Talk:Right Sector/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Recent changes

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.

---

These recent changes in the article separate "descriptions in the press" of Right Sector's fascistic politics or constituents from other article section titles, which include self-descriptions by Right Sector itself. The changes therefore misleadingly suggest that statements by Right Sectors' leaders describing themselves may be more reliable, whereas descriptions by what we deem to be reliable sources are not. The changes also misleadingly suggest that information from reliable sources in the press - which are necessary to build any wikipedia article - are somehow separate from other information when they include statements that make Right Sector less palatable to liberal readers in Europe or the United States. These changes should be discussed here, on at the ongoing dispute resolution page. -Darouet (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, Darouet. Edit summary 605719687 (25 April 2014) mentions the pertinent policy:

“see LEAD (significant information should not appear in lead if not covered in body)”

Here’s the particular information that appears in the lead:

“Right Sector is … described by some major publications as having far-right,[2][3][4] nationalist,[5][6][7] or ultranationalist[8][9] views.”

The title of the related section in the body:

“Ideology: Descriptions in the press”

The information covered in that related section:

[how the group is described by the 8 major publications cited in the lead and by 5 others]

The purpose here is not to please “liberal readers”. The purpose is to suggest or indicate in a single section of the body whatever is suggested or indicated by the single sentence in the lead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks Dervorguilla. I've consolidated many of the small individual paragraphs, which often stated the same thing, into fewer larger paragraphs summarizing similar views or information. I've also taken a few statements describing the constituent groups of Right Sector and placed them in 'history,' since Right Sector was formed by these groups. Let me know what you think. I believe it's still worthwhile for us to work through dispute resolution just so that we come to a happy agreement through discussion. -Darouet (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

First let’s ask our fellow contributors Alex Bakharev, Amatulic, Coffee, Lvivske, Balaenoptera musculus, LokiiT, Latreia, Chris Troutman, and Collect which version they’re happier with, Darouet:

A. The “mainstream version” in which the lead cites the descriptions given in the 8 most mainstream news media?

B. The “diverse version” in which the lead also cites 6 descriptions given in 5 selected smaller media (including two given in OpenDemocracy)?

“Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels... Media organizations such as CBS and the New York Times set the tone for other smaller news organizations...” --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Version A, major publications only (Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Agence France Presse, New York Times, BBC News, Guardian, Associated Press, Time):

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian nationalist political party[1] and paramilitary collective of several organizations, described by some major publications as having far-right,[2][3][4] nationalist,[5][6][7] or ultranationalist[8][9] views.

Version B, major publications plus contentious smaller publications (Russia Today, Le Monde Diplomatique, Die Welt, OpenDemocracy, Nation):

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian nationalist political party[1] and paramilitary collective of several organizations, described by some major publications as having far-right,[2][3][4] nationalist,[5][6][7] or ultranationalist[8][9] views. It has been described by some publications including Moscow's RT TV News as a neofascist group, though this description is contested.[10][11][12][13][8][14][15]

--Dervorguilla (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on Amatulić's note below, I would also propose Version C:

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian nationalist political party[1] and paramilitary collective of several organizations, described by major publications and scholars as having far-right, nationalist, or neo-fascist views.

Etc. In that case we could exclude the second sentence about fascism, but still include Danilova's AP article, though I honestly think it probably belongs in the article body. -Darouet (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• A for sure--Львівське (говорити) 02:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• B The diversity of sources is pretty telling. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• B or C because major papers including The New York Times, Die Welt, Le Monde Diplomatique, Time, and various scholars describe the movement, its constituents, or ideology as fascist. -Darouet (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• A because none of them do. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• My only "contribution" has been to semi-protect this article, so I can't be considered a contributor. Whichever version is chosen, my suggestion is to reduce the number of citations to the bare minimum required or none at all (a lead sentence doesn't need so many), and don't resort to WP:WEASEL words like "some". ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree, Amatulić. Sounds like we ought to start an RfC; wouldn’t be limited to contributors. I can take care of it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• A Since "fascist" has of late been thrown around a lot as a label rather than a useful politological/historical term, I am more happy with Version A. MSM do often pick up labels that have been used by politicians. In this particular case (playing with a casus belli), I think that using descriptions that are so ideologically loaded makes sense only if the sources are scholarly articles written by authors specializing in Fascism/Nazi ideology etc. Latreia (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that scholarly sources are better; unfortunately in this case Right Sector is a recent enough phenomenon that there are none as of right now. Throughout this talk page you'll see links to commentary by scholars in media describing Right Sector's constituent groups or Right Sector itself as fascist (none of this is peer-reviewed); some also disagree. As for casus belli, I don't think Russia has a legitimate claim to war if Right Sector is fascistic, and in any event our job isn't to plead for or against them. -Darouet (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Latreia, looking for academic literature on Right Sector's constituents, I see that the Social National Assembly is described as a neo-Nazi group. "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." Shekhovtsov, "From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda." Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse, 2013, A&C Black [1] -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting a Page Not Found message; try here instead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov is a student. That’s how he describes himself, anyway. “Anton Shekhovtsov: Research student - Candidate of Political Sciences.”

As the author of a chapter in an edited book, he provides sources to support most of his statements — but not this one. (Can you find any, Darouet?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to source the statement of an edited book chapter from an expert in the field. But Shekhovtsov, whatever his current posts, is well published and has written as much as any other author on far-right politics in Ukraine. A few of his other posts are listed here. -Darouet (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov _is_ someone whom I would consider a scholarly source—he doesn't appear to be biased. However, another problem with the Right Sector is a poor definition of who their "constituents" are. E. g., this piece of news, taking from the words of RS's spokesman, says, "RS _and_ SNA". Thus, SNA is sort of a partner, not a constituent. This piece by Shekhovtsov reminds me that SNA was pretty active in the December 1 provocation (in which one of the guys who tried to drive the bulldozer was also later filmed blissfully searching the pockets of one of the beaten bystanders _together_ with Berkut). So, this continues to be a rather murky body of water; however, we see that the source you cite calls SNA neo-Nazi. We have language saying, "RS _and_ SNA". So, from a purely technical standpoint, it ≠ that RS is neo-Nazi. Far-right, for sure. Latreia (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the source only demonstrates that one constituent of Right Sector is called "neo-Nazi," and was written before Right Sector existed. The source also describes one goal of SNA and Patriot of Ukraine being the creation of a "uniracial" society. -Darouet (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I really appreciate the reasonable tone on this issue. I know these discussions often to descend into vitriol and I pleased to see that's not the case here. I like the B selection because the sources cited help give the reader a well-balanced view of the text based on the reader's opinion of those media organizations. I agree with the comment that ideally the lede isn't a sourced fence-sitting statement, but the downfall of the NPOV policy is that it forces editors to choose a false "neutral" based on the sources. I think sometimes an "attributable point of view" policy where statements come out "some say this while others disagree" is really more fair to the subject and more honest with the reader. NPOV also forces editors choose which sources are slanted and which are ok, whereas option B lets the reader decide. That's not to say that the A option is more in keeping with policy; I'm only emphasizing that B is a better approach. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Happily enough, Chris Troutman, the “mainstream” version A forces editors to use a noncontentious methodology (discussed in the Major publications section). They have to choose which sources are larger (Associated Press or OpenDemocracy) — not which are less slanted.

An unforeseen consequence of forcing the reader to check for NPOV violations: Voice of Russia and some other “silent” republishers appear to be removing the citations before broadcasting. See, for example, “Ukraine’s Yarosh Put on International Most Wanted List, Accusations Brought In Absentia,” Voice of Russia, 5 March 2014 (“Right Sector is a radical Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary and opposition group. It is described as having right-wing, ultra right-wing, borderline fascist or neofascist views.…”). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't straightforward: OpenDemocracy was only cited among a host of other sources in order to bring in the views of well known scholars. In this case, Cas Mudde and Anton Shekhovstov, both of whom are well known for their research into far-right politics in Eastern and Central Europe, published material there. Other researchers and academics have published pieces as commentary or editorials elsewhere.

Nevertheless, major newspapers have, in news articles, described Right Sector's constituents as including neo-fascist groups. -Darouet (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite two, Darouet? High-circulation “mainstream” media (MSM) only, no RSOPINION, no NEWSBLOG. Thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure - here are two news articles describing Right Sector's constituents as fascist:

Right Sector (Pravy Sektor) is an informal association of right-wing and neo-fascist factions (Der Rechte Sektor (Prawy Sektor) ist eine informelle Vereinigung von rechtsradikalen und neofaschistischen Splittergruppen.) - Die Welt, "The radical Ukrainian Group Right Sector", [2], 22 February 2014.

Even Right Sector, a coalition of ultranationalist and in some cases neo-Nazi organizations, has made an effort to distance itself from anti-Semitism. In late February, its leader, Dmytro Yarosh, pledged during a meeting with Israel’s ambassador in Kiev to fight all forms of racism. - Higgins, Andrew, "Among Ukraine’s Jews, the Bigger Worry Is Putin, Not Pogroms," [3], The New York Times, 9 April 2014.

Which may be why Le Monde Diplomatique also describes the group as "neo-fascist" ([4]), The Nation describes "neo-Nazis" from Right Sector taking over Maidan's self defense forces ([5]), RT describes it as a "radical neo-fascist" group ([6]), Haaretz describes anti-semitic activities or views by their members at Maidan ([7]), and Time describes their ideology as "bordering on fascism" ([8]). -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Darouet, the data suggest indicate that Die Welt is no longer big enough to count as MSM (high-circulation media). Total average circulation (2013): Time, 3,200,000; Wall Street Journal, 2,400,000; New York Times, 1,900,000; …; Der Speigel, 1,000,000; …; Le Monde, 330,000; …; Die Welt, 200,000.

Moreover the cited item’s not a news article. And it seems to have been removed by publisher from the newspaper’s searchable database (Search Results), perhaps so that its reporters wouldn’t rely on the material for research purposes. (It does however keep a copy on the Web for archival purposes.)

By contrast, the Times is a classic MSM; the cited item appears in the newspaper’s searchable database; and it is indeed a news article. One news article. We need two. Which have yet to be provided.

We both want to cut down on this kind of miscommunication, Darouet. For the sake of speed, I’m now withdrawing my question and starting a formal RfC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 21:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We both want to cut down on this kind of miscommunication, Darouet. For the sake of speed, I’m now withdrawing my question and starting a formal RfC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 21:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

An idea for an 'ultraencyclopedic' version D. Each assertion would be supported by a maximum of 3 citations.

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian political party and paramilitary confederation, characterized by mainstream publications as "right-wing", "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultranationalist". It provided logistical support and militant tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev.

Its leading group, Trident, had a national conservative ideology. Other founding groups included Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO), White Hammer, Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly; the latter two groups had ultranationalist or Ukrainian neo-Nazi ideologies. The Associated Press and other international news organizations found no evidence of anti-Semitism or hate crimes by the confederation since its establishment in November 2013.

Right Sector has not attempted to compile accurate membership data; its leader, Dmytro Yarosh, once estimated that it had at least 10,000 members.

I'm hoping this is close to NPOV. Improvements welcome.--Dervorguilla (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Strike the neo-Nazi reference. Report coming up. (here) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC) 08:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Returning to Amatulić’s comment: “Whichever version is chosen, my suggestion is ... don’t resort to WP:WEASEL words like ‘some.’”[9] What phrasing in the lead would comply with the policy about WEASEL words? A few ideas:
We can label (a) the group itself and each of its 5 components; (b) the group itself and its 1 leadership component; (c) the group itself; or (d) none of the above.
Note that one of the components (Trident) has been described by a scholarly expert as close to “Tea Party Republican.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Here’s an idea for a minimalist version, E F. Expressly limited to descriptive terms found in multiple “mainstream” (large-circulation) publications – no publicity-seeking experts. 1-3 cites per statement.

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian political party and paramilitary confederation, characterized by mainstream publications as "right-wing", "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultranationalist". It provided logistical support and tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev.

The coalition was organized in November 2013 by Trident (Tryzub), led by Dmytro Yarosh and Andriy Tarasenko. Other founding groups included Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO); White Hammer; Patriots of Ukraine; and the Social-National Assembly.

No membership data have been published; in March 2014, Yarosh estimated that the coalition had at least 10,000 members. Right Sector became a political party on March 22, 2014.

[Variant E-2]

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian political party and paramilitary confederation. It provided logistical support and tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev.

The coalition was organized in November 2013 by Trident (Tryzub), a Ukrainian nationalist group led by Dmytro Yarosh and Andriy Tarasenko. Other founding members included Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO); Patriots of Ukraine; White Hammer; and the Social-National Assembly. White Hammer was expelled in March 2014.

Right Sector became a political party on March 22, 2014, at which time it was estimated to have perhaps 10,000 members. Its political position has been characterized by mainstream publications as "right-wing", "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultranationalist". --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 22:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Minimalist version F

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian nationalist political party. In its earlier manifestation as a paramilitary confederation of radical right-wing groups, it provided logistical support and tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev.

The coalition was organized in November 2013. Founding groups included Trident (Tryzub), led by Dmytro Yarosh and Andriy Tarasenko; the political party Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO); Patriots of Ukraine; White Hammer; and the Social-National Assembly. White Hammer was expelled in March 2014.

Right Sector became a political party on 22 March 2014, at which time it was estimated to have perhaps 10,000 members. Its political position has been characterized by mainstream publications as "right-wing", "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultranationalist".

--Dervorguilla (talk) 00:18, 5 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.

Football

For your discussion above, this masters' thesis may not be a reliable source, but perhaps it points to sources that'd be of help. It looks like it's critical of both Ukrainian and Russian-Ukrainian extremist nationalism. -Darouet (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Both groups do seem to be unaware that Hitler lost to Stalin in the fourth quarter (after leading at the half) ... --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Dervorguilla (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Was there even a cause too lost,

Ever a cause that was lost too long,

Or that showed with the lapse of time to vain

For the generous tears of youth and song?

Not my text of course :) -Darouet (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Euro Times / Review sources

has pledged to fight "Jews and Russians until I die."

The first source is the "European Union Times", the second source is "Eurasia review". Since this is a BLP vio issue, I wanted to make sure this was coming from a good source.

• European Union Times - I found the URL since it wasn't given in the article, but it was a re-syndication of an article from eutimes.net/2014/02/we-did-not-overthrow-the-government-to-deliver-it-to-us-eu-ukraine/ Global Research, a known Russian propaganda site. ITS SUCH PROPAGANDA THAT EUTIMES . NET IS BLACKLISTED ON WIKIPEDIA AND I COULDN'T SAVE THIS EDIT - On the Svoboda page we mentioned GR to be an unreliable source here - and heres the source
• Eurasian Review - their site says "Eurasia Review publishes news and analysis affecting Eurasia and Afro-Eurasia. Despite this area containing over 70% of the world's population, news continues to be dominated by a U.S. slant." so it seems they are forthcoming about being an anti-West or anti-US site. The footer of the site says it's owned by Buzz Future here - which is an 'affordable PR firm', nuff said.

--Львівське (говорити) 07:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

wow, so I'm going through the Diffs and User:Darouet is the one who added the Eurotimes source, knowingly leaving out the link because it was blacklisted diff. This is looking very COI...then you added original research and were open about it. --Львівське (говорити) 07:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I did add the Eurotimes Source: I couldn't find the list entry or discussion showing it was blacklisted, so I assumed the error on trying to list the URL was a mistake. If you can find it I'd appreciate that because I was genuinely curious. As to Eurasian Review, you haven't shown any problems with that source. -Darouet (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's a discount PR firm isn't an issue in your eyes? --Львівське (говорити) 07:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize that EUT was a PR firm and don't disapprove of your removing it, but I don't understand your removal of Eurasia Review, against which I haven't seen any argument except that you suspect it of anti-American sentiment. -Darouet (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see now: you're saying that Eurasia Review, which is a newspaper/thinktank, is owned by a PR firm. -Darouet (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

an online 'thinktank' aka blog, that is openly anti-west, and run by a PR firm is not a WP:RS --Львівське (говорити) 15:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your concerns regarding WP:BLP legitimize enhanced selectivity on your (and our) part, but you can't simply declare something is a blog and fails WP:RS because you state that you don't share its ideological views. Most think tanks have online publications and declared ideological perspectives: unless they are found deeply unreliable for other reasons, their publications remain important, and depending upon the content used they might be cited as the source of a statement in the text. -Darouet (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This should go to RS review then, just because a PR firm sets up a site it calls a 'think tank' doesnt mean its content is reliable for an encyclopedia. It appears that this source is no different than the blocked source, both are 'thinktanks' by PR firms, not reliable sources. This has nothing to do with me "sharing ideological views" with the source, as you're accusing me (again, more bad faith accusations from your direction), but the source is openly stating it is pushing a particular POV, it's openly non-neutral. --Львівське (говорити) 19:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Do major papers describe Right Sector as neo-Fascist?

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: Yes they do, although other descriptions appear more common.

Sourcing has been presented in this discussion and the discussion immediately above to show that major newspapers (as well as other reliable sources) have referred to RS as fascist or neo-fascist. Other descriptions such as "far-right" and "neo-Nazi" (which obviously also implies "fascist") are more common.

There has been discussion about how Wikipedia should present the political position of RS, but that is not the question asked in this RfC, and there is another RfC running about what WP should do.

Right Sector was formed as from a series of ultra-nationalist and paramilitary organizations at the end of 2013, and is now the largest far-right party in Ukraine. Right Sector is adamant that it is not a fascistic organization. Because it's ideology is contested, I want to note that some important western papers describe its politics as "far-right, ultra-nationalist or fascistic," as for Jobbik and Svoboda. Another editor however is adamant that sources do not describe it as fascistic. Do they? -Darouet (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As seen above, I maintain that major papers including Time (magazine), Die Welt, Le Monde Diplomatique, The New York Times, Haaretz and The Nation have described Right Sector, its constituents or members as having either fascist or neo-Nazi politics. Furthermore, scholars Volodymyr Ishchenko and Michael Emmerson, writing an op-ed in The Guardian or commentary in the Centre for European Policy Studies, respectively, also describe Right Sector's politics as neo-fascist. -Darouet (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Two sources that might be useful: BBC News 2 Jan 2014, The Guardian 23 Jan 2014. I've seen the Ishchenko piece in the Guardian as well, but (as Darouet correctly states) that is an opinion piece. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC News (21 Jan): “little-known far-right group”; “young men with right-wing views”.

Guardian (23 Jan): “far-right group”; “murky grouping of nationalist and far-right groups”; “extreme-right group”; “hardcore Ukr. nationalism”. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Found four more descriptions of the group in the BBC News article. Here are all six: little-known far-right group; the most radical activists; group consists mostly of young men with right-wing views; movement incorporates several far-right groups; organisation’s backbone in Kiev is formed by … football fans sharing nationalist views; radical activists. Number of descriptions of the group as neofascist, fascist, or neo-Nazi = 0.

Number in the Guardian article = 0. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

SCORES: Far Right 4; Nationalists 3; Radicals 2; Right Wing 1; Extreme Right 1; Fascists 0; Neofascists 0; Neo-Nazis 0. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment The RfC appears to be improperly worded. (1) RfC statement. The “other editor” may not in fact be saying that “Sources do not describe Right Sector as fascistic.” (2) RfC question. “Do they?” could be read as a question about source content rather than article content. (3) Use of section title. Because section titles don’t appear in RfC lists, a description of the particular issue(s) in dispute must be given in the statement itself. 03:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 07:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Darouet. If a major news source designates A as B, we should mention it as such here. Zezen (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The same source now designates A as C. Do we When can we stop saying it designates A as B? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 03:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Tentative summary From reading the sources and discussion above, I reach the tentative conclusion that:

• 1) The number of reliable sources using 'fascist'/'fascism'/'neo-fascism'/'fascistic' to describe RS is greater than zero - some do exist.
• 2) Many reliable sources describe RS without using the term 'fascist'/'fascism'/'neo-fascism'/'fascistic'.
• 3) Therefore it is true to say that some reliable sources, some of the time, use 'fascist'/'fascism'/'neo-fascism'/'fascistic' to describe RS.

Would any editors care to comment on whether any (or perhaps all!) of my conclusions above are merited? --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I’ve found no evidence in the sources given above to support point 1 as written. It would be accurate to say that one reliable source (USA Today) was once using the term “neofascist” (in the article of 27 February) but is no longer using that term or any of the others listed.

Can you let us know which particular RSs do support point 1? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Re-reading the sources, I've realised that I'm treating 'nazi' a synonym for 'fascist'. If anyone has a reason why this is the wrong call to make, I'm all ears. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Do any of the RSs use the term “Nazi”? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The NYT writes that Right Sector is composed of groups, some of which are neo-Nazi, Alec Luhn describes them as neo-Nazi for The Nation, and Haaretz has written that their members have carried signs with neo-Nazi symbols at demonstrations. All this information is available above, here on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did see the sources you mention, Darouet. The first one in particular. “Right Sector, a coalition of ultranationalist and in some cases neo-Nazi organizations, has made an effort….”

The language could be improved, given that our article indicates that the coalition encompasses 3 groups (not 5 or more as literally required by the statement in the Times). But I agree that RSs — more than one, in fact — say that Right Sector is a coalition of ultranationalist and neo-Nazi organizations. I’ve always understood that to be the case. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 19:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Q: What then if we substituted 'neo-nazi' for 'fascistic' i.e. "describe its politics as far-right, ultra-nationalist or neo-nazi" --? Would editors find that reasonable? If 'nazi' and 'fascist' are effectively synonymous then why does it make any difference which we use? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Question I've been thinking about whether (and why) the terminology we use is important - i.e. whether Wikipedia's use (or not) of the word 'fascist' (or 'fascistic') actually matters - particularly because (here in the UK at least), 'far-right' is pretty much a euphemism for 'fascist' anyway. Would I be right in thinking that editors feel it is important because President Putin and the Russian government have been justifying their action against the current Ukrainian government by accusing the current Ukrainian government (i.e. EuroMaiden supporters of which Right Sector is the most far-right component, if I understand the situation correctly) of being fascists?

Or am I jumping to conclusions / missing something important?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Balaenoptera musculus - I think that is indeed an issue, both because the Russian government emphasizes these forces to discredit Maidan and the new government, and because western media loudly protest their labeling.

The most important issue for me in noting sources' use of the term "fascist" is Ukraine's history. There are conservative, nationalist political parties in Ukraine, antagonistic to Russia, that have no common origin with Stepan Bandera, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, or the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Right Sector's constituent elements however come from these camps.

Secondly, but still important, I think that even western media refer to Right Sector (or its supporters/elements) as "fascistic" because of its extreme nationalism, xenophobia, and approach to violence as a primarily political tool. -Darouet (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

 – A very similar discussion is taking place at Talk:UK_Independence_Party. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Question (another - thanks for your patience). Thanks for info so far guys. Concerning WP:WEIGHT: even if some or all of the sources listed above were to be considered 'reliable', then I'm still not convinced that we wouldn't be giving these sources undue weight if we used the term 'fascist' in the lead (especially given the degree to which the word 'fascist' is qualified in the many of the sources, by terms such as 'bordering on', 'labelled as', 'quasi-', 'factions', and 'elements'). We could use the term 'fascist' in the body of the article, as part of a detailed discussion which could get properly into detail about the context and consequences of the accusation (e.g. Putin's accusations and use of the accusation in an attempt to discredit the Ukrainian government and justify Russian action in the Crimea and the Ukraine) - and about which component parts of Right Sector have been called fascist and which haven't. Assuming we did that, does any editor want to lay out the argument as to why it would not be giving these sources undue weight to use the term 'fascism' in the lede as well? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Having established that Right Sector is described by multiple reliable and important sources as neo-fascist, or quasi-fascist, or 'bordering on fascist,' the next logical step is to evaluate whether noting the view of these sources in the lead gives appropriate balance to sources available. Given the importance of a political publication like Le Monde Diplomatique, the authority of a paper like Die Welt, and the significance of "components" of Right Sector being described as fascist when Right Sector is defined as a union of smaller groups, this view is a deeply significant one. It's also consistent with the history of right-wing Ukrainian nationalism: Right Sector is a compilation of the most fringe elements (except "White Hammer": they declare they broke with them).

As to Putin's accusations, scholars were writing about other more docile groups, like Svoboda, for over a decade before Putin ever said a word about them, and before Right Sector existed. When you read the literature about "Putin's misrepresentation" of Maidan, all of these sources don't explain that Putin has mischaracterized Right Sector. What they maintain, instead, is that Putin or others have overemphasized the role of Right Sector in Maidan: Right Sector might be fascistic or have neo-Nazis, but they're not so important in Ukraine right now.

I don't have a crystal ball into Right Sector's views. I am sure plenty of their members are anti-Semitic, but I have read that some Jewish people have participated in the organizations' military campaigns at Maidan, and I wonder if Yarosh's statements aren't genuine. But I think we need to take this view, which is expressed widely and in important papers, seriously. Also, recently, I've noticed in interviews with eastern Ukrainians, many of them refer to their fear about fascists taking power in Kiev. -Darouet (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, here's another source, the Canadian Globe and Mail, that discusses this at greater length:

This is the headquarters of Pravy Sektor, or Right Sector, the ultra-right-wing movement, described by some as fascist, whose hundreds of soldiers (they call themselves an army) have become the sharp edge of the two-month-old protest movement that has upturned the politics of Ukraine… But the people in the largest and most aggressive group, who generally refuse to speak to journalists, are members of Pravy Sektor, an umbrella group of fascist, nationalist, football-hooligan and right-wing extremist gangs – some with neo-Nazi histories – which is generally considered to the right of Svoboda and which tends to be very secretive. It has not, to this point, been a political party.[10]

Here's at least one argument, in a blog but nevertheless interesting, that Right Sector isn't fascist:

Both Svoboda and Right Sector are on the right. They are decidedly not liberals—and some of them may be fascists—but they are far more like the Tea Party or right-wing Republicans than like fascists or neo-Nazis. I for one wouldn’t want them to be setting the tone for Ukrainian policy. But neither would I want the Tea Party to be in charge of Washington. No less important, their role in the Kyiv government is at best tertiary (they would probably win no more than 5 percent of the vote in a national election), and policy is set not by them but by the broad coalition of unquestioned liberal democrats.[11]

I'll check if I can find any more commentaries by political science experts or academics. -Darouet (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some do and others don't So what the Wikipedia best practice is - is to use that term or terms which cover the broad consensus of sources which would appear to be "Right Wing Nationalist". We do not use our own opinions on this sort of thing, and those two terms specifically appear in a large majority of the sources available. Collect (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--Львівське (говорити) 18:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Collect’s argument. Moreover, some of the sources cited in support don’t seem to be current. “Right Wing Nationalist” does appear to be in accord with the broad consensus of sources. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi All, a significant number of important sources, all of them current (Right Sector as an organization is only a few months old), also agree that the organization's ideology is fascistic. Other descriptions may be consistent with this view and not contradict it: this is the case for most other sources. Right now I've found one source, a blog post, that describes Right Sector's politics and states that it is not fascistic (or probably not fascistic). Most other sources that address the issue disagree.

This is an important view among major papers and commentators, and should be described in the article, and in the lead. The result of removing the material is that readers coming to learn about the organization leave with a poorer understanding of Right Sector and Ukraine's politics overall. -Darouet (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'll agree with Collect and Dervorguilla. I'd also like to point out that some of the sources being listed are left-leaning, so I wouldn't agree with their assessments. Far right seems to be a broadly agreed term for Right Sector. Fascistic is not. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Include. It is a fact that they have been described as fascist. This article gives some background about the controversy, and it also describes an organized campaign to censor Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You’re speaking about the Reuters article, NinjaRobotPirate, correct?

Yes, it does mention something about “fascist groups”. Meaning, in particular, Svoboda and Right Sector. I’d be happy to add the information to the article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Here’s what the story says: “Russia’s president Vladimir Putin claims Ukraine has fallen into the hands of far-right fascist groups….” But he never comes out and names the two groups. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Collect. I think mentioning that this group is sometimes described as fascist is a must. But I don't think that needs to be in the lead. Heck, the issue is important enough, it might merit a few sentences if we can find sources that let us have that discussion. In particular Putin's use of the word and how the group has responded. I don't think enough sources use this term that A) it belongs in the lede or B) it should be stated in Wikipedia's voice.Hobit (talk) 19:27, 28 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.

White Hammer

White Hammer is no longer part of the Right Sector. Numerous times have Yarosh and his comrades stated that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.216.10 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But the Infobox: Political party template only provides for these 5 parameters: 'Merger of'; 'Split from'; 'Preceded by'; 'Merged into'; and 'Succeeded by'. Not for 'Divorced from'. The article does say in the lead that White Hammer has been expelled. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"RS = nazi" - russian propaganda

Right Sector has banderivska ideology. It's right but has no any racism and nazism. There are russians, jews, georgians, armenians etc there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.167.4.217 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide sources for commentary on Right Sector's ideology. To read more about how to contribute to wikipedia, the following guideline, "Five Pillars," is a good start! -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm Russian who lives in Ukraine and I can confirm that RS is not a threat for me, they're radical but quite tolerable to anybody who is not talking about Ukraine being "fake country" (like many Russians do). Yarosh says [12]: "Я, наприклад, не розумію певних речей расистського характеру, не сприймаю їх абсолютно. Білорус загинув за Україну, вірменин із Дніпропетровська загинув за Україну. Вони мені побратими набагато більші, ніж яка-небудь, перепрошую, комуністична худоба, типу Симоненка, яка грає на Росію, але є етнічним українцем." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceCatOnMushrooms (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am American and have no idea what "banderivska ideology" is. I would like it much, if someone would elaborate. 24.110.50.184 (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a one-line summary in the section about Other Ukrainians and political parties, graf 1. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable material

Information not directly related to article topic

Some information given in the current version is cited to sources that were published before the subject group's (original) founding date.

The subject didn't exist (in any sense) before November 2013.

If the relevance to the topic is unclear or questionable, you can improve the article by adding an [importance?] tag or by moving superfluous information to a more directly related article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, Right Sector coalesced during the Euromaidan protests, which have their antecedent in the many months and years of complex Ukrainian-Russian and Ukrainian-European relations prior to November 2013. Furthermore, each of Right Sector's constituent groups existed for years or decades prior to 2013, and almost all of them ultimately trace their origin back to the period of 20th century Ukrainian nationalism formation: the Holodomor, Great Purges and Second World War. Removing supporting material prior to Right Sector's formation would require removing most historical material and context about the group, Maidan, and leave the article a shell of what it can be for readers. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As we know, Darouet, Right Sector did indeed coalesce during the Euromaidan protests. Those protests had their antecedent in the many centuries of complex Ukrainian-Russian-European relations prior to 2013. Each of Right Sector's constituent groups existed for months or years prior to November 2013, and the majority ultimately trace their origins back to the founding of their local soccer teams. Moving most historical material and context about the constituent groups and Maidan to articles about the constituent groups and Maidan could make all the articles more helpful for readers. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the articles on Right Sector's constituent groups already have more information, and the each text describing them in this article is basically a shortened version of the lead of each. How does Right Sector's article benefit by removing information about Right Sector's constituent groups or origin? -Darouet (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, but the information in question doesn't describe the origin of Right Sector, Darouet. It describes the origin (or history) of the particular constituent group. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Or the text describes what those groups are, which is necessary to understand what Right Sector is, if it actually is formed by them, which sources say it is. -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Darouet and I seem to agree that we can remove text which (1) describes only the origin (or noncontemporary history) of some constituent group and (2) is also found in the article about the constituent group. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely do not agree: that's exactly contrary to what I've said above, and would obviously harm this article. You've still given no reason whatsoever for your desire to remove that material. -Darouet (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now, the material on constituent groups is concise, and pretty good. Because these groups are what Right Sector is made of, describing them is a way of also characterizing RIght Sector. -Darouet (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To review: "The information in question … describes the origin (or history) of the particular constituent group." --Dervorguilla, 06:21, 24 July 2014. "Or the text describes what those groups are, which is necessary to understand what Right Sector is...." --Darouet, 14:23, 24 July 2014.

What I've been saying, Darouet, is that we should remove any text that just describes what a constituent group had been (years before the founding of the subject group). The normal interpretation of what you're saying would seem to be that any text that describes what a constituent group is (currently) is necessary to understand what Right Sector is. Correct so far? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing the nature of the article's presentation of Right Sector's constituent groups and deep history.

Right now, we have just one sentence on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, and though Stepan Bandera's name appears here or there in the article, there's no explicit description of him, his activities or politics.

Articles that we have describing Right Sector's constituents were written in the last few years, though these organizations mostly date back to 1991 (SNPU) or earlier (OUN).

If you can find some information about how these groups have changed and are now very different from what they were, feel free to bring that forward.

Also, if you have any specific text you take issue with, that'd be helpful for a discussion here. -02:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful if an editor brings forward any information that the editor finds about how a constituent group has changed over its history, Darouet.

One would normally be expected to bring the information forward in an article about the constituent group. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Likely copyright violations

Some added information[13] seems to have been "only for legitimate Harvard University users".[14]

Copyright © 1999 - 2014 The President and Fellows of Harvard College

The Harvard University PIN System, and the … data and other resources that require PIN authentication for access, are only for legitimate Harvard University users.… [I]mproper use of … those resources may result in … civil and criminal charges.

You can improve the article by adding a {{copyvio}} tag to any other likely copyright violations. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted below, you simply tried to access the article through the Harvard library system. The link now available on the page no longer directs you to the resource from the library. -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Publisher reliability

Here's a ‘cultural norm’ that most Wikipedians are thought to follow when choosing whether to use a particular publication as a source.

Verifiability: What counts as a reliable source (V#SOURCE)
Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources….
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.... Reliable [non-academic] sources include:

• University-level textbooks
  
• Books published by respected publishing houses
  
• Magazines
  
• Journals
  
• Mainstream newspapers

--Dervorguilla (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, sometimes when you post these kinds of very general statements, you fail to explain how you believe they relate to this particular page, and what your general explanation will mean in terms of your editing. Are there specific sources you've found that you want to add, or give extra weight to? Are there specific sources or information you want to remove? Everyone edits while considering the reliability of sources, so this general statement doesn't contribute to any discussion here. -Darouet (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Darouet and I seem to agree that the statement (as given) is a cultural norm and that most Wikipedians follow it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's also not what I wrote. Instead of explaining what you mean, you're pretending as though I somehow agree with you about something, when in fact I have no idea what you're getting at, because you won't explain it. -Darouet (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you not agree with me, Darouet, that the statement as given is a cultural norm? Or that most Wikipedians follow it?
Just trying to understand how we disagree (if at all). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

current state of affairs?

Hey guys,

What is the current tilt in the state of affairs in the article right now? Someone invited me here awhile back for a rfc. Since then I have been following the back and forths. What gives? ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help out, Carrie. Sometimes some things are best left unsaid; this may or may not be one of those times. Anyway, I'd like to try making a few more edits — perhaps the problem won't recur. Meanwhile, how can we encourage other editors to contribute? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 17:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Dervorguill,

Well, I do want to start contributing here at this article more. I have a few editors that seem to be following me around from article. So I was thinking I will start hanging around this article, and try to contribute here more often. Perhaps the wandering editors will come and join in here, and voilà, a whole new set of extra editors, so we can all contribute and improve the article and the encyclopedia as well! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carrie!! A few tips for incoming editors:

Some of the material in the article has been taken from the Ukrainian-language encyclopedia; nothing yet from the Russian.

Known helpful sources: A list of the largest international mainstream print publications is given in the Major publications section above. (The NY Times and LA Times data ought to be discounted for local subscriptions.) We've been finding that we can limit our disputes by omitting blogs, editorials, and op-eds. The largest international news services (wire services) are BBC News, Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France Press, RT TV News, and RIA Novosti. Both RIA Novosti and RT publish an interesting mix of high-quality news and low-quality pro-Russian propaganda, often within a single article. Also, any regional publication that depends primarily on Euro-zone advertising can be presumed to have an apparent financial conflict of interest in at least some matters relating to this organization. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 09:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

I don't know the reason for what's going on here, Carrie. I must, however, note Darouet's comment about "young Ukrainian maidens". He says a Right Sector representative claims that the group made "efforts to protect" the "maidens". He calls this supposed claim a "fascist" fantasy.

A Harvard University staff member and I had a somewhat analogous dispute about his and my "efforts to protect" young Harvard women. The Boston Globe reports that the University ultimately followed my suggestion, embarrassing the staff member. More at my user page. Who knows what this all means (if anything). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Quantitative balancing

The first of the five pillars (WP's fundamental cultural norms):

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.... Wikipedia is not a soapbox.... This applies to ... articles [and] talk page discussions....
Some topics ... may ... tempt people to "climb soapboxes". Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries ... in a reasonable perspective....

The Right Sector article calls the subject group, its constituents, or their acts "Nazi" or "fascist" 29 times.

The Adolf Hitler article calls the subject, his colleagues, or their acts "Nazi" or "fascist" 27 times.

(And the Hitler article is about twice as long.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The terms appear in the article a combined total of 13 times, with many more appearances in the references, which often refer to Right Sector or its constituents as neo-Nazi or fascistic groups. -Darouet (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://muse.jhu.edu.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v025/25.3.shekhovtsov.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dervorguilla (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dervorguilla - from your edit summary here it looks like you're confused about who has access to this content: the link merely means that it was accessed through a Harvard library server, but the article can be read or linked by anyone, especially for the purposes of citation.

As to copyright violation, you haven't made an argument as to why the quote is too long, especially since, presumably, you haven't even read the article. Right now the quote, contained in the reference, amounts to 109 words, which is sufficient to make the authors' points. If you think that's too long, we can shorten the quote, but just take some time to explain why, based on WP:COPYQUOTE.

Lastly, if we didn't provide a quote from the source, that would be no reason to remove the source altogether: many editors don't provide quotes from the sources they cite for the benefit of their readers. Readers are then obliged to look up the references themselves. -Darouet (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the University itself, the particular data or other resources that got removed are "only for legitimate Harvard University users". Some of us aren’t Harvard University users, Darouet. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: The citation and reliable sources policies do not require that sources be freely available, or otherwise accessible online. Sources behind paywalls are routinely used in articles. The fact that the publication being cited by Darouet happens to be behind a university paywall (to call it something) does not mean it cannot be cited, it does not mean that it is the only way to read that material, and it certainly does not mean that there is a copyright violation - a copyvio requires proof that the material in question has been plagiarized, and since you haven't been able to read it, there is no basis for your copyvio claims at all. Please assume good faith always and avoid making unfounded accusations against other editors. With that said, I would recommend amending the citation markup to simply omit the URL, since it is not required at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Darouet and §FreeRangeFrog are correct. I should not have said that the added information was a likely copyright violation. I owe the contributor an apology.

I should have mentioned that because I tried to access the article through the University Library system more than once, my IP address has been recorded. And the University can say that I repeatedly attempted to make "improper use" of data or other resources through its system.

It most likely can't say this about the contributor. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is freely available here; I suggest changing the link in the reference in our article to that one. I've run a Duplicate Detector report and found no evidence of copyright violation. Was this just a misunderstanding, Dervorguilla? Can it now be marked as resolved at WP:CP? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Now marked. Much obliged, ‘Numbers’ JLAN! --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 15:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)