Talk:Svoboda (political party): Difference between revisions

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Ukraine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Political Parties

So Vladimir Zhirinovsky isn't ultra right wing becuse he's Russian but these people are ultra right wing because they don't want to look like Russians? Somebody on Wikipedia is pushing his own racist agenda's Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that looks like a provocation... Do they do more of this kind of actions? And, if so, should it be mentioned in this article? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On site of Crimea organizatione All-Ukrainian Union "Freedom" [1] --Vasyl` Babych (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Batallion Nachtigal was a part of Wermacht, not SS. --149.156.67.237 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Interfax-Ukraine said it was a part of SS, so I was misinformed. Interfax-Ukraine never looked pro-Soviet, pro-Russian or anti-Ukrainian nationalism to me so I assume they where misinformed to, probably by someone who wanted to make Svoboda look bad/evil... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nachtigall was not even under direct command of Wermacht, but rather the German special operations Abwehr headed by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. Interfax tries to stay neutral, however it is a government agency and it does have a soviet mentality. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kyiv Post the party is a member of Euronat^[1], but according to the Euronat website it doesn't have any Ukrainian members... so I assume there not members. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.svoboda.org.ua/dopysy/zmi/010319/ --Vasyl` Babych (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is "Social Nationalism", and how does it differ from National Socialism? --Tavrian 21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Svoboda ideology but here is a good definition of Social Nationalism (a type of nationalism) [2]. Hope that helps. The book also says that the more common term is Civic nationalism. Of course Svoboda may mean something different. Ostap 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. worth mentioning in this or other articles? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they mean 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian), see photo here and the "Red army fans" reaction to it here. What picture of wich statue did the "Red army fans" place on there poster? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do the 3 upright fingers in the logo stand for and (how) is it related to the history of Ukraine? — Mariah-Yulia (talk)

Look to Coat of arms of Ukraine, lol. --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

three fingers is stylized Coat of Arms of Ukraine (and Old Ruthenia 1000 years ago) and also holy buddha-symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.162.43.68 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here + here + here, but I don't have the time now.... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, these are opinion pieces. Kyiv Post is notoriously anti-right and pro-yulia. the icare link obviously has a POV to push...--Львівське (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oleh Tyahnybok run those elections on a Our Ukraine Bloc ticket. But the Ukrainian wikipedia says (without a source!) that the party did run in consistency’s and sd.net says it did not run at all. Anybody good a good source on that?
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 03:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this article have one? Unless you think British National Front is not controversial (if so why?). The “Controversies” thingies should be placed in the rest of the article. Besides since when did wikipedia became the place to read transcriptions of Svoboda Savika Shustera (Freedom of Savik Shuster). And is it so newsworthy what Natalia Vitrenko, Hanna Herman and “Lev Myrymsky the resident of Crimea” (phrasing it that way makes it look like either Crimea has only one inhabitant or he is a significant person there… his party does not get enough votes there to be significant (around 5%)) think about "Svoboda"? I think not.
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 04:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Old version can be read here (in itself it is interesting, but it belongs in a +100 page biography about Oleh Tyahnybok not in wikipedia in this form). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 04:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the section quite good, but maybe poorly named. I think the article has some bias in it, as such, the section was a relief for it. It has a great quote from the leader.Stepanstas (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Umland talks of "political machinations by Party of Regions that tried to split the ukrainophile national vote, and to reduce the vote count of the main opposition group, Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna party by promoting Svoboda". Since unlike the rest of the article he shows no proof I left a According to Umland "political machinations by the Party of Regions that tried to split the ukrainophile national vote, and to reduce the vote count of the main opposition group, Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna party by promoting Svoboda" out of this article. Although in the book "Virtual Politics - Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World" Andrew Wilson proofs this sort of practices have taken place in Ukraine (then towards Our Ukraine and Socialist Party of Ukraine). Any objection to this?
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since now also novelist Andrey Kurkov has also accused the Party of Regions of giving "unofficial support" to Svobada to make there main opponent BYuT weaker I decided to put those accusation into this article since they seem widespread now (Umland and Kurkov do not seem to work together). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A certain user has been adamantly attempting to change the pipe link of the group's ideology of "social nationalism" from going to Left-wing nationalism. Social nationalism is a left-wing nationalist ideology. They are synonymic. This is why the LWN article on the .ru and .ua wiki's is titled 'social-nationalism'. The user who is making the edits is well aware of this, but can't seem to wrap his head around how 'ideology' and 'political position' are two different things (that is, them being a "right wing" party with a 'left wing' position, like it's a paradox). The very fact that "social nationalism" has the word "social" in it, (socialism being the epitome of "left"), should make this dispute a non-starter, but alas, it is now. Any other users want to weigh in?--Львівське (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kyiv Post describes Svoboda as the "right-wing nationalist Svoboda political party".

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency refers to Svoboda as "A right-wing nationalist Ukrainian party" that disturbs Jews.

Going back to 1997-1998, when the party used the name social-nationalist, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism stated that

The Ukrainian Social National Party (USNP) is an extremist, right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism. It has about 2,000 members, mostly youth and young adults, in the areas of western Ukraine. Its registration by the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice in November 1995 was not rescinded even after party members caused riots in 1996 and 1997 (on May 9, Victory Day over the Germans, and November 7, Communist Revolution Day) in Lvov and other cities. Hundreds, mostly communists, were injured in these riots. ([3], emphasis mine)

Of course, "German National Socialism" is another ideological concept that sounds vaguely left-wing but is actually described by most scholars as right-wing, and not labelled "left-wing nationalist."

Since these are reliable sources (WP:RS), we need to rely on them - and not on editors' judgment about what "social-nationalist" means. To do so would be WP:OR.

Actually, what you're doing is OR. You are coming to your own conclusions on their social-nationalist program based on out of context quotes from sources.--Львівське (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you are doing OR on the basis of the name that they used. The fact that it was called the "Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine" is not evidence of it being ideologically left-wing. If the party is introduced as "right-wing nationalist" in the Kyiv Post (no comma between right-wing and nationalist), it is "right-wing nationalist" rather than "left-wing nationalist" per WP:RS. You do need equivalent or better secondary sources (or indisputable primary ones) showing the published description of this party as "right-wing nationalist" to be out of context - and not assertions of your own. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Sboboda is "right-wing nationalist", how can its ideology become a "left-wing nationalism" on Wikipedia?

Whatever assumptions about "social-nationalist" you may regard as true, there apparently is no evidence that the party either self-describes as "left-wing" or is actually described that way by any sources. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're confusing 'ideology' and 'political position'. The latter defines what part of the political spectrum they lean towards, the former is, well, their program.They are two separate words and that is why right-wing and nationalist pipe link to different articles, respectively. They are a right-wing party. They are a nationalist party. What kind of nationalism? Social nationalism, a form of left-wing nationalism. There is no contradiction going on here.--Львівське (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am confusing ideology and political position. (You are linking "Social-Nationalism" to left-wing nationalism in the ideology section of the infobox; I am linking to Ukrainian nationalism.) And I don't mind linking to left-wing nationalism in pinciple, but to be a left-wing nationalist party, a party must share left-wing views. To be a right-wing party, a party must share right-wing views. If sources describe the party as "right-wing nationalist," what is the problem?

In western Ukraine, in particular, but by no means limited to this region, a plethora of right-wing nationalist groups, such as the Social Nationalist Party, the Ukrainian Nationalist League, and other self proclaimed successsors to the OUN, more and more frequently insist on a hard-line nationalist policy toward Russia. . . . (Prizel, Ilya. (1994). "The influence of ethnicity on foreign policy: the case of Ukraine". In Sporzluk, Roman (ed.), National identity and ethnicity in Russia and the new states of Eurasia (Volume 2 of The International Politics of Eurasia). p. 121. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Emphasis mine.)

You may hold that the party is left-wing - for humor's sake, you may even be right. But Wikipedia is written based on what the sources tell us, not what we "know is true". Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if you reading these RS's verbatim and out of context, then what good are sources? You're reading right-wing as an adjective to nationalist, when in the LWN case its all part of a single proper noun. You say yourself that "to be a left wing nationalist party, they must share left wing views", well, by that definition the social in social-nationalism should be sticking out as what makes it politically leftist. Though they advocate social welfare, that doesn't make them a LW party, because 9/10 other things the stand for are all still RW. One LW stance on economics doesn't make them a centrist party or anything like that.--Львівське (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If sources -- the Kyiv Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Ilya Prizel (1994), how are they supposed to be read? Figuratively? Political labels don't mean as much as you believe - the Italian Social Republic was a fascist state, the Spanish Republican Social Movement is a neo-fascist group, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is not held up as either liberal or democratic, etc. You claim that Svoboda advocates social welfare, but then write that "that doesn't make them a LW party, because 9/10 other things the stand for are all still RW. One LW stance on economics doesn't make them a centrist party or anything like that." Well, that sure begs the question: if they are a right-wing party - "one LW stance on economics doesn't make them a centrist party or anything like that" - what makes them a "left-wing nationalist" party at the same time? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, this wasn't too hard to dig up, just had to read the sub-section on LWN on the Nationalism wiki article, but: "Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)"

And here are some snippets from the journal article cited in that sentence:

• "‘socialist nationalism’ is here used to mean the socialist development of a democratic or radical nationalism whose origins go back to the French Revolution."
• "This latter type of nationalism, a nationalism of the right, defined the nation in quite different terms, and envisaged its unity and security as depending on the overthrow of the democratic regime and its replacement by an authoritarian system."
• "nationalism of the left with the following features. The nation is defined as a democratic community [with] its own distinguishing characteristics: a particular history, language, and culture. This particular history involves a common past of resistance to oppression and tyranny, whether internal or external to the nation. In this perspective, the nation is the context within which all citizens can participate in exercising their democratic rights and in that way shape their own destiny."
• "Right-wing nationalism defines the nation in terms of mystical non-rational or irrational concepts, such as that of race, or blood, or what Barres called ‘la terre et les morts’, the soil and the dead"

So what defines LWN from RWN is the Left is based on democracy, (socialism), and nation (ethnicity; history, language, culture). The Right is authoritarian and racialist. Svoboda is very much the former. In regards to their democratic stance, in case you were in doubt, #29: "Require the widest direct democracy in local communities - referendum, plebiscite, general meetings and so on. Hold local referendums on vital issues. Provide a mechanism for communities to veto decisions of local governments" I hope this helps --Львівське (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument, then, is based on the left-wing nationalism article on Wikipedia (not a reliable source), your interpretation of it in this instance (WP:OR), and your application of it to this article (WP:SYNTHESIS). That cannot work. Left-wing nationalism may have a tendency to call for democratic principles, but there is no reason to suppose that right-wing ideologies and right-wing nationalists cannot employ the rhetoric of democratic values as well. Your difficulty of interpretation is compounded by the fact that the labels used by parties like Svoboda don't always correspond to the actual substance of the ideology -- and this is pointed out in the secondary sources that discuss the Svoboda party. In this case, Andreas Umland observes that

But, it would also be difficult for national democratic groups to move from the current informal cooperation with "Svoboda" at public events or in television debates to an official alliance. The programmes of the nationalists and the national democrats do have points of contact on issues of national historiography, pro-Europeanism or anti-Putinism. What is more, Yanukovych’s recent attempts to change the Ukrainian political system have brought the interests of all nationally oriented parties closer together. The battle to preserve their organizations as significant public actors, and to protect the independence of Ukraine on the international stage, may lead to further rapprochement between the "Orange" parties and Svoboda.

But outside this context, the fundamental mindset, political ideas and future vision of Ukraine among liberal national democrats on the one hand, and ethnic nationalists on the other, have little in common. This becomes clear already from reading Svoboda’s programme. And, it should be noted that, typically for parties of this kind, official documents only partially reflect the real party ideology. They are written to comply with the political correctness of their countries, and thus are more moderate (often considerably so) than the actual, internally discussed agenda of the given organization.

. . . Tyahnybok’s party is a member of the so-called Alliance of European National Movements (AENM), which includes the French right-wing extremist Front national led by Le Pen and the Italian neo-fascist party "Fiamma Tricolore" led by Romagnoli.

Svoboda’s membership of this pan-European alliance is a good illustration of the type of nationalism represented by Tyahnybok’s movement. The AENM is not an association of parties like the Austrian Freedom Party, which could be classified as right-wing populist. Besides "Svoboda," the Front national and Fiamma Tricolore, the AENM comprises several extremely nationalist parties. These groups are even more xenophobic than the neo-populist right-wing parties that have become widespread in Europe recently. AENM members include the British National Party, the Belgian National Front, the Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik), the Portuguese National Renovator Party, and also the Spanish Republican Social Movement. These parties occupy the far right-wing niche in the political spectra of their countries, and exist in greater or lesser isolation from the political mainstream. (Umland, Andreas (5 January 2011). "Ukraine's Party System in Transition? The Rise of the Radically Right-Wing All-Ukrainian Association 'Svoboda'". Geopolitka Centre for Geopolitical Studies. Emphasis mine.)

And that's coherent with the way we are expected to write our articles according to policy - not based on Svoboda itself, but based on what the journalists and scholars say about it. That is made clear in WP:SECONDARY - and I will quote it to make it clear what it states in an explicit manner:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
(Emphasis mine)

If you still think that "left-wing nationalist" is an appropriate way to categorize Svoboda, you need to find secondary sources to support your view. I have provided various secondary sources which assert the opposite. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands you are debating the following quote, which is cited from an academic journal, that LWN is"occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism"^[1].To that end none of your sources apply here. If you can find a source stating that Svoboda does not adhere to Left-wing Nationalism or that Social Nationalism, their ideology, is not a form of LWN, then you may have something. Outside of that you have not once provided a legitimate source that pertains to this discussion, just out of context quotes that synthetically combine their position, "right wing", and their main platform, "nationalism". Your combination of these two into a single entity is a form of WP:SYN and I kindly ask that you read the source material and understand the topics and material you are arguing before continuing. --Львівське (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to quote an academic journal article, you have the burden of at least identifying its title and author, and providing a convenience link if available. (I don't see any such journal on the left-wing nationalism article.) It also should be clear that the claims made theirein need to be relevant here - are we talking about "socialist nationalism" as applied to left-wing Marxist groups, or are we talking about a right-wing social-nationalist party (Svoboda)? We aren't discusssing left-wing nationalism in general; we are discussing the ideology of Svoboda, which is discussed as "right-wing" and "right-wing nationalist", but not "left-wing" and not "left-wing nationalist". Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link is in the ref tag, and if you bothered to even read the Nationalism article you would see it there too, in the first sentence. The ideology of Svoboda is "Social-Nationalism" and I have provided proof after proof that Social-Nationalism is synonymic to Left-wing nationalism. Your argument, however, is that what their ideology is doesn't matter, because they are generally a right-wing party, and thus you are inferring through some of your own original conclusions that there is a contradiction between them being right-wing and social-nationalist. Your entire argument is based on your own synthesis of separate topics.--Львівське (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any link in the ref tag you posted, because there is no references section to go with that ref. The first ref in the Nationalism article is National Identity, apparently an unrelated book by Anthony D. Smith that you would need to give some page numbers for. The source for "Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)" is a 1987 journal article, not available in full, apparently discussing nationalism among supporters of socialism (see the abstract). It does not discuss the Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine, which formed years after its publication and is described as a rightist group. You are appealing to an unrelated source that employs similar terminology in order to avoid the various aforementioned sources that directly deal with Svoboda's right-wing nationalist politics. In fact, the Stephen Roth link I provided earlier states that Svoboda is a "right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism" - please try to be alert to the unsubtle contradiction. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to discuss Svoboda, it discusses Social-nationalism and says it is synonymic with LWN. End of story. And it's available to me and I can confirm the contents of said article.--Львівське (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some background info that might help this discussion: a Ukrainian party containing different political groups with diverging ideological outlooks is quite normal in Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some recent "developments" around and possible involving Svoboda:

• Lviv nationalists clash with police
• Ukrainian nationalist protests anger Moscow (I don't see any Svoboda-flags in this video)
• Regions Party calls Svoboda a 'fascist organization,' demands it be banned

Should these be mentioned in this article, or are the to newsy? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 11:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "left" because it is clear the original investigation and simply illogical. Let's start from the beginning.

• 1 A party sometime in the authoritative sources dates itself to the left? No
• 2 Authoritative sources attributed the party's left? None.
• 3. The party contacts with the leftist nationalists, such as the Basques or the Irish? No
• 4. The Left Party will hold what we videm in Lviv? None.
• 5. The provisions in the program like a "superpeople" and so it is left edeology ? No
• 6. By the way, most parties of the left nationalism are on the left blocks, and international. Liberty is in them? No

I'm not right and not left, and I do not care about the account policy. But I do not understand why committed without au and any justification we need to keep the article clearly incorrect conclusion? Mistery Spectre (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit a joke? Atleast give a source for this info... A communist Ukrainian parliament outlawing a communist party in 1989? Did they even had the autority to do that? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was done after the August putsch. There was a special parliamentary commission that investigated that issue. Among the commission members was Bohatyryova. Later the Constitution Court of Ukraine overturned the parliamentary commission conclusion as unconstitutional. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of quotation marks in URL prevents certain websites to reference this article as a source. For example, Facebook replaces this URL with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ukrainian_Union_%22Svoboda%22. It is almost ironic that Chrome resolves the problem by serving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Ukrainian_Union, which is the page of Tymoshenko's party. Is it possible to drop the quotation marks?

I wrote in the lead "The paramilitary organization Ukraine’s Patriot is associated with Svoboda" based on my explanation of a reliable source. Although the source is not very clear on how this Ukraine’s Patriot is connected with Svoboda. Is it so loosely connected with it it should not be mentioned in the lead? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikipeia's claim this organization broke ties with them in 2005 (although no sources used there...); There website holds no reference with Svoboda.... Hence I am removing the sentence from the lead... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Patriot Ukrainy made a statement staying it was severing absolutely any contact with Svoboda here: http://www.una-unso.info/articlePrint/id-2/subid-9/artid-1051/lang-ukr/index.html. And in spring/summer they attacked Svoboda members giving leaflets in Kharkiv http://www.svoboda.org.ua/diyalnist/novyny/022990/, http://newzz.in.ua/newzz/1148868398-u-xarkovi-pobili-aktivistiv-svobodi.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljudyna (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has complained about the sentence currently in the article "In 2005 the party founded the Internet ‘Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre’ (the centre was later renamed after Ernst Jünger)." I am thinking it could have been a blog from a member (or something), thus that the Polish historian made a mistake, but a reference is needed to remove or change referenced information. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What reference is needed? Some unknown author can write that Svoboda receives money from aliens from mars, and it's credible enough to enter? Or, at least edit what you originally wrote and say that "it is claimed that the party created...", because, if you've noticed, the author doesn't give any source in his article, either. I'm saying that in English a center implies an orginization and where is any information about it? It was a blog with that name which is very different. Also, here, the member denies having control over that blog: http://ukr.obozrevatel.com/news/nimetskij-rezhiser-hoche-znyati-film-pro-koruptsiyu-na-ukrainsko-polskomu-kordoni.htm. Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

After some Googling I found out that the centre seems nothing more then this livejournal account.... That indeed seems not party afiliated, hence I removing this "centre" from the article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd start up a talk. The line in the lede, "Svoboda is a member of the Alliance of European National Movements (AENM), along with the Italian neo-fascist party Fiamma Tricolore and the prominent French far-right party Front National.[7]" which is taken from Umland's op-ed piece just seems POV'ish and slanted. I think it would be sufficient to say they are a member of the AENM. Why cherry pick what other members are in the group? If there is no connection between them and Svoboda, why is it in the lede? Umland includes these groups because he is trying to make a point in his piece and make connections between Svoboda and other rightist or fascist movements. In the lede, it should just be giving the straight goods, not making WP:SYN observations. Just because Umland makes an observation doesn't mean it would be encyclopedic to do the same. Why not include Jobbik in the lede? The BNP? NF?--Львівське (говорити) 22:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good point in the recent edit, but what should (if any parties are mentioned) define those parties? Should it not be something related to Svoboda, like nationalism? Why mention fascism or any other ideology? Why not call them eurosceptics? Why the countries, is Ukraine related to France and Italy? I'm just not seeing the connections unless the point is to just name-drop controversial parties and push the reader to draw conclusions.--Львівське (говорити) 23:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Львівське here; besides people can click on Alliance of European National Movements and found out there what kind of "partners" Svoboda has. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being objective, Yulia Romero. By the way, maybe it isn't necessary to enter, but if you wanted to see if Svoboda is growing in the east, here is an example of a source http://www.svoboda.org.ua/diyalnist/novyny/020439/. They got almost 10% in Kharkiv and in Donetsk are around 3% now (from 0.19%), which is an increase of almost 16 times. Five years ago in western Ukraine they didn't even have 3%, nevermind 10%.

Also, well said, Львівське.Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Don't now how related this is, but Patriot Ukraine (the radical splinter from Svoboda) is located in Kharkiv, and the NSBM scene in Ukraine is almost entirely in the east...which really bucks the trend of the west being the nationalist center.--Львівське (говорити) 23:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting observation, Львівське. And to go even further, almost all of the most influential Ukrainian nationalists in history are from the east (Donstov, Stsiborsky, Mikhnovsky, Shevchenko, etc). Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I actuality don't see Kharkiv as being in Eastern Ukraine (I see it as being in Northern Ukraine...) When people mention "Eastern Ukraine" I usually only think of the Donbass... where they get 3%. I think that caused for your/a little confusion... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it strikes me that there is an awful lot of PoV in this article, which is interfering with its reliability. Does anyone know any good third-party sources on Svoboda? Ones with no affiliation with the party or its opponents? I know a subject like this is likely to divide opinion, but we must all try to be objective. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend sticking to journal articles. Not a lot to work with, though. I think the secondary sources should be kept to a minimum, ie, "critics say" and just keep it brief; not rely heavily on op-ed and slanted pieces to form major parts of the article - by either side. This page needs a lot of work. Ugh.--Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The problem is that a lot of the article is taken from English language reports of people who are not as neutral as one thinks. The greatest source of information in this article is from the Kyiv post, which is owned by certain individuals abroad who are inheritantly against anything Christian, Ukrainian, or in general against any form of European culture. Because of that, that paper is institutionally hostile to Svoboda, yet the article here was practically written by them. The best place to find actual information is Svoboda's site, and to avoid possible bias, simply say what it is they support (i.e. returning nuclear weapons), without stating what they actually say about that (i.e. if they say it's good to have nuclear weapons). --Ljudyna (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Ljudyna[reply]

I find the Kyiv Post to be a great source and very impartial. I've yet to see them go hard ton Svoboda. They mostly support Tymoshchenko Bloc and will commonly syndicate pieces by prominent Ukrainian diaspora scholars.--Львівське (говорити) 01:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get some sort of consensus going on whether naming unrelated parties is WP:UNDUE weight? I think its like 3-0 right now --Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove--Львівське (говорити) 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unrelated name dropping, scurrilous accusations, etc., etc. etc. This is not a political commentary article to assign guilt or innocence by association. Also, to suggest the the KIEV POST ownership is, based on the owner's name, "inheritantly [sic.] against anything Christian, Ukrainian, or in general against any form of European culture" should be retracted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that memberships in "other groups" are often used to both promote and attack reputability by association. Let's not indulge in that sort of "journalism" here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Beta Press is not known for accurate or impartial reporting. Let's not use them to portray individuals as pedophiles in the future. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a number of high-quality reliable sources, written by independent scholars, which classify Svoboda as a far-right party. There is consensus among political scientists who publish on Svoboda to consider it far-right. How can you claim that this were the POV of Svoboda's political opponents only? Independent scholars from different countries are by no means Svoboda's political opponents. --RJFF (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While they definitely were far-right at one point, this isn't necessarily the case today. What sources describe them as, is ultimately, a subjective descriptor. Sources describe them as both right-wing and far-right, they also describe them in a number of other terms that don't necessarily belong in the lede sentence. 'Right-wing' should be sufficient enough, and the 'far-right' label should be present in proper context - as the party itself does not self-identify as being at an extreme point of the political spectrum, nor is it unanimous. Furthermore, from what I've seen from other top articles on political parties, their position in the political spectrum is hardly ever placed in the first sentence, if at all.--Львівське (говорити) 05:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All reliable, scholarly sources I found classify Svoboda as far-right. Maybe my research was not thorough enough. You are invited to do your own research and present sources of the same quality level that dispute the placement of Svoboda on the far right. But as long as the sources that are currently cited in the article stand undisputed, it is unacceptable to remove the far-right tag and replace it by mere 'right-wing'. The sources are (as far as I know) all by reputable political scientists, published in expert journals or academic presses and they are all very current (late 2010, 2011 or 2012), so you can neither claim that they were subjective or out-of-date. --RJFF (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are also described as "fascist", "neo-fascist", and having rhetoric that "borders on fascist". If you feel that "far-right" should be deleted and replaced by "fascist" or "neo-fascist" that would be OK. Other words that describe them are "anti-semitic" and "homophobic".--Toddy1 (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't a fascist or neo-fascist party, though. Putting that in the lede sentence would be a blatant POV violation. --Львівське (говорити) 18:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All this nonsense about them not being Fascists is part of a public relations push by the party. New York Times, Ukraine’s Ultranationalists Show Surprising Strength at Polls by David M. Herszenhorn, 8 November 2012.

• Neo-fascist Bloomberg, Don’t Isolate Ukraine, and Watch Those Neo-Fascists, by Tim Judah 30 October 2012
• Neo-Nazi Israelnationalnews.com, Clinton Indirectly Legitimizing Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Party?, 6 November 2012
• "Neo-fascist" "tradition of West Ukrainian Nazi collaborators", ocnus.net, Fatherland and Freedom, 2 November 2012.

--Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, those second two sources are incredibly biased. Any author who dives head first into the whole "UPA were nazi collaborators" has an uneducated angle to push. The Bloomberg link is an op-ed piece (I'm assuming by a Jew?) and doesn't qualify as a RS. The Israelnational link is sensationalist schlock. You're missing hte point though: just because some journalist describes them as "far right" (or other nonsense descriptions) doesn't mean it belongs in the first sentence of the lede. I'm sure there are enough articles about far-right or religious right elements in the Republican party, but the wiki article doesn't start off "The GOP is a radical religious right party in the USA", that'd be ridiculous. --Львівське (говорити) 19:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RJFF: why are you continually changing the edits that say they are described as far-right to just say outright that they are outright 'far right'? Keep it neutral. Notice how neither the National Front or BNP articles mention far-right, or outright political alignment as a fact anywhere in their leads? Spectrum position is very subjective, don't treat it as fact when it's just opinion.--Львівське (говорити) 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to go out on a limb here based on google results, but [svoboda "right wing" -radical -far] yields 1.6 million results, whereas [svoboda + "far right"] yeilds only 230 thousands. Svoboda is by a wide margin spoken of as simply right wing without the radical far right diatribe being mentioned. A 10:1 ratio also exists when searching books. --Львівське (говорити) 18:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not surprising - some people have Svoboda as their family name. They show up quite a bit in Google searches.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone who's name is Svoboda also match for "right wing"?--Львівське (говорити) 19:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this problem a number of times when I searched on the word together with adjectives. It makes it difficult to do these counts. I do not know what proportion of results are due to these false positives. It seems to vary a lot - probably because of Google's cookies. This of course means that one search can have a high proportion of true results and another have a lower proportion. Also with Google searches you have to go to the page of last results - if you do this suddenly the number drops by a huge amount. Here are some examples of false positive - the first two have "right wing" the third has "fascist".

• Jaroslav Svoboda[9]
• Cyril Svoboda[10]
• Terese Svoboda[11]

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, damn hockey players.--Львівське (говорити) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the sentence being revv'd is "It is positioned on the right of the Ukrainian political spectrum, and has often been noted for its alignment with the far-right". Please explain what is wrong with this? IMO this is as neutral as it gets, whereas stating they are flat-out "a far right group" is a matter of opinion stated as fact. I think that stating they are on the right of the political spectrum, and then saying that it's backed up that they lean towards the far-right, should be something that is entirely agreeable here.--Львівське (говорити) 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources don't say "It is positioned on the right of the Ukrainian political spectrum, and has often been noted for its alignment with the far-right", but "It is a far-right party". Your formulation is WP:Weasely and not supported by WP:Reliable sources. --RJFF (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My position is neutral, as those sources subjectively describe it as far-right. Since political alignment isn't an exact science, it is nothing more than personal opinion of those sources to the best of their understanding. Personally, I see how they are far right from a western point of view, but in Ukrainian politics they aren't far right - that's for Patriot Ukraine & UNA-UNSO. Also, stating they are on the right is the most neutral and universally accepted way of putting it, because 'far right' is still on the right half of things.--Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it's about as neutral as it gets. They are on the right, and referred to as far-right by some academics and media sources. Other sources just refer to them as 'right', so to pick one as an absolute would indicate a non neutral way of looking at things. Also, why are you accusing me of COI here? That's like saying a Yankees fan can't work on Yankees articles, or half of Americans can't work on articles relating to the Democrats or Republicans. It's a silly assertion.--Львівське (говорити) 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the response I got from asking on the MOS:"If there is a reliable, and ideally unbiased, source that defines the party as far right, then you should be able to include this descriptor in the lead, as long as it is clear that it is the source's description of the party, not Wikipedia's." As it stands, the article combines some neutral with some biased sources to come to a conclusion, and fails to make clear that it is the source's description.--Львівське (говорити) 07:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to change the current wording or anything, but just thought I'd point out that with the rise of Right Sector and other extremist groups, it seems that the general opinion is that Svoboda is on the moderate right wing now, while these groups represent the actual far right in Ukraine's political spectrum. Now, that's not to say that Svoboda isn't 'far right' in the context of European or western politics, but just within Ukraine itself, it's seeming the evidence over the last year and the wording used in media and interviews is that they are just nationalist and right-wing. Just food for thought, I haven't started aggressively collecting sources yet to back this up (though some in the article already speak of this moderate shift and split with the extremist groups) --Львівське (говорити) 22:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Globe: "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"
  • "supporters of the more mainstream right-wing Ukrainian-nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party"

The current info in this Wikipedia article about Igor Miroshnichenko Vs. Mila Kunis is too long in my opinion. I would prefer to bold it all down in the sentence: In December 2012 a controversy arose when Svoboda deputy leader and member of parliament Ihor Miroshnychenko called Mila Kunis, a American actress of Ukrainian descent, ”not Ukrainian but a zhydovka” and placing the rest of the information in a footnote in the article. Now it looks like an MP talking about an Hollywood star is one of the most important things this party has ever done.... Seems to me that that is not so... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit misses an important point. They know that they are using words that at least half of the population find offensive. They have said that they are going to carry on using them.

In another language. He wasn't speaking Russian, nor was he addressing Russian speakers.--Львівське (говорити) 20:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the issue of wikilinks to other language Wikipedias - well it gives readers some ability to know who these people are, as opposed to no ability at all.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you find more noticeable "They know that they are using words that at least half of the population find offensive. They have said that they are going to carry on using them." then "What an MP says about an Hollywood star" rewrite the part entirely please. Now (to me) it just looks like Wikipedia is becoming TMZ on TV. I am an editor against "Wikirazzi" — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph has to be neutral point of view - not just cherry picking points normal people may like. That is why it needs to explain. As it happens, the Svoboda Party spokesman has a point that those who speak up against this are Jews, so that has to be mentioned too as part of balance.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about: In December 2012 a controversy arose when Svoboda deputy leader and member of parliament Ihor Miroshnychenko called Mila Kunis, a American actress of Ukrainian descent, ”not Ukrainian but a zhydovka”. Svoboda has repeatedly stated that it will not stop using such words, which it says are legitimate Ukrainian parlance.

I thought I had once read on Wikipedia linking to other Wikipedia's is discouraged.... But maybe I understood that wrong... Better link to this (+ the Ukrainian Wiki article is a TMZ on TV for now...) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no relevance "in that those who speak up against this are Jews". Besides this could all be explained in a long footnote. Now we have 1 incident who takes up 25% of the space of the section "Xenophobia". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote I want is: Igor Miroshnichenko, Svoboda deputy leader and member of parliament, on December 19, 2012 drew criticism from Jewish organisations for calling American actress Mila Kunis, who was born in the Ukrainian SSR, ”not Ukrainian but a zhydovka,”[56] which they contended was a slur.[57] Svoboda has repeatedly stated that it will not stop using such words, which it says are legitimate Ukrainian parlance.[56] Professor Alexander Ponomarev stated that in the Ukrainian language the word does not have the anti-semitic connotations that it always does in the Russian language.[58] The Ukrainian Ministry of Justice has declared that Miroshnichenko's use of the word was legal because it is an archaic term for Jew, and not necessarily a slur. + sources as in Reference number 2 in the Wikipedia article about Mila Kunis. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is such a joke of an event to take up so much space. One guy posts something completely inoffensive on Facebook, some "kiev jews" website picks up on it and criticizes it, and now it's in israeli press and we're talking about anti-semitism and all sorts of other nonsense? Surely this might fall under a rule about wikipedia not being a newspaper. While it received press attention by those looking to exploit the anti-semitism media machine, its relevance is overblown.--Львівське (говорити) 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today and on 1 January information on what political opponents of this party think about it was removed because RJFF and I believed that "what the political opponents of this party think about it, does not belong in the introductory section". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct.--Львівське (говорити) 20:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The party has to be described from a neutral point of view, especially in the lead section which should be a concise summary, not going to much into details. The view of the party's opponents might be outlined and explained somewhere else in the article, but certainly not in the first, introductory, paragraphs. --RJFF (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as is the lead section of (could be seen as Svoboda's UK-counterpart) the Wiki article on British National Party. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the above sentence from the article just now per Wikipedia:Recentism. This new parliament is not even 1 month in session, it is too early to say they are cooperating in it. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read quite a few times that they intend to act as a coalition, shouldn't sources from both sides talking a bout this be sufficient? It's not a matter of trends (and reporting early) but official alliances.--Львівське (говорити) 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i readded it since upon further looking, they signed an actual agreement, so they absolutely are cooperating, officially.--Львівське (говорити) 23:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had overlooked this agreement... And you are right this belongs in the article (this agreement)... But not in the lead.... Please do not stuff the lead with details Lvivske... The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. This agreement is not one of the most important things in the history of Svoboda... (especially since we don't know yet if it will last...) I moved and rewrote it a bid. And I prefer to not put a qualification of Batkivshchyna in any other article then Batkivshchyna to prevent content forking and since it does not seem to be very relevant... in the past Batkivshchyna was in a coalition with the Socialist Party of Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the agreement might be better in the body. I think the reasoning behind my insertion was that there's this push by some editors to paint them as a "radical extreme right-wing" party, without any substance, but them being in an official coalition with a democratic center-right major party kind of shows the bigger picture in regards to their position/alignment.--Львівське (говорити) 23:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the parties reference to being "Anti-corruption" because it is not really neutral enough to put it like this in the lead (+ going to much into details...); all Ukrainian parties claim to be anti-corruption. It is not a unique quality of them and if they made no significant "victories" in "fighting corruption" it does not belong in the lead since this party is not widely known for its "victories" in "fighting corruption". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Quotation marks where used because terms are synonyms. It is not a comment on anything! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is neutral and fine, and used throughout the article so I'm not sure what you're driving at. I agree that many Ukrainian political parties are anti-corruption, but I don't see why that should be a basis for exclusion. They are a major opposition party; it's not like the POR or CPU are vocally anti-corruption. The list itself (anti-communism, anti-corruption, and pro-ukrainian) isn't exactly in need of trimming for brevity.--Львівське (говорити) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the point to the current "Conflict of interest"-template since Lvivske is open for criticism and (at least my own) does not object to other editors balancing his edits. But the template says Please discuss further on the talk page. That is here and not at User_talk:Toddy1#COI... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why this "conflict of interest" smear is going on against me. It appears to be completely fabricated and based on the fact that I "like" them. Me "liking" them doesn't mean I have an interest or stake in their representation. I have no dog in this race, so to speak.--Львівське (говорити) 23:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did Svoboda itself denied it was expelled from AENM I also could find no conformation of that story on Ukrayinska Pravda and let alone on an English lingua franca website. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need an official hoax confirmation from a news source like polemika.ua for removal. Svoboda naturally would deny it.--Galassi (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need confirmation from credible sources (AENM itself) before putting anything in the article. Until then it's only original research and retelling of rumors. Refrain from putting such unconfirmed information in the future. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.159.10 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the AENM isn't important enough to have an official website.--Львівське (говорити) 18:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the lede and it was put back. Is there a reason this is relevant to the intro? The AENM seems like a ragtag grouping of political parties, not all that relevant on any scale. If their coalition with Fatherland was removed (relevant to Ukrainian politics), why is this still there? (since it's irrelevant to European politics)--Львівське (говорити) 07:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This type of info is already in the infobox very close to the lead. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SPECULATION: Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. But on the other hand some good arguments that about the expulsion are given at: Talk:Alliance of European National Movements. It seems that they try to get rid of Svoboda Ministry of Truth-style. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed "Svoboda" was not expelled from Alliance of European National Movements... because it was never a member but an observer. A 24-01-2013 statement of the Alliance, the text of which has BBC Ukraine says they will remain them observers status. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many more reliable, academic sources do you need to accept that this is the generally accepted classification of the party, that this is academic consensus? To comply with WP:NPOV, articles have to take into account all views that are represented in reliable sources. They don't have to take into account the view of the party itself and its supporters. If you would present reliable sources (by this I mean academic studies or books) that deny that Svoboda is far-right or that their nationalism is radical, I would agree to change the wording. But, at the moment, I can only see four different reliable sources by reputable political scientists, experts for Ukrainian politics (Shekhovtsov, Kuzio, Bojcun) or at least Eastern European politics (Rudling), all placing the party on the far-right. Their studies are all pretty up to date (late 2010 to 2012). There aren't any newer studies. On the other hand, I haven't seen a single source disputing this classification. Therefore, I have to ask you to please accept this academic consensus and stop trying to diminish the validity of these statements. --RJFF (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one person saying "radical" is not consensus, neither is 2-3 dated sources saying "far right" or "extreme". Consensus is "right wing" since it's broad and generally overlapping among all sources. On the other hand, cherry picking politically loaded terms don't belong in the lede anyway as per wikipedia policy, especially if they are coming from biased or slanted sources; and your refusal to attribute the sources in question and present their subjective opinions as widespread common-knowledge fact is pretty shifty.--Львівське (говорити) 23:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this question on the MOS and this is what was said:

"If there is a reliable, and ideally unbiased, source that defines the party as far right or whatever, then you should be able to include this descriptor in the lead, as long as it is clear that it is the source's description of the party, not Wikipedia's. Of course if there are multiple sources and there is no doubt as to the political stance (as would be the case with the Nazi Party for example) then you needn't be so careful."--Львівське (говорити) 06:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the GOP article as an example of neutrality. Note, no mention of "political spectrum" is mentioned, and it's alignment is spoken of in neutral generalities - not absolutes:--Львівське (говорити) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:::"The Republican Party (also called the GOP, or "Grand Old Party") is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, it dominated politics nationally for most of the period from 1860 to 1932. There have been 18 Republican presidents, the first being Abraham Lincoln, serving from 1861-1865, and the most recent being George W. Bush, serving from 2001-2009. Currently the party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the U.S. political spectrum."

There is no serious, academic source that would claim that the GOP as a whole is a far-right party. There are several academic studies (all of the recent studies dealing with Svoboda that I could find) that consider Svoboda far-right. If you would cite a single scholarly source that supports a different view, to show that the sources that I cited do not represent the whole academic community, I might think differently. But if all of the available sources dealing with Svoboda agree that it is far-right, I see no reason why the text should somehow disassociate from this classification, as Wikipedia articles are always to be based on third-party, reliable sources. --RJFF (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not far right, just right-wing; and a google search will yeild a million hits for "right wing" and "conservative right" with regard to the GOP - yet it's not something that's in their lede.--Львівське (говорити) 21:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW,, Alexander J. Motyl, who is an authority on this stuff, simply refers to them as "right-wing". I searched his other articles and he only refers to them as "right wing" several times, "right wing nationalist" once, "anti-Russian", and on one occasion he called them 'radical' but qualified it by saying they are no more radical than other political parties in Ukraine.

^{Most people would point to the right-wing Svoboda party under the leadership of the charismatic demagogue, Oleh Tyahnybok. And they’d be right. Svoboda (or, ironically, “Freedom”) is xenophobic, radical, and anti-democratic: the three defining features of extremism. But they’d be only partly right. No less xenophobic, no less radical, and no less anti-democratic are two other political groups—the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Party of Regions.} --Львівське (говорити) 00:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add further to presenting information from a neutral point of view, look at the North Korea article. It doesn't start off with "North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship", but rather, the subjective labeling comes later in the intro section, in the format of "North Korea has been described as a totalitarian, Stalinist dictatorship[12][13][21][22][23]", which is similar to how I presented the far-right labeling - it's something that has been attributed to them, not something that is categorically 100% correct. Even in the NK example, where we know they absolutely are those things, the neutral way of presenting objective material is the aforementioned style. --Львівське (говорити) 03:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevanci just deleted the wikitable shown below this sentence; probably rightly so because of no references and since Wikipedia is not an almanac; not to let it go to oblivion (it was well crafted) I decided to copy it to this talkpage. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that it is not as relevant. No other parties have such detail and there is no record of previous results of elections. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Republic, region, city, state value	Flag	Place taken in the region	Votes «support» on partyUkrainian parliamentary election, 2006	% Votes «support»	Place taken in the region	Votes «support» party, on Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007	% votes «support»	Place taken in the region	Votes «support» in 2010Ukrainian Presidential elections for Oleh Tyahnybok	% Votes «support»
Autonomous Republic of Crimea		34	532	0.05%	16	827	0.09%	11	2528	0.25%
Vinnytsia Oblast		23	1374	0.14%	8	4120	0.47%	9	11401	1.26%
Volyn Oblast		15	3347	0.55%	7	8215	1.45%	7	19472	3.31%
Dnipropetrovsk Oblast		31	1853	0.10%	11	4471	0.27%	9	11657	0.63
Donetsk Oblast		34	835	0.03%	13	2123	0.08%	10	4706	0.19%
Zhytomyr Oblast		28	942	0.13%	9	2566	0.39%	8	6863	0.99%
Zakarpattia Oblast		32	1027	0.17%	7	2670	0.54%	11	5527	1.02%
Zaporizhia Oblast		33	609	0.06%	12	1968	0.21%	10	4870	0.48%
Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast		7	10266	1.28%	3	26792	3.41%	5	38346	4.95%
Kiev Oblast		20	1904	0.19%	7	6146	0.67%	8	14783	1.56%
Kirovohrad Oblast		27	728	0.13%	11	1207	0.25%	9	3959	0.77%
Luhansk Oblast		33	429	0.03%	15	798	0.06%	10	2810	0.21%
Lviv Oblast		6	33829	2.23%	4	45681	3.06%	5	79011	5.35%
Mykolaiv Oblast		29	702	0.11%	11	1137	0.20%	9	3783	0.62%
Odessa Oblast		28	1338	0.12%	13	1771	0.17%	9	6119	0.52%
Poltava Oblast		25	1339	0.15%	10	2378	0.30%	8	9779	1.21%
Rivne Oblast		20	1439	0.22%	7	6680	1.12%	7	16879	2.70%
Sumy Oblast		23	903	0.13%	11	1335	0.21%	9	5016	0.79%
Ternopil Oblast		7	13317	1.97%	3	22886	3.44%	5	31659	4.89%
Kharkiv Oblast		24	1556	0.10%	12	2928	0.22%	10	8361	0.57%
Kherson Oblast	File:Kherson flag.jpg	34	402	0.07%	12	1010	0.20%	9	4046	0.75%
Khmelnytskyi Oblast		18	2457	0.31%	7	3461	0.48%	8	12726	1.70%
Cherkasy Oblast		18	1670	0.23%	7	4851	0.73%	9	8634	1.26%
Chernivtsi Oblast		19	1903	0.41%	7	3129	0.76%	8	5167	1.18%
Chernihiv Oblast		29	743	0.11%	11	1645	0.28%	9	4887	0.81%
Kiev		17	5490	0.37%	7	17105	1.25%	9	27635	1.93%
City of Sevastopol		35	105	0.05%	16	170	0.09%	11	603	0.29%
Constituency of polling stations located abroad		9	295	0.85%	4	590	2.28%	6	1055	3.29%
Ukraine		18	91321	0.36%	8	178660	0.76%	8	352282	1.43%

I'm Ukrainian and I can tell you that Svoboda is no different than Golden Dawn in Greece. Don't sugar this article, they are far right neofascist loonies. Svoboda wants Ukrainie free of Poles, Jews and Russians they also believe in Jewish conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse trying to create a neutral point of view Wikipedia article with "sugaring" ; if you feel this article is missing some important info please add it with the use of references (but keep in mind that what some individual members believe/say does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Svoboda). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid an IP-edit that introduced to the lead "Svoboda is a Ukrainian neofascist political party" per WP:UNDUE + WP:NOTEVERYTHING= 1 professor/scholar made this comparison... That is not enough to include it in this Wikipedia article. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. (+) (Generally,) the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use headlines of articles to claim the party is Neo-fascist if in the rest of the article it is not claimed they are... Headlines are generally written by a copy editor, but may also be written by the writer, the page layout designer, or other editors... (in this case the writer of the headline did not read the article so it seems...). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Below userbox I created today explains my editing etiquettes/actions on "Svoboda" much better much better then I did so far on this Talkpage:

This user is against editors who cry wolf.

People who cry wolf do only make problems worse! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User RJFF recently reverted a bunch of material on the grounds that 'primary sources arent allowed on wikipedia', which is patently false. In the historical context, primary sources are crucial in gathering quotes or other direct information, like their official views or statements. The source in question was mostly used to reference official dates, quotes, or stances they took - and was referred to as such and was transparent. While primary sources can have issues, they are not bad, as every source is a primary source in the right context. For further reference on the allowed and accepted use of primary sources, please see WP:USINGPRIMARY.--Львівське (говорити) 14:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that 'primary sources arent allowed on wikipedia' and you quote an essay, not a policy or guideline. The official policy is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." (WP:NOR) --RJFF (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proble in this case is less that a primary source is cited, but that a first-party source is cited, which is published by the subject of the article itself. Therefore, this source is not independent and cannot be neutral. --RJFF (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary and first part are the same things, first off. Second, if you have a problem with a source's veracity or bias, that's something you take to the talk page, but to dismiss a source because it isn't "neutral" with regards to official policy or dates, that's just crazy. Please look at the article and actually read the material and context before reverting/edit warring. If you have a problem, tag it, and use the talk page. You don't own the article to set wikipedia policy - which is very much in favor of how those sources were used here. What I'm seeing here is more along the lines of "I don't like Svoboda, so their sources aren't neutral" without even pointing out what POV was being pushed.--Львівське (говорити) 20:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cited scholars (Olszański and Polyakova) do not use "radical nationalist" as an expression of their personal opinion vis-à-vis Svoboda, but in order to distinguish their variant of nationalism from the "liberal" or "moderate nationalism" espoused by the centre-right parties like Batkivshchyna and Our Ukraine (which are nationalist parties too, albeight not radical nationalist like Svoboda). These sources are not journalistic opinion pieces, but academic analysis by political scientists. It is not up to Wikipedia users to simply discard their findings per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --RJFF (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Not really related here but this info might be useful) Batkivshchyna and Our Ukraine are most of the time described by scholars as National Democrats. And most of the time their ideology is more "all-over-the-place" then "centre-right". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RJFF and just added 3 scholarly sources to back his(/our) case up. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are still the opinions of scholars dependent on a certain period of time and should not be in the lede. Some scholars define the republican party as far-right, but it's not in their lede/intro. I just read analysis that the Democratic party is far-right by European standards - this is also not in their lede because it's not an absolute defining characteristic. This is an improper use of sources and clear undue weight. If you want to talk about their "radicalism", focus on a policy of theirs that defines them that has appropriate weight. Most of this stuff should be in the body, not directly in the first line of the article. Follow the guidelines and format of other political party articles and keep POV pushing out.--Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few sources by quite a few political scientists who are doing research on Ukrainian politics and/or nationalism in Eastern Europe. This is not a fringe view, but mainstream among the relevant academic community. Several articles and books dealing with Ukrainian politics explain that there are distinct variants of Ukrainian nationalism. Batkivshchyna and Our Ukraine, for example, are described as "moderate nationalists" or "national democrats", while Svoboda are considered "radical nationalists". If Svoboda's ideology is different from Batkivshchyna's and Our Ukraine's, it is important to note this in the article and not just to write "nationalist", which is too general and imprecise. --RJFF (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And describing political parties in a manner consistent with that of scholars is not "POV pushing," obviously. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is apply attribution of what is obviously an objective opinion.--Львівське (говорити) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Times calls them center-right, which is now being reverted/removed to keep the article at 'far-right'. The Moscow Times is a reliable source, and the attribution in the article simply stated they were "described as center-right" - which they were - so I have no clue why a reliable source is being removed. I'd understand if I used it in the first line of the intro and absolutely stated they were a center-right party, but this wasn't the case.--Львівське (говорити) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly sources provided clearly take precedence over a single (!) mention as center-right in a newspaper article. The majority view clearly is that it is a hard-right party, possibly far-right. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly sources which said far-right were not touched.--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now a St Petersburg Times article,^[2], that's 2 newspapers --Львівське (говорити) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly, both being written by the same author - Oleg Sukhov [12]. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nonetheless, you still havent explained why you removed the reliable source which was properly attributed. Saying it's fringe is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Львівське (говорити) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a silly Wikipedia for Dummies tour earlier and the section on NPOV described what you're doing. It asked what NPOV means, with one of the "wrong" choices being that Wikipedia should represent what everyone says. No, it should reflect a consensus of what secondary sources say without reflecting our opinion. In other words, one person saying something doesn't get the same weight as the five who say something else. You can't cherry pick the guy you agree with when very reliable sources use language like ultra-nationalist. Sai Weng (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it may be undue weight. That said, *personally* I don't think they are centre-right, but I do think they range in their policy from centre-right to far-right, more-so the former in recent years. Also, they are in a parliamentary coalition with the 2 major centre-right parties at the moment, take that for what it's worth.--Львівське (говорити) 16:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what we *personally* think. "Far-right" is supported by academic studies by political scientists who have specialised on Eastern European politics and/or nationalist parties and movements. They are published in academic journals and publishing houses for specialist literature. "Centre-right" is only supported by a cherry-picked, random online news article. It is not acceptable that you deny the validity of these high-quality sources, without presenting sources of the same quality level that would support your assertions. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. --RJFF (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that I "cherry picked" something is assuming bad faith, and is way out of line. Also, where did I ever deny the validity of any sources? All I've ever argued for is proper context (side note: even the Hezbollah article doesn't inject superlatives like 'radical' and 'ultra' and 'far-anything', even though I'm sure you could find millions). Further, I realize personal opinions don't matter, but this being my field of expertise, while I don't have a PhD on the subject, was just me simply expressing an opinion and injecting some reason. --Львівське (говорити) 15:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case you should try and get your expertise published in a peer-reviewed journal or by a reputable publisher (like your colleagues Shekhovtsov, Kuzio, Rudling, Bojcun did) so that we can cite it. If you are a political scientist, it surprises me even more that you cite a random article like that "Moscow Times" piece and refuse to accept that in the academic community, Svoboda is predominantly seen as a far-right party, and a radical nationalist one to distinguish it from other Ukrainian nationalist parties that are considered more moderate. I do not agree that "radical nationalist" and "far-right" are superlatives or subjective labels. They are simply descriptors for Svoboda's policies. Do you seriously dispute that Svoboda's nationalism is more radical than the one of Batkivshchyna or "Our Ukraine"? When Svoboda will further moderate its line in the future, authors will probably revise their categorization. But for now, you have not presented any academic literature that would verify Svoboda having left their far-right position. As a political scientist and expert in this field, I would expect that you have an overview about the relevant literature and where to find citable titles. --RJFF (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you're being dismissive of the Moscow Times, which clearly falls under reliable sources. I also like how you're continuing to push this notion that I'm refusing to 'accept' something here, is it your POV I'm refusing to 'accept'? The thing is, they aren't a Jobbik or a National Front (UK), and aren't firing on all 'far right' cylinders all the time. How is their 'nationalism' more 'radical' than that of the other opposition parties? Is there a quantitative radicalness scale I can look up? If you want to compare them on a Ukrainian political scale, then UDAR is centre-right, and Svoboda would just be standard entrenched right-wing, and then UNA-UNSO would be far-right / extreme / radical right. They do fall into the far-right, absolutely, and have some pretty crazy members that stand out like a sore thumb. But not always. They're about as far right as Republicans, realistically, and even though some might call the Tea Party faction a bunch of names to describe their behavior, they don't represent the part on the whole; and I think that's the case I've made for Svoboda: a few far-left members or few policies doesn't accurately describe the party and its policy on the whole. PS: I have provided sources that show they are not always seen as far of right by academics. --Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oleh Kotsyuba of the journal Krytyka (NYT contributor, so that's something) had this to say "Right-wing, semi-radical political parties, such as Svoboda, joined in the protests, focusing on exclusively Ukrainian ethnic linguistic identity." - see, I'm not totally out to lunch here --Львівське (говорити) 16:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to include this yet but it's a good, interesting quote by Bernard-Henri Lévy: "The emergence of new leaders who have diluted the extreme right’s monopoly on radicalism has marginalized Svoboda" --Львівське (говорити) 17:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Львівське - I think we really need to present Svoboda's extreme-right politics in total honesty here, and I don't think the article does that sufficiently yet. Another part of the story, however, is the party's transition towards the mainstream (however complete or incomplete that transition might be). We don't really have that either. So I'd encourage you to use that source if you can find a place in its history, probably here: Svoboda_(political_party)#After_2012_election. -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe, I'm not sure, I mean it's a very good source and political mind discussing it so a flag went off in my head that "this could be valuable", but I did post it here because I was unsure what it adds. In the quote, is he talking about Right Sector and other groups diluting them, or within Svoboda? I would agree that in the last few months and the emergence os the "true far right", Svoboda looks mild in comparison (if only in presentation). Right Sector working with the SNA (Patriot) essentially picks up where the SNP left off. --Львівське (говорити) 18:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, there's a potentially must-have issue with Svoboda: its relations personally with Jewish-Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskyi. Persistent rumours are that he's the behind-the-curtain party sponsor (which was, they say, proven by some leaks or investigative publications). Believe my word: this is the #1 conspiracy theory regarding both Svoboda and him.

Moreover, I heard that Kolomoyskyi has recently commented the Svoboda positively, talking of "understanding" and "respect", alongside anti-Semitism concerns. Dig for refs, anyone? Ukrained2012 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should conspiracy theory junk be mixed in with an encyclopedic article? There are also baseless rumors that they're funded by the Kremlin to destabilize the west, now it's the Jews behind them? Without a smoking gun or scholarly assertion this is a non starter. --Львівське (говорити) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "now") Benya's and Putin's funding are old, well-established theories. At least the Russian one is demonstrably supported by well-published "scholarly assertions" - which I encourage anyone to dig for and include. Nowhere Ms. Farion is publicized better than on Russian state TV. Besides, who are we to dismiss possibility of confidential actions as "baseless"? Oh, and Kolomoyskyi's positive remarks re: Svoboda are not "rumors" at all: they were public and reported as far as I remember. And finally: I'm not rewording myself to stress that I don't insist on including yet, this was a preliminary note in hope of further successful research. I hope anyone agrees that these theories, if sourced, would be way more important that swastika-like shapes. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, is the following sentence representatives of Svoboda attending social campaigns such as protests against price increases and leafleting against drugs and alcohol meant "Patriot of Ukraine"'s campaigns? Otherwise, it needs to be reworded as non-sense.

As far as I know, Svoboda organizes actions against drugs and alcohol anyway, without obvious "close links" to PU. I barely heard of PU though. Ukrained2012 (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrained2012, there are three sources provided in that particular section that are freely available online, and a fourth I can't access, noting the links between Svoboda and the Patriot of Ukraine. Unfortunately, it is the fourth that provides those details. Perhaps the editor who added them would provide the quote from the book in the cite. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a screenshot of the page link--Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, Львівське. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

from the part i inserted that was removed, just want to post here a direct quotation that dealt with this topic in the same book so as to show I wasn't trying to add lib.

"...but still favor 'white racism'. Here, Tyahnybok's party is an obvious choice, as no other major political force addresses the issue of Asian immigration officially." p256

--Львівське (говорити) 20:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that after, searching for the wording you'd used. We could always add that text into the initial part of the quote, if we could find more of it. -Darouet (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct subtitle is just Xenophobia. There is more than enough facts publicly available proving it.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous text

Ukrainian media associated with the Party of Regions, the Communist Party of Ukraine, and Russophile groups have attempted to link the party to Nazism.^[3] According to political scientist Tadeusz A. Olszański, it plays in the Party of Regions favor to manipulate the voters from the eastern and southern parts of the country (especially the elderly and less educated) who are attached to the Soviet historical narrative, and "convince them that Svoboda is an inheritor of the Nazi invaders and a threat to peace, and that the Party of Regions should be voted for as the only force capable of stopping the ‘brown revenge’."^[3]

is no more than disqualification of the Party of Regions, the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Russophile groups. It is not difficult to find references providing the facts, direct links of this party to the German Nazis. Here is the one I added to this raticle

Anti-Semitism is one of core positions in Svoboda’s party ideology. Oleh Tyahnybok, the party leader, delivered a speech in parliament (2004) in which he alleged that a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia" was controlling the Ukraine and threatened the country’s very existence. Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, the party member and a deputy in parliament, often quotes former German Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, and other Third Reich officials like Ernst Roehm and Gregor Strasser^[4].

User Львівське openly stated on his user page: 'This user supports All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"'. Wikipedia must be free of political propaganda. --96.241.218.72 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a warning on your talk page. Further disruptive editing will be reported.--Львівське (говорити) 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP 96.241.218.72 per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. A sentence like "Anti-Semitism is one of core positions in Svoboda’s party ideology" is taken a side... A sentence like "According to international media and western scholars Anti-Semitism is one of core positions in Svoboda’s party ideology" is not taken a side. Read lead of Wiki-article Nazi Party to see how to wrote NPOV. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was that sentence below removed? (I am not sure by whom... But the sentence was removed; but he restored it today.)

"According to political scientist Tadeusz A. Olszański, it plays in the Party of Regions favor to manipulate the voters from the eastern and southern parts of the country (especially the elderly and less educated) who are attached to the Soviet historical narrative, and "convince them that Svoboda is an inheritor of the Nazi invaders and a threat to peace, and that the Party of Regions should be voted for as the only force capable of stopping the ‘brown revenge’."

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP (on his talk page) justified the removal as 'the opinion of an anonymous Polish author'. I think you see where this was going...--Львівське (говорити) 18:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that IP was trying to say that he removed it because of Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Personally I think/saw how Party of Regions is manipulating voters all the time.... So from where I am standing Olszański's theory above is true. But it could use more refs. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done just now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to all people of good will!

I've noticed this warning The neutrality of this article is disputed. at the top of this article.

Tried to make the content more encyclopaiedic by a) removing suggested content understanding (Allegations) and b) removing references providing not facts, rather opinions (Tadeusz A. Olszański, as the matter of fact, just one).

Facing reverts, disqualifications, and accusations. I have only pure academic view of the nature of this party. I'd like to get support in moving the article content in that direction.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

removing content like Olszanski, who is a scholar, is not helpful. It is not "just an opinion", it's expert analysis. On the other hand, taking allegations from political groups and framing them as "proof" is disingenuous editing and POV pushing.--Львівське (говорити) 01:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you provide a "pure academic view" without citing the studies of academics who have published about this field. Olszanski's seems to be one of the most in-depth studies about Svoboda's history and ideology by a political scientist currently available. --RJFF (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second this question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Olshanski is not a scientist, he is a propagandist 'in-depth'. Please, differ these two notions.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libeling a scholar as an "in-depth propagandist" will not get you far.--Львівське (говорити) 17:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reorganized the "criticism" section into four parts, including:

1. ) Allegations of xenophobia or racism,
2. ) Criticism as a political tool,
3. ) Incidents drawing international attention,
4. ) Criticism by Jewish organizations, and
5. ) Criticism within Svoboda.

I'm not sure this is the perfect layout and would welcome input. For instance, the "allegations" are by so many papers, groups, etc. that this section is large. Furthermore, it's hard to separate "allegations" from certain incidents, e.g. a prominent Svoboda leader quoting important Nazi theorists, or another Svoboda leader handing out leaflets translated by Goebbels, or Tyahnybok making a statement about the Russian-Jewish mafia.

Lastly, I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have a section for criticism specifically by Jewish organizations? Input would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added a sentence paraphrasing a statement from The Economist. The exact wording of The Economist source was: "In Russian-speaking cities, such as Donetsk or Odessa, Stepan Bandera, the wartime nationalist leader who is Svoboda’s great hero, is widely viewed as a murderous Nazi collaborator." In this earlier version of our Svoboda article my paraphrase went: "According to The Economist, historical figure Stepan Bandera is considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members, but a Nazi collaborator by others."

In this edit, User:Lvivske changed the text to read "The party has also been criticized by Jewish and pro-Soviet groups for their honoring historical figure Stepan Bandera, who is considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members and many Ukrainians, but a Nazi collaborator by others." As you can see, this change is not supported by the text of The Economist. User:Lvivske later added another reference, found here, which has no mention of "Jewish and pro-Soviet groups" with respect to Bandera.

User:Lvivske, please do not alter text to misrepresent sources. This is not the first time you have done this here (e.g. removing sourced information about association with paramilitary groups or removing information about the wolfsangel rune commonly used by neo-nazi groups). -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two diffs you are using as examples of "altering text to misrepresent sources" are out of context, in bad faith, and in poor taste. The first was proven false after I provided further references to disprove your theory about further association since you were using a dated source; the second, as I explained, appeared on the outset to be WP:OR, so I removed it. Your act here is getting tiring. --Львівське (говорити) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears I used the jamestown ref accidentally in place of another already in the article, but literally 2 minutes on google yielded multiple sources on the topic, proving the pro-soviet part. The Jewish groups part is also supported by other refs on the article in that very section.--Львівське (говорити) 21:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't able to verify a quote that I and another editor both provided for you on this talk page, so you reverted to a version you knew wasn't supported by the source you provided? Now, you've added more sources, and again you either haven't read them or are purposefully misquoting them. For instance:

• You cite this article from The Nation but avoid its statement that Bandera "ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Polish civilians."
• You cite this article from global research.ca but exclude its description of Bandera as a "Nazi collaborator."
• You cite this article from The Straits Times which demonstrates that Svoboda and Right Sector Ukranians regard Bandera as a hero, but not "many Ukranians," as you've ambiguously written.
• You cite an article from the Kyiv Post that's behind a paywall. While I can't access the particular article you're citing, others written by the Kyiv Post this month describe Bandera as a Nazi collaborator.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to glorify Bandera in the text: for instance, "regarded as a hero… fighting for independence…" while excluding other possible descriptions: "Nazi collaborator… ethnic cleansing…" I didn't glorify or vilify him in the text I added myself, and I can't see how you can justify your choices as neutral. Lastly, I'd appreciate it if you provided text from the Chris Miller piece you cite to justify your sentence, "smear campaign." -Darouet (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you're just trying to bash Bandera. Let me remind you that this is an article about Svoboda; if they support Bandera, state it and explain why they support him, and if there is criticism (in this case, about "anti semitism") qualify who the criticism is coming from. I didn't need to include the Polish snafu (theres a huge article on that already, this opens a can of worms if we get into wartime specifics and intend to keep the narrative neutral - plus, Bandera was in a Nazi concentration camp from 41-44 when the Polish-Ukrainian civil war kicked off in '43), nor did I need to include more 'collaborator' claims since one is enough in that paragraph. We also have to bear in mind that Bandera was posthumously awarded the title Hero of Ukraine by the Yushchenko government; revering him as a war hero is not a Svoboda-centric phenomenon (which I think is an important aspect to include in the article; that this perspective is mainstream in Ukraine for a good chunk of the population, and not some fringe-radical off the rails picture a lot of opponents try to paint).

As for Miller, here are the quotes verbatim: "Despite being the target of a heavy smear campaign by Soviet propaganda that portrayed him as an anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator, many Ukrainians deem Bandera a hero of the country’s liberation movement during World War II." and in the opening, "He is considered a hero by many Ukrainians while Soviet propaganda vilified him as a Nazi supporter." --Львівське (говорити) 02:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• your economist link does not work, but the injection of the phrase "murderous nazi collaborator" reeks POV pushing and has been reverted. You changed your own wording from the balanced and neutral paraphrase of "Stepan Bandera is considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members, but a Nazi collaborator by others." to "Stepan Bandera, the wartime nationalist leader who is Svoboda’s great hero, is widely viewed as a murderous Nazi collaborator.", rife with sensationalist rhetoric (which, again, your link does not work so I cannot verify what you quoted) --Львівське (говорити) 20:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is a direct quote from the source you say you can't find, but that is quoted by me above and RJFF below on your behalf. I returned the exact wording of the article because you removed my "balanced and neutral paraphrase" in order to write a bunch of nonsense about "Jews" and "pro-Soviets" that isn't supported anywhere in these references. -Darouet (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This link is working (for me, at least). The original quote is "The biggest immediate problem with the prominent role played by Svoboda, as Andreas Umland, a specialist in Ukrainian history, has argued, is that it alienates southern and eastern Ukrainians. In Russian-speaking cities, such as Donetsk or Odessa, Stepan Bandera, the wartime nationalist leader who is Svoboda’s great hero, is widely viewed as a murderous Nazi collaborator." It refers to this article by Umland in the Kyiv Post ("How spread of Banderite slogans and symbols undermines Ukrainian nation-building"). --RJFF (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you RJ, that link you provided does work. --Львівське (говорити) 22:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, the POV Pushing by Darouet is getting out of hand IMO. Now putting the contentious material into the lead? Saying Social-Nationalism was an intentional reference to Hitler? (absolutely, with no counter debate). Saying that scholars call it neo-nazi while citing a public radio broadcaster? This is just cherry picking sources and being downright disingenuous at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Goldfarb (author and journalist) is a respected journalist whose primary work has been for National Public Radio and the BBC. So, when he's not described as a "Jewish writer" or an "author of Jewish history," he can't be a journalist but rather a "broadcaster?" And what is your contention about Goldfarb and Olzanski's statements: you believe they're incorrect (you haven't even tried to argue that yet), or that you don't want them written in this article? - Darouet (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're deflecting from the main point: you stated that many scholars and academics call them neo-nazi while providing 1 scholar who does NOT call them neo nazi and a single journalist, while ignoring all of the sourcing out there who say they are not neo-nazi, or not anti-semitic, and so on. You also included this incredulous statement with the references to other scholars to say they are far-right, who make zero reference to 'neo-nazism'. This is the definition of cherry picking sources (and misrepresenting them) to push a POV. Goldfarb is a broadcaster and a journalist, and also an author who has written a couple of books. A lot of his material is on Jewish affairs (his site has enough about emancipation and his first link in his bio links to an article he wrote on anti-semitism). --Львівське (говорити) 16:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon fact checking what Darouet added, it seems he knowingly and intentionally inserted false material into the lead to push his POV. In this portion I removed he had Der Speigel news and Olszański cited as "according to many academics and journalists a proponent of racism or anti-semitism in Ukrainian politics" 1 newspaper and 1 academic is not "many academics and journalists", first off. Second, the single academic he cited says this in his article if he bothered to read it: "Svoboda’s policy documents contain no racist elements." (page 4) and the article makes no mention of anti-semitism whatsoever. --Львівське (говорити) 04:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently cites many academics and journalists who write on anti-semitism or racism in Svoboda: because I was editing the lead, I only added two sources, one from a prominent academic, and from one of the most important news magazines globally. I've read Olzanski's piece a number of times. You claim I misquote Olzanski, but don't finish the quote you began:

"Ethnocentrism is a pivotal element of Svoboda’s program. The nationality of a citizen is to become a public category. An ethnic census is to be implemented in the bodies of executive power, the armed forces, education, science, and even in the economy: their national composition is to strictly correspond to the proportion of Ukrainians and ethnic minorities. Similarly, the share of the Ukrainian language in the media is to be no smaller than the proportion of ethnic Ukrainians in society. The only official language of state structures (including the sphere of education) is to be Ukrainian, and the rights of national minorities are to be restricted to the creation of associations. On the other hand, Svoboda’s policy documents contain no racist elements. Apart from the official program, there is also an unofficial one, not written down in document form, but implicit in statements and actions by members of Svoboda. It is much more radical, and racist. In their outlook upon the nation, the ‘new’ nationalists reject the previous, biologistic concept of a national community (the nation as equivalent to species) and opt for the idea that the nation is an ‘incarnation of the idea of history in the dialectical development of the spirit’. This kind of neo-Romantic approach, consistent with the spirit of postmodernism, makes it practically impossible to hold rational debates with Svoboda’s programme. Other references to Svoboda’s unofficial programme are their large-scale propaganda actions taken on the anniversary of SS Division ‘Galizien’, repeated attempts to interrupt the celebrations in honour of Poles murdered by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in Huta Pieniacka, appeals to Russian residents of Lviv to ‘Ukrainise’ the names of their children, attacks on demonstrations for the legalisation of marijuana, acceptance of controversial statements on the party forum that approve of Hitler’s activities, etc."

The document clearly states that Svoboda has an unofficial program that is racist, and in this context my quote, which you removed, accurately described what Olzanski writes and thinks about Svoboda. Your characterization of his writing, which ignores sentences immediately before and after the one you provided above, is obviously incomplete to the point of error. Why didn't you quote the next sentence after the one you provided above? -Darouet (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His footnote for this is "A song popular among Svoboda activists refers to attempts to restitute the Ukrainian state in the summer of 1941, under the patronage of the Third Reich: ‘Nachtigal and Roland army liberate the Aryan country / Aryan country, Ukraine...’- To say they have an unofficial, ghost program is highly speculative. His sourcing is a song? A deadlink to an article in Pravda? (which I checked archive.org and it does not exist there either) Also, an off the books amount of 'racism' does not equate them to "being a proponent of anti-semitism and racism", that's a far stretch from the source material. --Львівське (говорити) 16:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the footnote. I'm not certain that Olszanski's statement is based entirely on the footnote, given everything else we read about Svoboda, and I'm not about to start trying to pick apart the source and figure out if he might be wrong about Svoboda's racism, or view of the Third Reich. There are plenty of other sources in the article Svoboda that address this, and anti-Semitism as well. -Darouet (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to assess thees three things in isolation: svoboda the party, social-nationalism the ideology (which they obviously are inexplicably tied to), and svoboda in public perception (accusations, 'unofficial programs', things they are associated with or rumored to be associated with, etc.). When 'social nationalism contains racism' turns into 'svoboda the party is a proponent of racism', a disconnect appears in the sourcing and it borders on, or is, original research. That said, social-nationalism itself needs more expansion, and TO does a good job at providing some insight on this.--Львівське (говорити) 20:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with plenty of what you write. I've downloaded a few dozen academic and newspaper articles on the subject of Svoboda's origins and present day politics, and am making notes. Hopefully those articles will help provide material for some of that expansion. -Darouet (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cool, i look forward to it. BTW I just did a few edits and it ends up that Oleksandr Feldman (who was in the jewish groups section since he owns one) is actually a financial backer of the president and party member, and all of his statements seem to fall into the politically motivated section, so I added some info and moved it over.--Львівське (говорити) 04:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found another false statement inserted by Darouet, "The Nation has written that Bandera participated in the extermination of Jews during WWII" but the article actually says "Some historians have accused the Ukrainian Insurgent Army of cooperating in the massacres of thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the Nazi occupation" - goes without saying that there is a huge difference between 'Bandera participating in the extermination of Jews' and a group he founded ALLEGEDLY according to some "cooperating" --Львівське (говорити) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full quote from the article in The Nation: "On New Year’s Day, Svoboda led about 15,000 people in a torchlight march in honor of Stepan Bandera, the controversial leader of the wartime Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which fought the Soviets for an independent Ukrainian state but also ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Polish civilians. (Right Sector also announced its own march that day in honor of Bandera.) Some historians have accused the Ukrainian Insurgent Army of cooperating in the massacres of thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the Nazi occupation, and Tyahnybok even commended the rebels in 2004 for fighting “Russians, Germans, Jewry and other crap.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center put Svoboda at number five on its 2012 list of top anti-semitic slurs, citing Tyahnybok’s “Moscow-Jewish mafia” comment and Miroshnychenko calling Ukrainian-born actress Mila Kunis a “dirty Jewess.”" -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Львівське. The text as written was not supported by the source and was rightfully removed. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I wanted to see if it was true that Svoboda called for "one race" in its platform, so I did some digging and came up with this

In the article now:

"According to journalist Michael Goldfarb, Svoboda's platform calls for a Ukraine that is “one race, one nation, one Fatherland,” and criticized the party for honoring the Waffen-SS Galicia (of which the historical role of the unit is contested).[93]"

What Goldfarb says is this:

In L’viv, it comes under the guise of Svoboda, a party calling for a Ukraine that is “one race, one nation, one Fatherland.” Originally known as the Social-National Party, it is rooted in Nazi collaboration.

So he says the party calls for it, not that it's part of the party's platform. A distinction to be made, I guess. Also, I just want ot note that the "it is rooted in Nazi collaboration" is a highly inflammatory and baseless statement - are Svoboda in favor of Nazi collaboration? Was it founded by collaborators? What is he trying to say? Or is this just some gymnastic leap between "they like the UPA, who some say collaborated" to "anyone who likes the UPA is ideologically rooted in Nazism". I digress.

I found he got all of his info on this (and the Waffen SS stuff) from Per Anders Rudling's The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right link:

On April 28, 2011, Svoboda celebrated the 68th anniversary of the establishment of the Waffen-SS Galizien. Octogenerian Waffen-SS veterans were treated as heroes in a mass rally, organized by Svoboda and the "autonomous nationalists." Nearly 700 participants marched down the streets of Lviv [...] shouting slogans like "One race, one nation, one fatherland!"

So it's more like at a rally, some said it in a mixed crowd of supporters and others, but it's not part of the party platform. According to Rudling, the march was led by, and according to Goldfarb, it was organized by Michalchyshyn of the Autonomous Nationalists.--Львівське (говорити) 05:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The passage from The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right states the the march was "organized by Svoboda and the "autonomous nationalists"" not just the Autonomous Nationalists. I think the Goldfarb citation should be replaced with the Rudling citation and reworded to better reflect the source. That said, I'm not entirely sure it's notable for inclusion in any case. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in a march organized by the two, participants chanted it - not a svoboda spokesperson or by someone in an official capacity. For all we know, it was a chant cooked up by the autonomous nationalists in the crowd. --Львівське (говорити) 15:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal or rewording makes sense to me. Arguably it isn't notable for the reasons you gave. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, he cites 'Ukrainian history Andriy Kozitsky (андрій козитзки?) as saying " "Ethnically, Ukraine doesn't exist, The western part of the country nestled up against Poland and Hungary is a mix of many groups: Russian, Ukrainians, Armenians." - this is a racist, Ukrainophobic statement and highly inflammatory and makes me really question where Goldfarb is getting his material. To say that the Ukrainian ethnicity doesn't exist, and that it's just a mix of other "true" ethnicities is disgusting. What's more, I can't find any results (zero) on this historian...(also, Armenia is nowhere near ukraine nevermind western ukraine, so this guy is just making things up it seems)--Львівське (говорити) 06:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"a mix of many groups: Russian, Ukrainians, Armenians". He just said that the population of Western Ukraine was ethnically mixed, not that there were no Ukrainians at all. It is a reality that the population of Ukraine has never been 100 % ethnic Ukrainian, but has traditionally been multi-ethnic. "Ethnically, Ukraine doesn't exist" is a provocative statement, but it does not mean that ethnic Ukrainians do not exist, but rather that there is not such a thing as an ethnically pure/homogenous Ukraine. (I totally understand your sensitivity when it comes to these things, because of the Soviet Era claims that Ukraine was only a construct, that Ukrainian is just a dialect of Russian etc. And I am afraid that there are still people making these stupid claims.) --RJFF (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about any country: that a population or ethnic group is made up of different roots. It's another to say that the Ukrainian ethnicity is not a 'real' ethnicity and just a byproduct of other 'real' ethnicities merging together. You could say then that "ethnically Russia does not exist" because its Rus' people merging with Ukrainians and Finns and Urgic people and other indigenous populations over time. Every single ethnic group in the world can be subdivided into tribal or extraterritorial roots. This is a racial purity argument, not an ethnic group argument, and when we get into which 'race' of people is more pure than others, well, you know where that heads...so I guess the question is, why did Goldfarb bring this up and cite this unknown historian? Is this a shot at discrediting the validity of Ukrainian nationalism? Something else?--Львівське (говорити) 19:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rudling isn't an unknown historian: he's very well published in academic journals and is one of the most knowledgeable academics writing today on the subject of extreme-right politics in Eastern Europe, and in Ukraine. He's also frequently cited by other historians writing on Eastern Europe and on Ukraine. Have you read his work? -Darouet (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Львівське I don't think Rudling has any intention to "discredit the validity of Ukrainian Nationalism…" more likely he's trying to give it some historical context. There are many strains of nationalism and some can embrace multi-ethnic communities, while others reject them. -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about Kozitsky here, not Rudling. I cited Rudling in a positive context to fact check Goldfarb's wording. I know who Rudling is ;) --Львівське (говорити) 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfarb is a ghostbuster ;) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Muscovite-Jewish" is translated from "zhido-moskalski"[13] which the article describes as "two highly insulting words to describe Russians and Jews" (accurately reflecting the BBC source) but later in the article under the section "Incidents drawing international attention" it is written, "Both Ukrainian academics and Svoboda argued that in the Ukrainian language the word does not have the anti-semitic connotations that it always does in the Russian language;[14][15][16] the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice declared that Miroshnichenko's use of the word was legal because it is an archaic term for Jew, and not necessarily a slur.[17] It seems inconsistent for 'zhid' to "not have anti-semitic connotations", to be "not necessarily a slur" and to be "highly insulting" to describe Jews. At least, it should be noted that the party does not consider 'Zhid' to be insulting, preferring it over the more commonly accepted "yevrey" on linguistic and historical grounds.[18] Regarding "Moskali", the source and text are unclear whether it's referring to ethnic Russians (presumably including Ukrainian nationals) or Russian nationals and further it seems that Moskali or Moscovite can be a "derogatory Ukrainian term for Russian great-power chauvinists who refused to accept Ukraine as a nation. "[19]I think the prudent thing to do would be to not assume to know the intentions of the speaker (even if the BBC does). Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Honestly, a lot of issues occur when meaning is lost in translation. The Jewish part is just that, but some I've spoken to argue that just mentioning the Jewish mafia is in of itself prejudice - however, when I first read the quote the first thing that came to my mind was Semion Mogilevich: Jewish don of the Russia mafia, born in Kiev and based in Moscow - who according to his wiki has ties to Dmytro Firtash and Oleksandr Turchynov. Now, personally, *if* this is what he was referencing, it's about as bad as calling out the Italian mafia and being called anti-Italian. As for the 'Moskal' jab, when I hear that it sounds more like a jab at the Kremlin than Russians as a whole, it's literally just 'Muscovite'. This said, perhaps it's wrong of the wiki to translate Moskalski into Russian but instead should just link to Moscow? It'd be like if someone said 'New Yorker' and we changed it to 'Americans' - or is the equivalent here yankee? --Львівське (говорити) 17:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that the two of you would agree that Svoboda is a reliable source concerning which words do, or do not, carry anti-semitic connotations. Can you both imagine a single organization in Ukraine less qualified to provide a commentary on such a subject? I'm sure there are many Svoboda members who are not anti-semitic, but the history of the organization simply cannot leave it a more reliable source on this subject than the BBC, for instance. -Darouet (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, where did he use Svoboda as a source? Nonetheless, it would be good to get the primary source quote, rather than a bad translation. As with the Mila Kunis quote, "zhydivka" turned into "dirty kike jewess" in several news articles that criticized the remarks.--Львівське (говорити) 06:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I added the sources incorrectly but they should work now. I didn't use Svoboda as a source; I simply suggested that the article should at least note the position of Svoboda on the nature of the word 'zhid' not because Svoboda is an authority on linguistics but because Svoboda is an authority on the beliefs of Svoboda which is relevant to the issue - consider how often politicians respond to these sorts of issues by saying, 'it wasn't my intention to offend' or something like that. It can be deduced that it wasn't Tyahnybok's intention to offend if he doesn't believe 'zhid' is a slur at all. The sources regarding the word 'zhid' and its connotations are taken from the article section "Incidents drawing international attention" and should be included in this section as well for the sake of context. I think both sections should be rewritten to better reflect the contentious status of 'zhid'. As it stands now, the article is inconsistent or at least confusing. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the section with a few new sources. Let me know if there's any concern with the changes. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Львівське - you wrote that zhyd is not controversial in western Ukraine but the sources you added to support that don't seem to be working. As this seems to run counter to the preexisting sources I've removed it but I'm not necessarily opposed if you can reinsert them correctly. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i took it from ukrainian wiki. On page 36 it does provide a translation guide, and it says Zhyd means Jew, whereas Zhydiuha is the pejorative (ugly, dirty Jew). Zhyd translates directly to Jew in English, and is the root of all words related to Jews; ie, Zhydivsky is Jewish and Judophobe is Zhydofob. Can you translate the rest of the page to confirm it's regional? At the very least this guide confirms it's normal Ukrainian parlance / language and not merely an archaism. The title of the book is "Yevreyi or Zhydy" so it seems to be a guide on the proper word to use. --Львівське (говорити) 22:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is the place to get into a drawn out exploration of Ukrainian parlance. Perhaps these sources can be added to the Zhydovka article but I think it's enough here to say that the term is controversial in Ukrainian. I mean, to say the word is controversial is not to say that it isn't proper or even common - just that at least a significant (or vocal) minority of Ukrainians consider the term derogatory or insulting and given the local reaction, as noted in the "incidents drawing international attention, and the numerous sources provided, I think it's fair to say there is a controversy. The Ukrainian justice ministry considers it archaic but if there are more authoritative sources from the Ukrainian wiki that assert it is common then I'd support the removal of the descriptor archaic. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

do we have a source that it is controversial IN UKRAINIAN or in Ukraine? It seems everything just says it's a slur in Russian which makes it controversial in English. AFAIK he got in trouble for the context, not fur the use of the term. As with the guy talking about Mila Kunis, the furor came out from the western and israeli press, not Ukraine, right? That the government would agree it's not controversial in Ukraine says enough about its regionality. --Львівське (говорити) 00:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also expect the furor over the use of zhid is mostly a foreign creation but we can't dismiss otherwise reliable sources unless we have something better. The government ruled that it wasn't necessarily a slur (as paraphrased by the Times of Israel) which is not the same as saying it isn't controversial. Further, the ruling was a response to a petition by Ukrainian Jews requesting the banning of the word in the public sphere so there is at least some domestic concern. If there are good sources that explicitly state that there is no controversy in region X then I'd support your previous edit. How about we add a footnote with a short bit explaining the issue? We could also use this footnote in the Mila Kunis part. That way, the article doesn't get bloated and avoids repeating itself. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my current edit reflects now that is is controversial in ukraine (no argument there, since as you said it was petitioned by ukrainian jews) but i qualified this controversy due to its use in the russian language. this sound right? --Львівське (говорити) 02:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the one reference to Global Research which said they said Bandera was a collaborator. They don't seem to be an RS so citing them as an authoritative source seems to be giving them too much weight. I saw this on twitter which discredits them as being a bit of a wack-job site, and Rick Rozoff who wrote the article is specifically named in that pic as unreliable; I'm sure we could fact check it but the sentence itself wasn't important enough to do a big expedition over (however his bio on "the 4th media" says hes just a blogger). Owner Michel Chossudovsky does have a wiki and does confirm he is one of "Canada's nuttiest professors"...so...--Львівське (говорити) 17:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Львівське. They sometimes publish interesting material and might occasionally be used for editorial commentary, but I agree they're not a reliable source. Just for the record however, it was you, and not me who added them here as a reference. I just included their full quote after they'd been added, because I felt the source's commentary wasn't being properly represented. -Darouet (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i realize i added it but since we're being careful with this stuff I didn't want to just blank a sentence and make it look like it was WP:DONTLIKEIT. Also, just in case they come up again.--Львівське (говорити) 06:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed from the intro the part from Der Speigel about the old name being "an intentional reference to Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Nazi party." My argument is that it's not coming from an authoritative source on Ukrainian politics or history, although it is a reliable newspaper. I think for pretty damning statements like this, it needs to be exceptionally sourced to be in the introduction (as many readers form their opinions on the opening statements). While the name is similar, and we all know the history and types of people involved, I just think we need proof they were intending to borrow from Hitler. The 'social nationalist' ideology has a lot written about it, and is an ideology followed by many right-wing Ukrainian nationalist groups that is based not on Hitler's national-socialism but other nationalist figures. Just because they are 'nationalist' and 'socialist' doesn't necessarily mean they're the Ukrainian Nazi Party with the name out of syntax.

Olszański speaks in his article about the ‘wide social nationalist movement’, and "According to Svoboda’s official program dated 20093 and its draft constitution of 20074, the party aims to build ‘a powerful Ukrainian State based on the principles of social and national justice’." He also says "The party advocated the social nationalist ideology by combining radical nationalism with equally radical social rhetoric." In regards to Hitler, he says "it seems justified that this programme has been compared to National Socialism from its very beginning" - that is, it's one thing to compare the two but another to say it was an intentional reference. Thoughts? --Львівське (говорити) 00:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had similar concerns when I read that. Consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; While Der Speigal is a reliable source for news events, I'd argue it's not a reliable source for the inner thoughts and intentions of SNPU's founders. I've found other sources that make the same claim but none of them offer any evidence. Any source that doesn't directly reference the SNPU or its founders or at least some party members is arguably not a reliable source for this statement. At the most it could be rewritten as 'Critics and media commentators have liken the name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party' but I'm not sure that would be considered notable. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J Sharpe, who do you feel is a better source for something like this: Svoboda or SNPU leaders themselves (since they would know the "inner thoughts and intentions of SNPU founders" you refer to), or reliable third party sources? Or do you think that we just can't repeat statements made by otherwise reliable third party sources if we think that they're making statements about things they couldn't possibly know? -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just saying that primary sources are good in the proper context, and expert analysis is good as well, but cursory passing mention by sources that provide neither primary source quotes (re: evidence) nor critical analysis, aren't exactly the best reliable sources to be using for definitive statements. --Львівське (говорити) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Spiegel piece is a rather weak source. It is journalistic, not academic. We have several academic sources dealing with Svoboda's/SNPU's ideology and history. None of them claims that SNP was "an intentional reference to the Nazi Party in Germany". According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". The Spiegel article does not cite its source for this claim. It is not an exceptional, but a relatively weak and therefore unsufficient source for this statement. The sentence should therefore be removed. --RJFF (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spiegel is Germany's most important magazine and is respected all over the world. I'm surprised that, given Svoboda's heritage in the OUN, the openly racist rhetoric of its leadership, the choice of the Wolfsangel as an early symbol, and the volumes written about Svoboda's racist politics, you would find Der Spiegel's claim extraordinary. What are you reading about the party and its history that informs your skepticism? -Darouet (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this edit by Darouet with the summary "Every academic source I've read so far links them to "national socialism," not "social nationalism." - D, which sources are you reading? They were the social-nationalist party, their official program talks of it, we have TO and other academics talking about 'social nationalism' as their founding ideology. What sources "link" them to Nazism? --Львівське (говорити) 15:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Zloyvolsheb explained very well above, Svoboda follows in the radical right-wing nationalist tradition, and has nothing to do with Left-wing nationalism (which is the redirect you get when you follow Social Nationalism). Is there any debate about whether Svoboda or the earlier SNPU are right or left wing? Some in the party are actually proud of their heritage to the OUN and Stepan Bandera. Svoboda's most consistent ideology is anti-communism.

Above, you just supported someone removing an article by Der Spiegel describing Svoboda's heritage with National Socialism, the Nazis, and Adolf Hitler. There are academics who write about this too. What references to you have concerning Svoboda's links with Left Wing Nationalism? -Darouet (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a) I think that social-nationalism should wiki link to its own article, then; b) I'm sure I've argued this before on the talk page, but "right" and "left" wings aren't absolutes, they have a right wing social, foreign, and domestic policy, but a left wing economic policy from what I've read. They do tie, IMO, into the left wing nationalism article in terms of policy, as we see: "national self-determination.[1] It has its origins in the Jacobinism of the French Revolution.[1] Left-wing nationalism typically espouses anti-imperialism.[2][3] It stands in contrast to right-wing nationalism, and has often rejected racist nationalism and fascism,[2] although minor forms of left-wing nationalism have included intolerance and racial prejudice.[2]". I don't think they are excluded from this, but I do think SN should have its own article since it's very specific in its platform. They are definitely not National Socialists, as you suggested, which is its own beast. --Львівське (говорити) 17:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right and left wing nationalism both share "nationalism" in common. Do you have any references to support the idea that Svoboda is left wing? That it is linked historically or organizationally to left wing groups? That any of its members consider themselves or Svoboda left wing? Otherwise this kind of argumentation descends into original research. -Darouet (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between Svoboda and Hitler. In fact, I have seen several interviews by Oleh Tyahnybok, where he proposes to ban both the symbols of both extremes: communism and fascism. I don't know how people could still make this suggestion about Svoboda, when part of their agenda is to ban fascism. It's pretty clear that they are against it.--BoguSlav 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are you here arguing that any otherwise reliable sources that make such a connection are wrong? Do you need to provide any sources to justify or explain your belief or is that not necessary? Suppose someone found a scholarly source or major newspaper making such a connection: should they be allowed to edit the article accordingly? If so, what would be the criteria for removing or altering that edit? -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution is to show both sides of the story and attribute who says what properly.--Львівське (говорити) 01:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, but what you've done is remove sources, not add them. I'd appreciate it if you added back the Spiegel source and contributed "the other side of the story," rather than removing the uncomfortable side. -Darouet (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the left i'm talking about here has to do with social services, not them being a "left wing group". Let's look at TO again just for an overview:

"The economic program is explicitly statist; many ideas run counter to the trends that are prevalent in developed countries (such as the demand to abolish VAT). Farmlands are to be state-owned and given to farmers in hereditary use. The state is to implement a firm pro-family policy and attach importance to health care.

So as a summary: pro taxation for services (VAT), state control of farmlands (as opposed to right-wing, which would be privatized), and emphasis on health care (a 'left' social service). --Львівське (говорити) 19:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having somewhat leftist economic platform is typical for parties that are described as far-right. NSDAP was no exception here. If you look at Golden Dawn in Greece, then they are anti-liberal in economic questions and pro-state intervention. In fact, I find it highly likely that economic policies will become a huge bone of contention for the present government in Ukraine.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thats their ideology, i dont get why its not included there in the ideology category. The article tries to portray them as some kind of conservatives which is wrong.--Delighty85 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

according to you, not reality. --Львівське (говорити) 00:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delighty85 this is a longstanding issue. If you have access to neutral, reliable sources stating that Svoboda is fascistic you can post them here, and they could be incorporated. Random posts on the talk page though won't change anything. -Darouet (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source 17 is the World Affairs Journal, which asserts, "First, most Ukrainians certainly didn’t vote for Svoboda because they read its program. If they had, they would have noticed that Svoboda’s socioeconomic vision of Ukraine resembles that of the Republican Party ..." This silly statement in an ideologically driven official organ of a peace organization is hardly worthy of the basis of a wiki article assertion,that this party's neo-fascist third way economics - as spelled out later in the article- resembles the American GOP. 7o62x39 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 7o62x39 2/23/14[reply]

so essentially, you don't like it. This is from Alexander J. Motyl, a political expert. To call him not a reliable source in assessing policy, you need to back it up. To call it an "ideologically driven official organ of a peace organization" makes me question where you're at.--Львівське (говорити) 04:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to query Motyl's expertise. But this comparison is very surprising and seems rather implausible to me. Two threads above, Svoboda's economic programme is described as "explicitly statist", pro nationalisation of land, taxes and health care. This is contrary to the "socioeconomic vision" that is typically associated with the US Republicans, being pro-market, privatisation, tax cuts and against public health care. The comparison with the US Republicans is therefore confusing and not helpful to readers. The article should describe Svoboda's ideology and programme in concrete terms rather than draw lame comparisons with parties in other countries (the US having a completely different political landscape and different current issues than Ukraine). --RJFF (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. I thought it was helpful since it was a straightforward, north american comparison that readers could identify with, but if you say it's not true based on other sources we have, perhaps we could have a better summary of their policies? Currently everything is either a list or a 'controversy' section which isn't helpful in explaining their actual politics.--Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the piece is not an article published in the World Affairs Journal, but a post in Motyl's blog, which is hosted by the World Affairs Journal's website. While Motyl of course is a reputable expert, blogs are usually not considered strong, reliable sources (WP:SPS). The article is not peer-reviewed or anything, it solely reflects Motyl's personal opinion. --RJFF (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander J. Motyl may be reputable for other matters, but one can be serious scholar and have partisan stake somewhere. I guess it's the case here. The comparison with the Republican Party is outright wrong. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think comparing them to the Republicans displays bias or partisanship, it can either be a good thing or bad thing. If you're a democrat it's a bad thing, if you're european then maybe it's good because it's legitimate. I don't think the comparison hurts or helps - but if its wrong then it should go. --Львівське (говорити) 17:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in these edits, the IP user is changing the entire lead to call them far-right populist (no source calls them this), ultra nationalist (hyperbole), and an extremist group (again, no sources). I think we all here in our discussions and work on the article have a pretty stable intro that presents a neutral POV concerning the opinions of academia; using op-ed smear pieces to inject the ultra-Xtreme talk undoes what we've done. As is injecting non-scholarly sources like news articles in sentences that cite scholars: this is misrepresenting the sources. I'm posting this here to get discussion going if its necessary. The general prosecutor of Ukraine is in Svoboda, and the party is now in official ruling coalition - presending them as a fringe extremist group is bad faith for the year 2014, as is it contradictory. I should also note it's hard to be populist and extreme, they cancel each other out. --Львівське (говорити) 00:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Львівське you know I disagree with you about their politics: there are academic sources that call them far-right and maybe even fascistic. But I haven't brought them here yet and I agree that no additions should be made without sources. -Darouet (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as it stands, we have several academic sources describing them as far-right and the lede as well as the infobox reflects that. I think we have two sources that say they are "right wing populist" but in this case the user changed it to "far-right wing populist", which isn't even a thing. Anyway I've made my case. I think he should discuss it here if he wants to change things. You, me, and others have argued about this wording for a while now and it's been stable for months, let's hold that consensus. --Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the edit war is continuing. Because it's an IP I'm being bolder than usual, especially since he's not using the talk page and ignoring calls to use it. I did get this note on my talk page: "you brag that you are part of the Ukrainian political movement. Furthermore, on your profile, you have a link banner to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which was a neo-nationalist guerilla warfare extremist group that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Poles, Jews and other minorities taking advantage of the German occupation during WW2. You are not and cannot be possibly objective. STOP EDITING UKRAINIAN POLITICAL articles." Just seems inflammatory so excuse me if I skirt normal conduct (that say, an engaged registered user would use whereby we discuss things and find consensus). --Львівське (говорити) 22:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user Lvivske and other ukrainian political activists should be black-listed globally or at least suspended for a defined time period from editing wikipedia as they obviously are partisan and continue to promote their ideology through our encyclopedia platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.25.212.194 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection. IP user edit warring and accusing bad faith "promoting ideology". I think this talk page has had its arguments but it's made for a better, agreeable article over the years. Actions from those like the above only sets things back. --Львівське (говорити) 00:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Львівське should be banned from editing politcal articles on Wikipedia -- judging from her/his activity is interested in the dissemination of specific party ideology instead of encyclopedic knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.224.152 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean it up but was reverted. I originally had an issue with the use by neo-nazi orgs line because I found it to be WP:OR but it is how the source describes it. Thing is, to me it's like having, say, "This is the state seal of the United States, eagles were also used by the Roman Empire and Nazi Germany" - while factually accurate, it implies the logo in the picture was directly used because of the latter use association. The source only says the logo was chosen because of the "I N" letter use, the rest is IMO trivia. (side note: I've spoken to a Patriot member to find out more about it, and he argued left and right there were no Nazi implications and that it was "I-N" as well as an 'ancient slavic symbol', where he then proceeded to email me pics of Ukrainian family coat of arms with the symbol in it to further his argument, take this for what it is) As it stands a whole host of reasons could have contributed to picking the symbol, maybe the founder was a total dick and just wanted to be controversial, maybe they wanted to appeal to neo-Nazis to recruit them as street muscle...we simply don't know.

Anyways

I absolutely think the content is appropriate within context, in the body of the article. I re-inserted it in the part where it says Tyahnybok changed the logo to moderate the image. Saying the logo is associated with neo-Nazi groups help the reader understand why they had to change the logo in the first place. In this context it's entirely appropriate.

My main issue, more than anything, is that it's far too much info to cram into a thumbnail description. It shows up as like 1-2 words per line and is hard to read. It's just aesthetically too much info shoehorned into a thumbnail.--Львівське (говорити) 03:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the thumbnail hard to read at all. Also your comparison between the US seal, eagles, and the Nazis is inappropriate: multiple academic or reliable sources, and some leaders of Svoboda itself, describe the Social National Party of Ukraine as intentionally drawing upon the historical legacy of the OUN, including it's fascist legacy. The wolfsangel symbol isn't an accident: it's intentional. If you want to focus on how different Svoboda is now, try to find sources that describe how much it's really changed, if you're able. -Darouet (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredibly hard to read and this comes into WP:WEIGHT as well. Also, you can't say they drew on the OUN and "its fascist legacy" and now WP:OR connect that to the Wolfsangl symbol, which has nothing to do with the OUN whatsoever and you know that. Saying they chose the Wolfsangl because it was fascist and the "OUN was fascist" is WP:SYN connect the dots, and wrong.--Львівське (говорити) 05:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• per WP:PIC " If additional alt text is added, it should be a succinct description that complies with the content policies" - not "going off on a tangent". Per WP:ALT "Alternative text should be short, such as "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush". If it needs to be longer, the important details should appear in the first few words, allowing the user of a screen reader to skip forward once the key points are understood. Very long descriptions can be left for the body of the article" and here's a screenshot of how junky it looks --Львівське (говорити) 05:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the fact that Svoboda used the Wolfsangel symbol is really important to people, which is why sources write about it. -Darouet (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And still uses it actually, if images from Svoboda protests mean anything. -Darouet (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I underlined to emphasize that this is important and should be in the article, I'm only talking about the bloat on the thumbnail description. Description's aren't a place to do a comprehensive history, just state "this was their symbol (year-year)"--Львівське (говорити) 15:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an image of the symbol is really important because it is visually striking and its similarity with other fascistic symbols can be observed. Correspondingly, noting that in the text below, like the sources that describe the issue, is appropriate and helpful to readers. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said remove the image...*shrug*...--Львівське (говорити) 16:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darouet. It seems that this whole time Lvivske is trying to spin-doctor the wikipedia article about Svoboda to make it a more mainstream right-wing party. He states that the whole world knows that Svoboda is a fascist party but intentionally deletes text and photos which makes would make this knowledge clear publicly.

Shame on you Lvivske. Unless you're an NSA operative pretending to be Ukrainian, you will be banned soon from editing futher articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.224.152 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't insult people or accuse them of being operatives. If you have content to contribute, that is what is most useful: provide references, text, links. Arguing or insulting people won't help anything. -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]