … the National Endowment for Democracy (USA)”, so we couldn’t use it if we wanted to.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is always a problem I believe with using blogs written by experts because they tend to have political views and the same standards they use in academic sources may not apply. Statements by a political scientist running for parliament for example about his opponents may not have the same credibility as what he or she writes in a political science textbook. Even in academic writing we need to carefully separate the facts reported and opinion. However, the Ukraine ministry's report does refer to followers of Hitler and Stalin and uses the term neo-nazi. The section on Ukraine in Right-Wing Populism in Europe (2013), which I mentioned above, says that there are neo-nazi Russian nationalists in Ukraine. Presumably they are supporting the Russian government. But what does this have to do with the article? TFD (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

TFD, your comment (unhappily) appears to suggest that Shekh can’t tell a Nazi from a neo-Nazi. If he can tell, then he’s deliberately misquoting the Ministry. Which suggests that he’s not “disinterested”. As does the fact that his university got taken over by the same people he’s calling “Nazis”.

(And why should he be disinterested? Would you be? I wouldn’t!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This same discussion is taking place at Talk:Svoboda (political party). Dervorguilla, the Ukrainian government is not a reliable source, and while Shekhovtsov's blog could be notable, it isn't an RS either. It's useless to try and find reasons for excluding published academic material on the basis of original research into their supposed failings using blogs, etc. So this researcher has put images of crowds in Russia carrying white power symbols onto his blog, and called them neo-fascists. What's that supposed to tell us? That his peer-reviewed academic journal articles, or contributed book chapters to edited, academic books are no longer reliable? -Darouet (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He doesn’t call them “neo-fascists”, Darouet. He calls them "Nazis". --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be less inclined to agree with him, because even if neo-fascists in Russia held many of the same beliefs as neo-Nazis, I'd be surprised if they really fit into that tradition because part of great Russian nationalism involves glorifying the struggle against Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, this is a blog, and I could be wrong. -Darouet (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Neo-nazis" are sometimes referred to as nazis. From the context it is clear he means neo-nazis, because he is writing about events today, not 70 years ago. TFD (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

“Please tell your press to stop calling us ‘neo-Nazis’. We are not ‘neo’-Nazis.” Self-described Nazi group leader, interview with the editor, Weitlingstrassebesetzung, Berlin, 1990. (I didn’t argue with him!)

Official Nazis, no. Unofficial Nazis, apparently yes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The prefix "neo" is used to distinguish them from nazis before the collapse of the Third Reich. Indeed, neo-nazis call themselves nazis. Most nazis became "ex-nazis." TFD (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly data compilation

Encyclopedia language (article date)
Word count
Number of descriptions of subject as “x” (total) | (in the lead)

Russian (17:44, 18 May 2014)
7,120 words
Nazi, neo-Nazi ....... 1 | 0
fascist, neofascist ... 1 | 0

English (12:07, 18 May 2014)
1,620 words
Nazi, neo-Nazi ....... 4 | 2
fascist, neofascist ... 3 | 0

German (22:03, May 18, 2014)
1,580 words
Nazi, neo-Nazi ....... 0 | 0
fascist, neofascist ... 1 | 0

Ukrainian (10:07, 15 May 2014)
1,150 words
Nazi, neo-Nazi ....... 0 | 0
fascist, neofascist ... 0 | 0
___

Wikipedia policy (May 2014)

“Due and undue weight. Neutrality requires that each article … fairly represents all significant viewpoints … in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in … reliable sources.”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 06:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Right now, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles describing some constituents of Right Sector as neo-Nazi groups - including the Social-National Assembly and Patriots of Ukraine - are not available in this wikipedia article because you've removed them. They should be here, and the articles on other wikipedia languages would benefit from citing them as well. -Darouet (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction - one was removed, and the other was available only in the article body, but not the lead. -Darouet (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

All of us can agree that neither the Ukrainian- nor the Russian- nor the German-language editors appear to believe that their articles would benefit from using such descriptions in the lead.

Likewise the consensus of the English-language editors. See RfC: Should we say in the lead say that group members are neofascist?.

Taking appropriate action. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not appropriate, actually, because Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for any purpose, and we have no information regarding how authoritative or complete those articles are. Sticking to published literature is surely a better policy. -Darouet (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

1. The articles are being used for raw-data purposes, not for any RS purpose.

2. The Russian article is four times longer than ours.

3. Multiple reliable sources have not yet been found in the published English literature. (Nor, it appears, in the German, Russian, or Ukrainian literature.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Extremist organization"

Right Sector might be called an "extremist group" for many reasons, but I don't believe this epithet gives the readers any information, or is helpful in describing Right Sector's political views. Does anyone mind if I revert the IP edit that added that text to the lead? -Darouet (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We already say they are "confederation of radical right-wing groups." Calling them extremist is redundant. TFD (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI opened. Maybe somebody in Russia thinks this ought to be the “Right Socktor” page...  ;)

Care to do the honors, TFD? --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It is probable that one person is editing from more than one IP address. There is nothing wrong with that unless their is an intention to evade a block or some other problem. If one has a dynamic IP, one's IP changes every time one restarts the modem. TFD (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, TFD. In this case the data suggest the person may be engaging in IP-hopping with intent to evade 3RR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Ezhiki just picked one of them off. POV & disruptive. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection requested. Five incidents of IP borderline-vandalism in last 72 hours, open SPI, suspicion of IP-hopping, media attention (Reuters), POV, BLP, subject a current target of information war & kinetic war. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the three sources cited (Novonite.com News Agency, Sofia) doesn’t say the subject is extremist — it says it’s radical. “Latvian MEP Tatjana Zdanoka urged her colleagues to support her motion to put the Ukrainian radical group Right Sector on the terrorist organizations list, reports ITAR-TASS.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the article yet about what could be the most significant component of the organization: soccer ultras. A couple of high-quality sources (somewhere) say that the fighting started because the ultras got bored listening to speeches and decided it would be more fun to skirmish with the cops. In most cities the nationalist ultras apparently came out in greater numbers than the ultranationalists and other ideologues. (Note: This could explain why some Patriot of Ukraine or SNA members would be willing to spend time "assisting in the protection of Jewish sites" from vandals: it would give them an opportunity to start a fight with any vandal they encounter.) Maybe we could find enough material to create a section about these apparently crucial actors. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 02:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

good point. RS seems to be defined by hyperactive minorities. be it ultras taking things into their own hands, the SNA arming themselves and making videos online, etc. most of the mebership is tryzub guys but who do we see the most? everyone else it seems --Львівське (говорити) 02:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rolltheblunt is under discussion at AN3.[17]

83.237.225.85 had made a series of analogous edits and was blocked by Ëzhiki at 19:33, 27 May 2014.[18]

Rolltheblunt’s series began at 19:40, 27 May 2014. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours.[19] Edit warring and POV pushing. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputed

Ishchenko ref

Volodymyr Ishchenko, “Fighting Fences vs Fighting Monuments: Politics of Memory and Protest Mobilization in Ukraine,” Debatte 19, no. 2 (2011), 369–95.

The author doesn’t suggest that Trident, Yarosh, Tarasenko, Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence, Patriots of Ukraine, White Hammer, or the Social-National Assembly are “far-right”, “racist”, or “Ukrainian neo-Nazi” groups.

His article doesn’t mention any of the groups. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 02:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 06:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

From Ishchenko's article:

By “far right,” I mean the “Svoboda” (“Freedom”) party (ideologically oriented toward European far right parties like the Freedom Party of Austria, the National Front of France, or the Hungarian Jobbik party combining conservative values and a neo-racist anti migration position together with social populism) and rightist non-partisan groups including overtly racist “autonomous nationalists” (http://reactor.org.ua) and the neo-Nazi “Patriot of Ukraine” (http://www.patriotukr.org.ua/). For the far right sector politics of memory actions comprised 29.2% of all protest actions with their participation, this was larger than the shares of social-economic, political struggle, and civic rights protest issues (Table 7)… After the notorious death of Maksym Chaika in a fight with antifascists in Odessa in April 2009, Yushchenko unambiguously supported the far right interpretation of the accident claiming the victim to be “an activist of a patriotic civic association” consciously murdered by “pro-Russia militants” ignoring Chaika’s connections with rightist football hooligans and his membership in the “SICH” (“Glory and Honor”) organization, a participant in the Social-Nationalist Assembly (http://sna.in.ua/) together with the neo-Nazi group Patriots of Ukraine.

He calls "Patriots of Ukraine" a neo-Nazi group. -Darouet (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, you removed the reference I placed in the article that had the exact quote you now maintain doesn't exist. Maybe I'm wrong and made some mistake, so I'll check to make sure it's really there before I add it back. -Darouet (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The quote is there, on pages 378-379 of the journal. -Darouet (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And I just checked the version you linked above: it's there as well. -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The cited pages (378–79) are in the “General Context of Protest Activity in Ukraine” section. Nowhere in that section or elsewhere in the article is there any such quote. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 06:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the cited pages are in the section that follows, "Politics of Memory and Anti-Construction Protests Compared" (it begins on page 375), just before the next section "Politics of Memory “from above” and “from below”" (which begins on page 380). The quote from pages 378-379 is:

By “far right,” I mean the “Svoboda” (“Freedom”) party (ideologically oriented toward European far right parties like the Freedom Party of Austria, the National Front of France, or the Hungarian Jobbik party combining conservative values and a neo-racist anti migration position together with social populism) and rightist non-partisan groups including overtly racist “autonomous nationalists” (http://reactor.org.ua) and the neo-Nazi “Patriot of Ukraine” (http://www.patriotukr.org.ua/). For the far right sector politics of memory actions comprised 29.2% of all protest actions with their participation, this was larger than the shares of social-economic, political struggle, and civic rights protest issues (Table 7)…

Table 7 is also on page 379 and shows which protest issues are important for which far-right / far-left political actors.

The next quote is from page 383, in the section "Politics of Memory “from above” and “from below”":

...ignoring Chaika’s connections with rightist football hooligans and his membership in the “SICH” (“Glory and Honor”) organization, a participant in the Social-Nationalist Assembly (http://sna.in.ua/) together with the neo-Nazi group “Patriots of Ukraine.”

Dervorguilla, the page numbers I'm referencing are from the published PDF in "Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe." I can see the exact same text in the doc you've linked above. The citations clearly show that Ishchenko refers to "Patriots of Ukraine" as a "neo-Nazi" group twice. -Darouet (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This is confusing, Darouet. I haven’t found the published PDF file you’re citing. Can you give me the URL? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Debatte doesn’t seem to make the cut as a BLP-quality source for an article about a political movement. See WP:RS#SCHOLARSHIP. “Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view.”
From the publisher:

“Aims & scope: Debatte seeks to provide a radical critical analysis that is sympathetic to democratic, labour, feminist and ecologist movements….”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed journal published by Routledge that concerns itself with European politics. Dervorguilla do you have any reliable, published sources somehow discrediting Debatte or the author, Ishchenko? Do you have any reason for doubting Ishchenko's evaluation of Patriots of Ukraine's politics? What is the basis of your defense of their politics? -Darouet (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost all writers of secondary sources have opinions. That is why they write. It does not detract from the reliability of their writing. And BLP has no relevance to articles about the Right Sector or its components, only about individual members. TFD (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Compare User talk:Jimbo Wales#Legal persons and BLP:

… Companies are, at the end of the day, just *groups of people*. And there are very strong BLP considerations for groups of people …. If someone says "Company X are thieving bastards who abuse their employees" we shouldn't just shrug and imagine that BLP doesn't have anything to say about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I saw your effort to integrate yourself into that conversation; Andy responded by specifically asking you not to misrepresent the content for other purposes. Right Sector is a paramilitary group now involved in military operations in Ukraine. Its members are killing and being killed. It formed from a number of the most far-right organizations in Ukraine, who pride themselves in attacking minorities, and are described by academic sources as neo-Nazi groups. Yes, BLP considerations are always important, but we have a multitude of sources stating that Right Sector incorporated neo-Nazi groups (some sources call Right Sector itself a neo-Nazi group), and academic sources describing its constituents as neo-Nazis. That's who these people really are, according to sources. There are actually neo-Nazis in the world, and there are sources describing them.

In this entire discussion, you've brought up every wikipedia guideline imaginable in order to explain why all these authors - journalists and academics writing in peer-reviewed journals or major newspapers - can't be used in the article lead. Why don't you challenge the material in the article body if you believe it's wrong? Furthermore, why don't you explain what you believe the SNA, or Patriot of Ukraine, or White Hammer's views really are? Why are these academics and journalists wrong? Earlier, you argued that the SNA website - which brags of sending Vietnamese and Gypsy market workers to the hospital - didn't really belong to the SNA. Are you trying to describe different organizations than you think? -Darouet (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Wales seems to disagree with one of Andy’s points. But not with mine. See Legal persons and BLP#Implications.

2. According to our article, the subject has been “demonized by Russian state propaganda as fascists and accused of staging attacks against Russian speakers and Jews.… The AP and other international news organizations have found no evidence of hate crimes.” By any of the groups. (Perhaps the contributors to SNA’s website aren’t all as honest as they might seem, Darouet.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I have made it perfectly clear that my position regarding the applicability of WP:BLP policy to groups of people is that of the policy itself - that such issues need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There is nothing whatsoever in policy that automatically rules out describing a political organisation as 'far-right' or 'neo-Nazi' if that is what reliable sources do - what matters is the reliability of sources, and applying due weight And there is nothing in Jimbo's comments to suggest that he thinks any differently, though of course Jimbo doesn't determine policy anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

At least we can agree that this is what was said, Andy.

Legal persons and BLP

Is there a good reason for excluding business entities from the reasonable constraints of BLP protection? […] —John Cline (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

[…]

'Legal persons' are a fiction, concocted for the purposes of legislation - and such legislation has next to nothing to do with the reasons we have a WP:BLP policy. There is no reason I can think of why an encyclopaedia should feel obliged to apply different standards to say Chase (bank) than it does to Switzerland, Mount Everest, or dioxygen difluoride. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

[…]

I think I can help here. The "legal person" concept in law has very little to do with what I think is the core reason for very strong BLP policy, which is only in a very minimal way about libel lawsuits. I am a strong supporter of BLP not because BLPs can sue people for libel, but because they are human beings deserving of kindness and dignity, even when they may have controversial or difficult life histories. Having said that, I take a different approach to BLP and companies - companies are, at the end of the day, just *groups of people*. And there are very strong BLP considerations for groups of people just as there are for individual people. If someone says "Company X are thieving bastards who abuse their employees" we shouldn't just shrug and imagine that BLP doesn't have anything to say about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Most likely all three of us are right... Moving on, I’d like to get your opinion about this particular case. Does BLP apply to Right Sector? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever in WP:BLP policy which prevents a political organisation being described as neo-Nazi, if supported by the necessary sources. As for whether such sources exist in this case, I've not been involved in the discussion, and have no wish to become so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant section of BLP is "Legal persons and groups". The Right Sector is not a "small group", and BLP does not apply. In any case, all BLP requires is that statements are properly sourced, it does not prevent the addition of negative facts or opinions about people. Since we are using good sources, it has no relevance at all. TFD (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov ref

Anton Shekhovtsov, “From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda,” in Media of Right-Wing Populism in Europe, eds. Wodak, Mral, and KhosraviNik (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 249.

The author doesn’t suggest that Patriots of Ukraine or White Hammer are “far-right, racist and Ukrainian neo-Nazi” groups.

His chapter doesn’t mention either of the groups the group White Hammer. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 06:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He says the SNA and Patriot are racist, extreme-right (256), and on another page (252) says the SNA is neo-Nazi. White Hammer is not mentioned.--Львівське (говорити) 05:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My error, Львівське. As you point out, he does indeed say that Patriot of Ukraine is a racist, extreme-right group. (No matches for “Patriots” were found.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Corrected comment
The author doesn’t suggest that Patriot/Patriots of Ukraine or White Hammer is a neo-Nazi group. Nor does he suggest that White Hammer is a far-right or racist group. His chapter doesn’t mention White Hammer. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

page 252: "Nova Syla's Yuriy Zbitnyev is one of the leaders of the neo-Nazi group Social-National Assembly". They are a joint-organization to Patriot, they go hand in hand so lets not split hairs here.--Львівське (говорити) 06:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You and I appear to agree, Львівське, that (1) the cited article doesn’t suggest that Patriot of Ukraine or White Hammer is a neo-Nazi group; (2) it doesn’t suggest that White Hammer is a far-right or racist group; and (3) it doesn’t mention White Hammer. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If a source does not mention a group it is not evidence that the group is neo-Nazi or not neo-Nazi. TFD (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In the article he does not specifically say the Patriot is neo-Nazi, but he does say the SNA is. However, in his other article I cited he does specifically say they are neo-Nazi, and he also makes clear that "PU and SNA are effectively one organization." This would be like saying "He didn't say the UNSO was far-right, only the UNA". We should follow his assessment that the SNA-PU is a single entity under a single leader, not that one half is neo-Nazi and the other is up for grabs. It doesn't matter though, because his article in Krytyka clearly specifies both individually and as a unit as neo-Nazi. --Львівське (говорити) 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

TFD, it's V. Ishchenko who refers to "Patriots of Ukraine" as a neo-Nazi group (the text is provided above, and is also available from the article history in this diff where Dervorguilla removed the information.

As Львівське notes, Shekhovtsov refers to the SNA and Patriots of Ukraine as racist, extreme-right groups, and writes that "Nova Syla's Yuriy Zbitnyev is one of the leaders of the neo-Nazi group Social-National Assembly." Dervorguilla removed that information here. -Darouet (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here’s part of the information that got removed from the lead, Darouet:

[Other far-right, racist and Ukrainian neo-Nazi founding groups include the Patriots of Ukraine, White Hammer and the Social-National Assembly.]^“[5]”

Here’s one reason it got removed from the lead:

5. ^ Ishchenko, Volodymyr (2011).

Find: White Hammer

No matches

--Dervorguilla (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 07:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Here’s the other part of the information that got removed:

“Other far-right, racist and Ukrainian neo-Nazi founding groups include the Patriots of Ukraine, White Hammer and the Social-National Assembly.^[4]”

Here’s one reason it got removed:

4. ^ Shekhovtsov, Anton (2013).

Search Inside This Book

0 results for White Hammer

--Dervorguilla (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 06:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 07:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• [20] In this article (german, he sent me the English transltion but I'm unsure if it's published) he plainly categorizes SNA/PU and White Hammer as neo-Nazis, and that they constitute a fringe element of Right Sector.

...to neo-Nazism of the PU/SNA and White Hammer.[1] However, none of these ideological strands was a unifying force for the Right Sector activists, while the neo-Nazis – due to the lower position of the PU/SNA and White Hammer in the hierarchy of the Right Sector – constituted a fringe element in the movement

--Львівське (говорити) 06:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Львівське, is Anton Shekhovtsov sending you unpublished material for publication on Wikipedia? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Львівське, when did Dr Shekhovstov begin sending you material to contribute to Wikipedia?

Besides his article in Krytyka, what material has he contributed? --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This may also be useful to you guys, but it also says this in the footnotes:

The views of Right Sector activists “ranged from romantic nationalism and ‘allegiance to glorious Cossack traditions’ to plain fascism”, see Igor Burdyga, “Shag vpravo”, [21]

--Львівське (говорити) 14:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That is helpful, especially since it's nearly impossible to find reliable sources describing White Hammer. -Darouet (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason White Hammer was kicked out was due to the alleged murder of the 3 traffic cops which were then blamed on "euromaidan activists" by authorities, so RS had to distance itself from them.--Львівське (говорити) 14:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Львівське is there any chance you might have sources for that? Not that you're trying to include the information, but if it were sourced it could be useful for the article. Little is known about White Hammer. -Darouet (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

page three of his article in krytyka would be the source, i was going off his english version of that same article (unpublished) --Львівське (говорити) 04:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Львівське, does Shekh actually use this wording in the English translation he sent you?

“At the end of the Euromaidan protests and after the Russian army occupied the region, two members of White Hammer allegedly participated…”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Emerson ref

Michael Emerson, “Can Ukraine Be Saved at This 11th Hour?,” (CEPS Commentary, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, May 2, 2014).

The author doesn’t suggest that Right Sector as a neo-Nazi group. He says that it is “concentrated in the West”. And he distinguishes it from the “neo-fascist elements” concentrated there. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any mention of the Right Sector or fascism in the pdf article linked. It would be helpful if you would explain what we are supposed to conclude from this and how you think this affects what the article should say. TFD (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, you accidentally linked the wrong article. This is the one you want (you removed it here). Emerson writes,

Various factions within Yanukovich’s Party of the Regions are showing unhappiness with their leader. Some in Kharkhiv advocate greater use of force, which would head further down the road towards a dreaded civil war. Others talk of adding federalisation to the menu for constitutional reform, which could slide into separatism. Radicalisation could deepen on both sides, from the Right Sector and neo-fascist elements concentrated in the West against militant pro-Russians concentrated in the East.

As far as I can tell, Emerson is not "distinguishing" between Right Sector and neo-fascist elements, but using Right Sector as the most notable example of these. Dervorguilla, in what context would Emerson distinguish between Right Sector and other neo-fascist forces in the West: are there other groups you think are better examples? Especially since you've been deleting academic references from the article that refer to the SNA and Patriots of Ukraine as neo-Nazi groups, both of which are now a part of Right Sector, I can't imagine what you think Emerson is writing about. -Darouet (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

TFD and Darouet are correct that I linked the wrong article. (The link to the right article was still available in the old revision.) My apology for the confusion.

Emerson (Oxford ’62), a former ambassador, most likely writes Standard English prose. Here he does not say, “… from the Right Sector and other neo-fascist elements”. Instead he says, “… from the Right Sector and neo-fascist elements”. In Standard English prose, this latter wording indicates that the writer believes Right Sector is not one of the neo-fascist elements. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Fun Things To Do

Suggestion list 06:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Read spoof entry about subject group. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC) 21:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Find interesting well-cited material in the German, Russian, or Ukrainian encyclopedias. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC) 06:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Dervorguilla (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• The Krytyka article says:

“[Around 1 March 2014] two members of White Hammer allegedly participated in the killing of three State Automobile Inspection officers. Notification [was given] by the prosecution that the ‘cop’ murder could have been committed by Euromaidan activists….”

Are there any press reports of the incident? Any news releases at the Office of State Automobile Inspection of Ukraine or Internet Archive? --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had a lot of difficulty finding anything other than a passing reference to White Hammer. -Darouet (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Same here, Darouet. The question now becomes whether there are any reports mentioning an alleged murder of three Державної автомобiльної iнспекцiї (State Automobile Inspection) officers around March 1. (The suspects’ affiliations might not have been known at the time.)

Ought to be something at ДАІ Ukraine or ДАІ Kiev or Kyiv Post, I’d think. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC) 21:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Shekh’s information seems to have been accurate. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic remarks

POVNAMING, section title itself has a serious issue of balance. (Compare "Anti-Semitic and anti–anti-Semitic remarks".)
Spiegel doesn’t go so far as to say Yarosh’s remark is indeed anti-Semitic. High-quality sources indicate that Muzychko was (characteristically) joking around to attract attention.
BLP#Balance says section headings are supposed to be broadly neutral. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC) 19:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)