Talk:Right Sector/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Reverts

I am the IPs starting with 82.83. What has happened, from my perspective: My addition gets reverted by Lvivske with an accusation of original research and POV pushing. I was not sure what exactly caused the accusation, so I tried reinserting my previous edit, very slightly reworded. Instead of reverting again, Lvivske merely clarifies the sentence about the flag a little.

Next, I add a few things from the interview that may shed light on the ideological position of Yarosh, if not Right Sector as a whole: his rejection of racism, and his use of a quote from Bandera – it's only a quote, and it's vague enough to plausibly deny encouragement of violence. Also, I try to give some background that I think helps to understand why RS's use of the red-and-black banner is noteworthy; on one hand, it has been a symbol of national resistance against occupation (this could be made clearer), on the other hand it is associated with very violent ethnic cleansing on a large scale. If this is too much for the article, perhaps the plain red-and-black banner should get its own article covering attitudes towards it.

Insignificant edits by another IP follow. Then, Darouet makes some additions and changes/reduces my earlier addition.

Then, Lvivske first deletes "(Bandera's Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists has been accused of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia)", calling it "original research, bandera was in prison when this happened and no one accuses him of 'massacring' anyone", and also deletes the statement about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army having committed massacres mentioned earlier in the section, calling it "more OR".

I would probably not phrase things exactly the way Darouet did, but I decide to undo Lvivske's deletions; to counter claims of "original research", it should be easy enough to refer to numerous sources by history scholars given in the linked article (massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia), but to make it even easier to ascertain that neither claims of the UPA's agency in the massacres, nor of the UPA having answered to the OUN-B, nor of Bandera's leadership of the OUN-B before his incarceration are original research, I add a few seemingly reputable sources: diff

Lvivske promptly reverts this ("More POV original research that has nothing to do with Right Sector in the least"). I don't understand:

1. "POV" – What exactly, the ethnic cleansing? I would welcome if, instead of deleting properly sourced statements, you added to give a more neutral or balanced view. If liberals have qualms about Right Sector's ideology, actions, statements or symbols, those become noteworthy and should have enough space in the article to understand what this is about. For example, I don't think it's good to delete mention of the link between the banner and the murders in 1943–45. Instead, you could add something to explain how the banner is seen as a symbol of freedom and anti-Nazi/anti-Soviet resistance by some Ukrainians, if that is the case.
2. "Original research" – I have quoted several external sources that back up every word I have added or changed; I have merely reworded/compiled what seemingly reputable sources say. If you are alleging I have conducted independent research about anything here, that is obviously wrong. The only exception I can think of is the apparent use of symbols resembling the red-black banner, which is not "research" at all, it's plainly obvious and was already implied in the infobox.
3. "Has nothing to do with Right Sector in the least" – What exactly do you mean? If an organization prominently uses a controversial symbol, and if the leader of an organization quotes a controversial person the way Yarosh did, it deserves mention and possibly a half-sentence of background information to explain what might be controversial about it, especially for those readers (like me) unfamiliar with Bandera, the OUN-B, the UPA, the red-black banner or the ethnic cleansing who want to get a basic idea of what the controversy is about but who would prefer not having to read through each of those articles to find the relevant bits of information.

--82.83.102.201 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, it's WP:SYNTHESIS to just go off on a tangent and talk about things the UPA did or didn't do, or Bandera's criticisms. This article is about Right Sector. Imagine the article said "their flag is red-white and blue, the which is influenced by the United States, who massacred millions of native americans and thousands of vietnamese", or "they wear black, which is also what the SS wore while they killed millions of jews" - The link in the article just points to their site with no actual mention of the colors or their significance, but the editor is mentally going "oh, it's red and black, so it must be UPA and it must be because they like bandera, and let's tell a bunch of things bandera did - now Right Sector supports Polish ethnic cleansing". Textbook synthesis and original research. Stick to the raw facts.

Svoboda is much more tied to the UPA imagery than Right Sector, organizing marches and venerating them in their actual political statements and policies. In that article, we constructed the following which we found to be a neutral statement that provided context: "Bandera is a controversial figure for his role in leading the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which fought the Soviets and Nazi Germany for an independent Ukrainian state but also, according to some historians, contained members who cooperated in the killing of thousands of Jews during Nazi occupation; According to Christopher Miller of the Kyiv Post, Bandera was instead the target of a heavy smear campaign by Soviet propaganda which portrayed him as an anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator."

The only problem here is that Right Sector hasn't been criticized for the colors. For all we know, it's just the reasoning on the UPA article - a nationalist color scheme meaning blood and earth. We, as editors, can't assuming Right Sector is politically tied to the actions or another group based on a color scheme.--Львівське (говорити) 03:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

odd smell

On http://euromaidanpr.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/right-sector-assures-israeli-ambassador-that-they-reject-antisemitism/ - as well as in Haaretz of March 7. 20014) - it says about the relations between the right sector and the israel ambassador "The sides have agreed to create a “hot line” in order to avoid provocations and to find solutions for any further issues that may arise." ...well - considering the rumours and official news about the group and Mr. Yarosh - one must feel a bit uncomfortable, with either the fact that there is this "hotline" (what about? Who gives the orders?) or that there is false propaganda about the right sector? anyone here thinking a bit further? ever heard of "agents provocateurs"? it's french, but it's still worth thinking about.

Two sources for statements by Yarosh

Dmytro Yarosh was interviewed by Ukrains’ka Pravda on 4 February, 2014. We'd like to reproduce the content of his interview here but there's disagreement as to which translation to use.

The following translation was published here on "Sean's Russia Blog" and is a translation by William Risch (who is probably this associate professor of history):

"Stepan Bandera once advocated three ways of dealing with non-Ukrainians. It’s very simple. You deal with them as comrades – and this is for those who fight with you for Ukraine, regardless of their nationality. You deal with them in a tolerant way – for those who live on the land and do not oppose our struggle; thus, we treat them normally, Ukraine has a place for all. The third way of dealing with them is in a hostile way – and this is for those who oppose the Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle. And this is in any state; any people takes exactly these positions."

The next translation is available from google translate here:

"Stepan Bandera at one time proposed three attitude to not Ukrainian. It is very simple. There are sister cities - for those who join us in fighting for Ukraine, regardless of nationality. Is tolerant - as people who live in the land not oppose our fight, and we treat them properly in all places Ukraine suffice. Third - hostile to those who oppose national liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people, and that in any country, any nation it is these positions and has."

I would argue that we should use the translation by William Risch, which is grammatically and technically sound, comprehensible, and looks to have been produced by someone who is able to translate professionally. If we use the google translate text, unless we want to keep it looking like nonsense in our article here, we'll need to change it, and that will lead to a lot of debate about how to change it, in terms of interpretation of content. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also the second interview where he says something similar --Львівське (говорити) 20:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that's a second interview? Where does that come from exactly? -Darouet (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Change in BBC source

User:Nikosgreencookie has just correctly noted that this BBC source is now being used incorrectly, i.e. to support article statements not contained in the source.

Unfortunately, it looks like that source - which once had a long(ish) description of Right Sector - has now been updated on the BBC page. And I don't, for now at least, have a copy of the old site text. Will see what I can do, but if anyone else has ideas, great! -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014

Right sector it is not fascistic organization, it is nationalistic organization, for example they don't offer murders of other people as fascists did. Please correct it. 91.229.66.140 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: At least three different sources describe this organization as either fascist or neofascist. Your argument to the contrary does not make logical sense - see hasty generalization. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014

The information is defamation to the patriot organisation. Tags : fascist and radical nationalist are inappropriate. 80.43.188.121 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: All such descriptors that I see in the article are reliably sourced through such organizations as Time, the BBC, and USA Today. If they are inappropriate please feel free to inform the news outlets that are using the terms. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014

DragonJT (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Right Sector/Archive 1 Leader Dmytro Yarosh Ukrainian Yarosh Founded 2014 Headquarters Kiev Ideology Far-right politics Ukrainian nationalism Colors Black and Red Slogan Glory to Ukraine Website Banderivets.org.ua Politics of Ukraine Political parties Elections Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a radical nationalist paramilitary Ukrainian opposition group with right-wing, ultra right-wing, borderline fascist or neofascist views. According to various reports, the organization has between 2,000 and 3,000 active members in Kiev. Right Sector is an alliance of a number of nationalist and extreme-right splinter groups as well as the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA-UNSO). It first emerged at the end of November 2013 at Euromaidan in Kiev. History Right sector traces its origins back to Ukrainians who fought alongside Germany and against the Soviet Union during the Second World War (a group known as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists or OUN). Right Sector became one of the main actors in the January 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, a part of the Euromaidan protests, in their later and more violent stages. Right Sector's entry into the protests in Kiev brought weapons and armed fighters into the standoff, leading violent confrontations with police and promoting the overthrow of the Yanukovych government. On 19 January 2014 Right Sector encouraged its members to bring bottles to the protests in order to produce molotov cocktails and bombs. The former Yanukovich's government classified Right Sector as an extremist movement, threatening its members with imprisonment. According to Volodymyr Ishchenko, in an op-ed piece on The Guardian, Right Sector was responsible for the violent 1 December 2013 attack on the Ukrainian administration, and has led other violent provocations with police. The leader of Right Sector, Dmitro Yarosh, has stated that Right Sector has amassed a lethal arsenal of weapons. In February 2014, Right Sector issued a statement warning of the possibility of attack by Russian or Ukrainian police operatives, leading the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) to announce that it was on heightened alert. In response, fearing a staged provocation for which it could be blamed, Right Sector stated that it was planning no terrorist attacks and that it opposed terrorist political tactics. Following the collapse of the Yanukovych government in 2014, Right Sector leaders visited the Israeli embassy in Ukraine, telling Israeli ambassador Reuven Din-El that the group rejects anti-semitism, chauvinism, and xenophobia. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Yanukovych government, Yarosh and Victoria Siumar were proposed as possible deputies to the National Security and Defense Council. Ideology Right Sector activists. Euromaidan, Kiev. February 22, 2014. According to some Right Sector members and Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, the organization is affiliated with or composed of several smaller, extreme-right and nationalist groups including "Trident", "Patriot of Ukraine", "White Hammer" and the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defence. One Right Sector member, Andriy Tarasenko, has stated that the organization was set up in late November 2013 and "most participants are just ordinary citizens having no relation to any organizations." In an interview, Yarosh has stated that Right Sector and Svoboda "have a lot of common positions when it comes to ideological questions," but that Right Sector “absolutely do[es]n’t accept certain racist things they [Svoboda] share.” Speaking about his attitude towards non-Ukrainians, Yarosh referred to controversial WWII figure Stepan Bandera as a model. For those fighting with Right Sector "for Ukraine," Yarosh stated that they should be treated "as comrades." For those opposing "the Ukrainian people's national liberation struggle," Yarosh stated that they should be treated "in a hostile way." Like many Ukrainian nationalists, Right Sector uses red-and-black symbols, similar to the battle flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Aleksander Muzychko, a Right Sector leader, has pledged to fight "Jews and Russians until I die." Muzychko was videotaped physically assaulting a Ukrainian public prosecutor in his office, threatening to pull him to Maidan square with a rope. Journalist Oleg Shynkarenko has written that Right Sector's support for "traditional morals and family values, against the cult of profit and depravity," implies opposition to homosexuality, and the estimation of the "rights of the nation" against "human rights." Right Sector member Andrey Tarasenko has said that European integration is not a goal of the group, but a path to government. "Integration with Europe means death for Ukraine, because Brussels' bureaucratic "monster" is doing everything in order to neutralize national identity and traditional family, has supported an anti-Christian policy, and will lead to death for a state and Christianity. We want to create Ukraine for ethnic Ukrainians, managed by Ukrainians, Ukraine that is not serving to the interests of the other states". References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Please change the following:

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a radical nationalist paramilitary Ukrainian opposition group,[1] described as having right-wing,[2] ultra right-wing,[3] borderline fascist[1] or neofascist views.[4][5] According to various reports, the organization has between 2,000 and 3,000 active members in Kiev.[6] The group first emerged at the end of November 2013 at the Euromaidan protests in Kiev, as an alliance of far-right or extreme-right Ukrainian nationalist groups, as well as the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defence

To this one:

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) was born as a Ukrainian opposition group, which demonstrated proven patriotic views and readiness to protect human rights. This organization does not discriminate people by their nationality, religion or sex. Members of Right Sector are people of all ages and various nationalities. The number of members of Right Sector is constantly growing thus it is not possible to say how many members it has at the moment. This organization is intolerant to corruption and human rights violation; the primary goal is to build a prosperous democratic state for all people of Ukraine. During several months protests on Maidan in Kyiv the objective of Right Sector was to protect protestants; many members were killed by special forces of ousted president Yanukovich.

Phil Jacques (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this change as unsourced party propaganda. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Website update

Right Sector announced their own site http://pravyysektor.info/ please update the old one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnikitchuk (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014

Please double check whether Pravy Sector is "Fascist" of "Near-fascist" organization. Without a doubt they are radical but I saw no racism or superiority of one nation over another in their ideology. Bragol (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Stop adding such propagandist edit requests with your sock puppets.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Dear Sir/Madam,

In the article about Right Sector it is written that their ideology borders fascist and neofascist. But actually it is not true as it is just the subject of discussion and Russian propaganda. In the official document of this organisation and slogans that you can see on the official web-site of the organisation they do not use any symbols or slogans or principles of neofascists. Instead of that they use the ideology of Stepan Bandera, who protected the rights of Ukraine for freedom and independence in the first part of the 20th century. His political views have nothing in common with the ideas of nazists, and that is why it is necessary to remove the "fascist" and "neofascist" from the description of this organisation. Thatks a lot for understanding and for giving the right information. So please change the Ideology from

Right sector is described as having right-wing,[6] ultra right-wing,[16] borderline fascist[1] or neofascist views.[17][18]

to

Right sector is described as having right-wing,[6] ultra right-wing views that are aimed to restore the freedom of Ukraine and to protect it from occupation regime of Russia.

Also please remove the word "fascism" from the description of ideology. Katrinka Zukrinka (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Katrinka, I agree that we need much better sources to state that a popular modern political movement being fascist is a proved fact (not an attributed opinion). It would violate WP:BLP policy. Thus, I removed words "fascist" from the infobox. Still the opinion of major western news outlets like The Guardian or USA Today cannot be dismissed. Thus, I left the "described as ... bordering fascist and neofascist. This is a notable opinion that is attributed and well-sourced whether we like it or not Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the lede. It's the opinion of journalists who may not even know what fascism is. This stuff belongs in the body, properly cited, and attributed to who is doing what describing. Otherwise it's a WP:WEIGHT issue, loading the OPINION of journalists into what should be 100% straight up facts in the intro. --Львівське (говорити) 19:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is deeply arrogant to assume that journalists writing news articles (not editorials) for major global newspapers, whose articles have been vetted and corrected by editorial oversight, are less knowledgeable about their subject than you are, and that your own view is fact, while their published record is opinion. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead political views

For most political parties, Wikipedia articles describe their ideology, in summary, in the lead (e.g. Svoboda (political party), Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), Party of Regions). That's true for Right Sector as well, whose far-right, sometimes anti-semitic and sometimes fascistic views have been noted in the press. User Lvivske just removed some of these general descriptors from the lead, while keeping others (e.g. nationalist, opposition), so I've returned those he removed. Obviously, more detailed descriptions should be given in the body of the article if possible. -Darouet (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

'sometimes' and 'kinda' descriptors that were cherry picked from the media shouldn't be used to load up the intro. It should be concise and well supported. Is there not a concise way to get their ideology across? Saying they're some "far right radical nationalist semi-anti-semite semi-fascist nazi group party" is just a jumble of synonyms and sounds highly POV. As it stands, I put them as radical ukrainian nationalists, which is spot on. Since they aren't uniformly fascist, how does that warrant being in the lede? --Львівське (говорити) 05:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What are your specific objections to the content and sources? As it stands the text I added stated, "Right sector is described as having right-wing, ultra right-wing, borderline fascist or neofascist views," citing The Guardian, USA Today and Time (magazine). You've provided no evidence of "cherry-picking" or a lack of concision. The lead has been quite concise. The only effect of your edit is to remove information that is politically compromising to Right Sector but important to international news sources. -Darouet (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, it's a series of words that were cherrypicked out of news articles and not academic sources nor political experts. Exceptional statements require exceptional sources.--Львівське (говорити) 06:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Moreover Львівське your edit distorts an accurate presentation of Right Sector in the lead because it presents certain descriptors you deem correct, while removing others you object to despite their being sourced. -Darouet (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Distort? I didn't remove or alter anything. It had nothing to do with me picking which I liked / didn't, you had both right wing and "ultraright" (not a real thing) (but still, pick one), and then you called them "borderline fascist / neo fascist" (again, pick one and support it well). As I said, it's an attempt to fill the lede up with as many buzzwords that you cherrypicked as possible. --Львівське (говорити) 06:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well here's what I propose: because you're having difficulty reading all the mainstream descriptions of Right Sector in the lead, and because you'd like the lead description to be so short, why don't we just write that they are a neofascist group in the lead, and leave all the other descriptions (far-right, opposition, nationalist, etc) in the "ideology" section? -Darouet (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

is neo-fascist the most important one to you or something? --Львівське (говорити) 07:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think they're all important because the sources do, but because you insist on only having some descriptors, while removing others, and because you insist this isn't a content issue, I am proposing that we change which descriptors we use. Truthfully, I don't believe that you feel the lead is too long at 3 sentences. -Darouet (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I do wish Львівське would desist from the highly POV interventions on this article and talk page. Here are Right Sector members describing themselves as national socialists, straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayEPstrTG_c It's not a matter of a value judgment, it's just a matter of factual accuracy. Rosenkreutzer (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, edits very similar to the one you've made removing the descriptor 'fascist' from the lead, which were requested by IPs, were rejected by User:ElHef because those descriptions are well sourced. -Darouet (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added more, and some even higher quality sources, to back up the statement that Right Sector is described as having neofascist views. Particularly, Le Monde and Die Welt are two of the most important and respected papers in Europe. I've also found a commentary from Rudling, who is an academic. -Darouet (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Great work.Rosenkreutzer (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading a Canadian scholarly source that described UNA-UNSO - amember party of the Right Sector - as neofascist. I couldn't find the link anymore though.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a large number of scholarly PDFs on the Ukrainian far right, if there's any way I'm able to upload them here. -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

we're posting youtube interviews now? The kid they talked to even said only some had (social nationalists?) views, and they all said they werent nazis. This is total original research now. --Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That is an interview with the BBC, not a youtube video. -Darouet (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links

“This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech.” YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq47Mq5kZOA

“‘There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).’ This message may also show if there are <ref>...</ref> tags after {{Reflist}}. Ensure all <ref>...</ref> tags appear before the reference list.” Cite error refs without references. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Heroes of the revolution" in the Ukraine: "Kill russians and jews - we are the Europe"

http://rutube.ru/video/151ddb656298189875d3b62cebabd125/?ref=logo this is the reality

---

It's only newspaper

• Compilation (by Russian newspaper) of documentary videos about Trident of Bandera

--Rqasd (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"About the Newspaper… The newspaper is published in paper and electronic form." Журналистская правда, http://jpgazeta.ru/o-gazete/ --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ru/Ukr language sources and "non-working" links for some German editors

I have restored paragraphs removed by Dervorguilla who justified the removal by sources being in Russian or Ukrainian and by some links not working.

On sources being Russian or Ukrainian: removing them gives undue weight to things Western reporters have noticed. Since the attention span of Western journalists can be quite unstable, avoiding Ru/Ukr language sources (1) in a biased article (2) for reasons of language purity (3) in the age of Google Translate seems unjustified if (4) one is aspiring toward a balanced (NPOV) representation of things. Paragraphs that were removed put the "weight" and "influence" of Right Sector in the aftermath of active protests into perspective. Specifically, I do not see how a week-old article (with events unfolding so quickly) where a journalist interviews sources and writes about PLANS and NEGOTIATIONS—how that trumps the official website of the State Security Service of Ukraine for the worthiness of being featured on Wikipedia. I know the journalist in question (Roman Olearchyk) personally and respect him highly for his objectivity, but at that point in time, he was writing about things that were being discussed. And at this point, with the WP article being biased, leaving the situation at "Yarosh was proposed for Dep Head of National Security Council" where these discussions have ended in naught skews the perspective a whole lot. IMHO.

On links not being accessible: during the active stages of the protests, when these were broadcast online by such agencies as Espreso.tv, Hromadske.tv etc., people from Germany were complaining that they couldn't access these broadcasts on Youtube and that access was blocked "for copyright reasons". I don't know what kind of copyright concerns could be attached to a live broadcast of events in Kyiv by Kyiv-based news outlets, but whatever inane justification might exist for that, please give consideration to this report of mine that not everything is accessible from Germany. I have just checked one of those "non-working links" from Google Chrome with Zenmate extension through a USA proxy, and through the USA proxy everything is fine. Latreia (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

P. S. I apologise if I have incorrectly assumed that Dervorguilla is located in Germany. His page says he is a native speaker of German, and no other language information is available. Anyway, whether German or U. S., links are accessible for me from at least two different IP addresses (my own and the Zenmate U.S. proxy), so we probably should gather a number of complaints on "non working links" before removing them. Latreia (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The name Dervorguilla is feminine, not masculine, and Scottish, not German; yet her prose is written in U.S. English, not Commonwealth English. Her current whereabouts remain a mystery. The link to the Official Website of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (http://www.rnbo.gov.ua/content/aparat.html) still isn’t working. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for incorrect assumptions that I made. Yes, the NSDC page is currently also not opening for me through a U.S. proxy (though it opens for me all right from a Ukrainian IP). Three days ago, there were news that NSDC servers were under a DDOS attack. Don't know if the problem persists because of that or not, but let's leave it as it is for now with the "broken citation" note. "Server timed out" is not a 404 error or "server cannot be found". The point is, Yarosh might have tried whatever he did attempting to build on his "achievements", but he has not been appointed to either NSDC or SSU. Latreia (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideology in the lead

We now cite seven sources that describe Right Sector as fascistic, including Time (magazine), Le Monde diplomatique, USA Today, Die Welt and The Nation. These are all highly respected, western sources, and some of the more important publications in the United States, Germany and France. All but one of the sources are news articles, while another source is an op-ed (opinion) in The Guardian written by a sociologist and lecturer at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla, in Kiev. One of the news articles includes commentary from professor and expert on Ukrainian nationalism and far-right politics, Per Anders Rudling.

The characterizations of these sources are consistent with everything else we know, also through reliable sources, about Right Sector. Right Sector makes use of fascistic iconography. Haaretz reports that it has distributed fascist and antisemitic literature at protests. Members themselves, in interviews, speak about a white, clean and Christian Ukraine.

If we move past the sources here, there are videos of Right Sector members assaulting students in Maidan, and probably dozens of articles in the Russian press (not one is cited here) that should be read and evaluated.

If the information that we have here isn't sufficient to describe Right Sector as neofascist, there are no number of sources that would suffice to justify any statement on wikipedia. At this point, a multitude of powerful, convincing sources would need to be found explaining that it wasn't neofascist, in which case, we could note that position as well.

For now, we should remove the "by whom" label added to the lead after the words "Right sector is described…" because we'd just have to write, "by major Western newspapers," and that would be embarrassing for all of us. -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that these sources inserted were (surprise surprise) misquotes to push a POV. I've since removed the ones who do not state they are fascist or neo-fascist. Saying 'others describe them as fascist' is not the same as the newspaper making that assertion, saying they are borderline or quasi-fascist is literally saying they aren't fascist - yet these sources were used to WP:CITEKILL and pad the lead to push (surprise) more POV additions to the article. As it stands, having opinion in the lede is a real dangerous path to tread per WP:ASSERT. --Львівське (говорити) 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What I'd originally written was, "Right Sector is a radical nationalist paramilitary Ukrainian opposition group,[1] described as having right-wing,[2] ultra right-wing,[3] borderline fascist[1] or neofascist views.[4][5]" You, Львівське, removed this from the lead arguing here that the description wasn't concise. I argued that the lead was already very concise, but you didn't really explain your idea of what concise meant, and weren't interested.

So, I found more sources stating that Right Sector is described as having quasi-fascist or neofascist views, and and on your behalf summarized in more condensed form: "Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a radical Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary and opposition group,[1] described as having far right[2][3] or neofascist views.[1][4][5][6][7][8][9]" Amazingly, you demanded that we write who was saying this, as if it wasn't obvious or easily accessible from the block of sources immediately adjacent.

So again on your behalf I changed the text to say "Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a radical Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary and opposition group,[1] described by major western newspapers as having far right[2][3] or neofascist views.[1][4][5][6][7][8][9]" I also added quotes so that everyone could see exactly what the sources said. While it's true that some sources write "quasi-fascist," that's definitely encompassed by the description "far right or neofascist," as it is something more or less applicable to either.

That still doesn't satisfy you, as you insist on trying to lawyer around the exact meaning of each quote, every one of which supports the original statement that Right Sector is described as having far right or neofascist views, even if we don't plagiarize from each directly. So now I've placed all the citations at the end, with their quotes available for readers who want to hover their cursor over the citation, and written that Right Sector is described as having "far-right to neofascist views," so that we can account for everything in between, like "quasi-fascist."

Your various demands have essentially been contradictory: you insist on removing the "fascist" descriptions in the interest of concision, but then when a more concise version is presented, you complain it is inaccurate. You demand "facts" but present no sources of your own, and accuse respected newspapers of presenting nothing but the "opinion of journalists." Now you're arguing that citations are problematic due to WP:CITEKILL, but in contradictory fashion also argue that the citations aren't enough, so that we're guilty of WP:ASSERT. All of this WIKILAWYERING creates an impossible catch-22, where any amount of sources is both too much and too little, any description is an oversimplification or too verbose, and the best option is the only one that satisfies you: that you should tell us what the article is going to say, because journalists are too full of opinions. -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude, just look at Russian National Unity, there is no mention of fascism or nazism in their lede and they have a freaking swastika as their logo. Let's go a step further, the Nazi Party article doesn't even mention fascism in the lede! Right now by your POV pushing, Right Sector is more fascist than Hitler. Come on. How can you be so blatant? --Львівське (говорити) 21:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up… in reading about Ukrainian far-right politics I've also seen a few articles about fascistic movements in Russia. If those articles are to be believed it's an even bigger problem (and has been so historically) in Russia. When I type "Russian National Unity" into google scholar, here's the first thing that shows up:

• SG Simonsen - nationalities papers, 1996 - Taylor & Francis. Aleksandr Barkashov and Russian national unity: Blackshirt friends of the nation. "Russian National Unity (Russkoe Natsionalnoe Edinstvo—RNE) is the largest militant fascist group in Russia today. The founder and leader of the RNE, Aleksandr P. Barkashov, speaks of himself as a national‐socialist, and praises Hitler's deeds for Germany…"

• The next thing I see (by Cas Mudde, an expert on right extremism in Eastern Europe) describes them as an extremist group, "militarism with a Nazi-type style… bear a stylized swastika… straight arm salute…"

Assuming that there would be other references that followed suit, our wikipedia article should very definitely describe Russian National Unity as a fascist organization, or as a fascistic organization. As lesser approach would be to write that it "is described as a nationalist, far right or fascist organization," as we've done here. There as here, the presence of high-quality news articles and the opinion of experts who study Eastern European extremism would not require, in the lead, an explanation of who says it. There as here, you can be sure there will be Russian nationalists who will fight tooth and nail against the reliable sources, and think of every argument under the sun to prevent you from accurately describing them. -Darouet (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

While I agree there shouldnt be double standards, why is it that the Nazi party article itself can be neutral and all of these articles you seem to be touching turn into slam pieces? Not that I'm defending Nazis, but if the Nazi article is the epitome (I'd imagine) of a huge community creating a great article by wiki standards, it should be followed as an example. It's bad when say, Right Sector looks more evil than the Nazis if we were to compare intros. --Львівське (говорити) 00:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you read the history of the Nazi Party on our page, you see that Nazism developed in parallel with fascism, which emerged contemporaneously in Italy. So from the very beginning Nazism was distinct, though it was influenced by Italian fascism. Many aspects of Nazi ideology (e.g. racism) are described in the lead, and the "ideology" in the sidebar is described as "fascist." I think that neofascism is somewhat different, often (not always) rejecting the historical examples of Mussolini, Hitler, while still evincing extreme xenophobia, adulation of white racial and christian purity, obsession with militarism and fascistic iconography. It's ironic, in both Russia and in Ukraine, that these groups adopt so much from Nazi and fascist rituals and ideology, while also claiming (sometimes rightly) to have been enemies of or to have been persecuted by the Nazis.

Look, I don't have a crystal ball to look into Right Sector, but from all I've read, it seems clear that there are many in the leadership and membership who have openly fascistic views, probably including hostility to other ethnicities, and a worship of militarism and fascistic iconography. But there also seem to be people who view it more as a military force against Putin and the Party of Regions, people who are less interested in the racist stuff. That's why I'd rather leave the sidebar alone and write that Right Sector is described as having far right or neofascist views. That doesn't label it (for now), but makes it plain, immediately, that there are different commentaries.

One thing we could do is add another short sentence immediately following: "Right Sector has officially stated that it rejects _, and scholar _ has stated that while Right Sector includes a neo-Nazi fringe, many/most members are not fascists." I saw an alter net post some time ago to that effect, and while I don't know how highly alter net is considered as a RS, the scholar they cited is well known. -Darouet (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

“Bordering on fascist” (which is how Time describes Right Sector) ought to be distinguished from “neofascist” (which is how many sources describe it).

neofascism. “A political movement arising … after World War II and characterized by policies designed to incorporate the basic principles of fascism (such as … opposition to democracy) into existing political systems.”

neo-Fascism. “An Italian political movement that seeks to reestablish Fascism.”

MW3, Random House Dict., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neofascism. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the OUN's relationship to Mussolini and Italian fascism, but I think it's probably safe to say that Right Sector falls under the first definition. -Darouet (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. it's fine to keep the Time source, as the sentence currently reads "far right to neofascist," and "bordering on fascism" clearly falls somewhere in between (and readers who are interested will learn something about Right Sector's politics). -Darouet (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So we agree it′s okay to leave as is, then? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK for now - I think Time is a useful resource there, but there are so many possible citations for that statement, we do need to make a selection. -Darouet (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reuters:Right Sector activists call on supporters to edit English Wikipedia

[1] On Tuesday the group called for supporters to patrol Wikipedia. In a posting on Vkontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook, Right Sector wrote: "We appeal to people who can make changes to Wikipedia. In the English version (with Russian worse) Right Sector is depicted as an organization that has a fascist and neo-Nazi views, with appropriate consequences. If you have an opportunity - correct this misunderstanding." If it was reported by Reuters it seems to be notable enough to be included. Opinion? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Rashkin quote

The added content paraphrases a self-promoting speech by the leader of a minority party not directly related to any subject person or party.

“Russian State Duma deputy Valery Rashkin urged Russian special services to […].” Российский депутат призвал спецслужбы «ликвидировать» Яроша и Белого, Lenta.ru.

What the source says (emphasis added): “Member of the Communist Party faction in the State Duma Valery Rashkin called the Russian special services to […].”

“State Duma - [percent of] seats by party - United Russia [53%], CPRF [21%], …” The World Factbook. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What the source says: “… Communist Party [opposition leader] Rashkin … called the Russian special services to ‘liquidate’ … Yarosh and … Alexander.”

Any word as to whether the Party’s made a “Motion To Liquidate” yet?  ;)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

views on ethnic minorities

How is this version less obfuscated??

For those fighting with Right Sector "for Ukraine," Yarosh stated that they should be treated "as comrades." For those opposing "the Ukrainian people's national liberation struggle," Yarosh stated that they should be treated "in a hostile way."

This is broken and convoluted, why not make it read fluidly and in wording people understand? This is the google translate version of this quote:

Our attitude to the Russian as well as other representatives of national minorities, fits into the methodology proposed by Stepan Bandera: Fraternal to those with us fighting for statehood of the Ukrainian nation; tolerant to those who recognize our right to be masters of our own destiny on our land; hostile to those who deny this right, "

Dauret blanked this and the original ref for the above version which is, quote frankly, confusing. "Comrades"?--Львівське (говорити) 05:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing is paraphrasing information from quotes, another thing is re-telling the quotes so as to fit certain aims. That's what you were doing [2]: the quote does not exactly say ″ tolerate of those who recognize Ukrainians' right to self determination, and hostile to those who oppose freedom.″
Rather, it says: ″tolerate of those who recognize our right to be masters of our own destiny on our own land; hostile to those who deny that right.″Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

'Masters of our own destiny' is the same thing as 'right to self determination', IMO, figured it was just a better translation (slavic to english often has archaisms that would sound weird in english in contemporary parlance.) I don't understand what "aim" you're accusing me of pushing, I pasted the quote you just mentioned word for word above for the purse of transparency and proper translation. --Львівське (говорити) 15:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote from the professionally translated and published interview is as follows: "Stepan Bandera once advocated three ways of dealing with non-Ukrainians. It’s very simple. You deal with them as comrades – and this is for those who fight with you for Ukraine, regardless of their nationality. You deal with them in a tolerant way – for those who live on the land and do not oppose our struggle; thus, we treat them normally, Ukraine has a place for all. The third way of dealing with them is in a hostile way – and this is for those who oppose the Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle. And this is in any state; any people takes exactly these positions."

You changed the article text to summarize in this way: "Speaking about his attitude towards ethnic minorities in Ukraine, Yarosh cited controversial WWII figure Stepan Bandera as a model: Fraternal to those fighting for Ukrianian statehood, tolerate of those who recognize Ukrainians' right to self determination, and hostile to those who oppose freedom." This is a blatantly partisan way of describing Yarosh's statement for a number of reasons:

1) Yarosh is referring to those "non-Ukrainians" who "oppose the Ukrainian people's national liberation struggle," which is an ambiguous term invoked by Yarosh that also refers to Right Sectors "fight" and "struggle" as he mentions immediately above. It's not about those "who oppose freedom:" not only does Yarosh not say this, but it also implies that those who oppose Right Sector (most people in Ukraine, and in the world if they had any idea what they believed) somehow " oppose freedom." I'm amazed that you had the guts to write such nonsense here.

2) Fighting "for Ukraine" - whatever Yarosh means by this exactly - doesn't necessarily translate into your "fighting for Ukrainian statehood" or "right to self determination." You've taken Yarosh's words - which could be interpreted in a very hostile or favorable way but are ambiguous - and made them seem rosy, friendly, and democratic by actually changing them.

3) "hostile to those…" which is what you've written, is not the same as "dealing with them in a hostile way," which again is what the quote actually says, and has a number of possible meanings, some of them quite frightening, given what has been written about this group's ideology. -Darouet (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me what the quote actually says, its quoted verbatim right above. I changed nothing and you know it. "hostile to those who deny this right," is direct from the source unaltered.--Львівське (говорити) 19:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

professionally translated with glaring grammatical issues? Sure this bud. I like how you intentionally omitted "Ukraine has a place for all." and yet call me a partisan. Your attempts at demonizing everyone on the Ukrainian right are pretty glaring. We keep having these issues, you and I. Yes, I summarized "masters of [our right to be masters of our own destiny]" into "freedom" because it's just common sense shortening. The very definition of freedom is self determination. --Львівське (говорити) 19:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to trust "google translate" over a published translation. -Darouet (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you're going to blank reliable sources because you like your convoluted half-english over an actual direct quote? what? I just checked your source, it's not a reliable source it's "Sean's Russia Blog" so no, this content is going bye bye. --Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

″Your attempts at demonizing everyone on the Ukrainian right are pretty glaring. ″ - please try not to get personal, shall you? The user has recently edited only Right Sector and Svoboda, neither of which qualifies as ″everyone on the Ukrainian right″ (i.e. not mainstream right). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

svoboda are the only party on the mainstream right & far right with any votes so I think it qualifies --Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A place for all except those who oppose them, whom they'll "deal with in a hostile way." Львівське are you really arguing that we should use google translate instead of the blog translation? And you you really think that "those who oppose the Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle" (the struggle or fight of Right Sector), are really those who oppose freedom? -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should really use the direct quote over a "Russian blog" (which you wrongly claimed was professionally translated and I assumed good faith of your word), I'm pretty sure reliable source guidelines say enough about this. I've provided enough quotes, I don't need to explain again that "right to be masters of our own destiny" and "Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle" are two somewhat different things, although the latter could be summarized simply as "liberty", which is of course synonymous with "freedom" (especially in Ukrainian, as Radio Liberty is 'Radio Svoboda' and of course, the Svoboda party is known as the 'Freedom Party').--Львівське (говорити) 20:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would just like to point out now that we're comparing 2 separate interviews with similar question/answers --Львівське (говорити) 20:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose taking Right Sector's words and refactoring them into a more palatable form, and also strongly oppose using google translate as a more reliable source than the blog translation currently provided in the article.

Perhaps we can agree on a compromise and, instead of either of us summarizing, simply give the entire quote? I would only argue that we should in this case use the published (albeit by a blog) translation because it's perfectly clear, and if you actually speak a language, good translate can be notoriously incorrect. -Darouet (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That blog looks like a copy paste of google translate IMO. I haven't gone over it in detail but....I think we can find a compromise here. IMO putting both quotes in full may be overkill / clutter. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to break both down and come up with a plainspeak summary. I'd also like to apologize if I've come off as agressive, you piss me off from time to time (where we mutually accuse the other of bias) but we usually end up figuring things out (which is why I get frustrated, because I know we're perfectly able to work together) --Львівське (говорити) 00:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason that I think we should avoid a summary is that I don't believe that your summary is really a summary, and you believe that my summary is unclear. But we both agree that this paragraph from this interview is important, and so I think we should just put the whole thing up as a quote. -Darouet (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think if we break it down we can consolidate parts to decongest things. It should also be in a separate section on policy or something, right now the whole article is a big block. --Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm going to take the translation issue to the reliable source noticeboard. -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine.--Львівське (говорити) 16:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Львівське, the source that you found - crimea.comments.ua - what is it exactly? I'm trying to compare the google translate version of it to the google translate version of the original Pravda article, which is very different. It looks like the website you found is a comments page or something like that, and it seems to have been made about 20 days after the original interview, available here. -Darouet (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A "comments page"? Please refrain from willfully distorting the source. The newspaper is called 'Komentary', that's like saying The Wall Street Journal 'appears to be someones journal site' --Львівське (говорити) 06:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless if it's yarosh or another guy, this seems to be Right Sector official policy. Here's a fb post reiterating it link: Brotherly to those who join us in fighting for the Ukrainian national state; Tolerant to those who have a positive attitude towards the struggle for the right to be masters of their own destiny in their own land, "All of us here have enough space" (Bandera); Hostile to those who oppose the process of Ukrainian national revival and the state."--Львівське (говорити) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Other Ukrainians and political parties

'Right Sector defines itself as neither xenophobic nor anti-Semitic (which it states are claims in Russian propaganda), but instead as “nationalist, defending the values of white, Christian Europe against the loss of the nation and deregionalization.”'

->

'According to international-relations consultant Emmanuel Dreyfus, Right Sector defines itself as neither xenophobic nor anti-Semitic but nationalist, defending the values of white, Christian Europe against the loss of the nation.'

The author doesn’t identify the source of the original (direct) quotation. And “‘deregionalization’ … isn’t in the dictionary.” --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A diverting intellectual exercise:

1. Tarasenko speaks to the press only in Ukrainian, not in Russian. 2. Dreyfus may perhaps understand Russian but he hasn’t indicated whether he understands Ukrainian. 3. Dreyfus writes in French, not in English. So...

A busy & annoyed Tarasenko says “ABDEG”. The fatigued Ukrainian–French translator (unnamed) says something like “ABCDG”. A perplexed Dreyfus writes “ABCDF”. The French–English translator (Goulden) rewrites it more elegantly, as “ABCDE”. To wit: “Pravy Sektor rejects multiculturalism, as ‘responsible for the disappearance of the crucifix and the arrival of girls in burqas in your schools.’”

If Tarasenko did indeed say that, maybe he was trying to show up Dreyfus and his publisher as ignorant or biased? Shouldn’t a sophisticated European political writer have suspected that Tarasenko, a European nationalist-party spokesman, ought to know that French nationalism — French monoculturalism (in particular, secularism) — is responsible for the disappearance of the crucifix and the banning (not the “arrival”) of burkas in French schools?

Too much for this WP editor to deconstruct! --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tarasenko says RS is about to become a political party

On March 7, 2014, Tarasenko told Interfax–Ukraine that the "informal movement" is to become a political party on March 15. {{cite news |title=‘Right Sector’ is becoming a party and Yarosh is going for the presidency |newspaper=Українська правда |location=Kiev |date=March 7, 2014 |url=http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/03/7/7018003/ }}

The main characteristic of the Right Sector is incorrect

The Right Sector is not "far-right". It has nothing to do with "far-right" ideologies of other movements. The Right Sector's main theme is that Ukraine must be Free, United and Independent. They do believe in Christ and they are very much Christian, but they are very liberal and tolerant Christians. Also, I believe that there should a new section in this article, where it should be stated that the Russian propaganda is actively attacking the Right Sector; Russian hackers attack their websites and portals. Russian hackers placed false information on the page of the Right Sector few days ago, where Dmytro Yarosh supposedly called the terrorist Doku Umarov to take up arms against Russia. The Right Sector press-attaché made a statement that their website was hacked and that this information was placed there by the Russian FSB. Russian court has issued an order to arrest the leader of the Right Sector based on the false information planted by the Russian FSB. So it should be mentioned that president Putin sees the Right Sector as an enemy of his regime and tries to blacken the good name of the Right Sector anyway he can. Please consider these changes for they reflect the true nature of things. Kranshteun (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would a tolerant, liberal, peace loving organisation use Nazi paraphernalia and threaten to blow up gas pipelines? Also the hacking could have been done by anyone. There is no evidence that it was the FSB. LokiiT (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the request, Kranshteun. Second edit made. But not the first. (1) You haven't cited it. (2) It appears to reflect a good-faith misunderstanding caused by your acknowledged perspective on the issue. What you would see as "right", center-leftists would see as "far right". Likewise you would see them as "far left". Agree? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Done in part.

Edit requested:

“[I]t should be mentioned that president Putin sees the Right Sector as an enemy of his regime and tries to blacken the good name of the Right Sector anyway he can.”

Change made (00:11, 20 March 2014):

“Russia has cited attacks by Right Sector on Russian speakers and Jews as the main reason it sent troops into Crimea. The Associated Press reports that it has found no evidence of hate crimes [here including, in particular, attacks on Russian speakers or Jews] by the group.” Maria Danilova, “After Ukraine Protest, Radical Group Eyes Power,” Associated Press, March 4, 2014 (“Demonized by Russian state propaganda as fascists and accused of staging attacks against Russian speakers and Jews, the Right Sector has been used by Moscow as the main reason it has sent troops into Crimea….”).

--Dervorguilla (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation?

Can someone please translate what the people are chanting in this video?

Allegations about BLP public figure Nalyvaichenko

Luhn, Alec (3 March 2014):

“Far-Right Groups Infiltrate Kiev’s Institutions…. [L]eaders linked to these two groups [Svoboda and Right Sector] were appointed to high-ranking security positions in the new government.… Right Sector … has ties to the new security service head….”

“infiltrate. To enter or become established in (an organization) …” MW3.

BLP PUBLICFIGURE: “In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources…. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.”

So, if you can’t find more than one source documenting whether Nalyvaichenko has ties to Right Sector, leave it out. If you can’t find more than one source documenting whether Nalyvaichenko’s linked to Right Sector, leave it out. If you can’t find more than one source documenting whether Right Sector took part in getting Nalyvaichenko appointed to his new position or whether Right Sector has infiltrated Kiev’s security service (of which he’s the new head), leave it out, too. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How to become a recognized neo-Nazi group

You can only be officially recognized as a neo-“Nazi” organization by the Party itself or an affiliate. Calling your group “neo-Nazi” could be interpreted as intellectual-property theft and an incitement to violence (e.g., punchouts) by echt neo-Nazis against poser, ‘jew-friendly’ Sektor boys. From the Party’s perspective, such “blurring” of its trademark could “undermine public policy by being scandalous or deceptive” and it might ask to have the assertion speedily deleted. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply to erroneous edit summary by Ubikwit (“your comments on neo-Nazi affiliation on Talk is WP:OR, if you think there is a copyright vio, then take it up”):

(1) The altered Wolfangel isn’t a neo-Nazi symbol, it’s a vampire symbol. And if it were a neo-Nazi symbol, the Copyright Act of 1976 would extend the term of protection only to “the life of the author plus 50 years” = 1995. And if it did extend the term of protection to 2014, the trademark (if any) would in any case be protected under the Lanham (trademark) Act, not the Copyright Act.

(2) OR doesn’t apply to Talk (“This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.”). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure of interests

I declare that neither I nor any member of my immediate family has a significant financial interest in any entity discussed in my edits to Right Sector or in any competing entity. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

“Meanwhile, ultranationalists and neo-Nazis from groups like Svoboda and Right Sector took over Euromaidan’s self-defense forces, and leaders linked to these two groups were appointed to high-ranking security positions in the new government,” says Luhn. “Right Sector[’s] social network page features extensive neo-Nazi imagery…."
Alec Luhn, “As Far-Right Groups Infiltrate Kiev’s Institutions, the Student Movement Pushes Back,” Nation, March 4, 2014.

Right Sector is indeed a “far-right group.” And it tried to “infiltrate Kiev’s institutions.” But it lost. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Leaders linked to Svoboda but not Right Sector were appointed to positions in the new government. Right Sector’s social network page features neo-vampire imagery but not neo-Nazi imagery. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dervorguilla, sorry I didn't respond to your initial post above, which wasn't clear in terms of what changes you were proposing or why. Actually, Ubikwit's edit was correct: the Wolfsangel rune is widely used by neo-Nazi groups, Luhn was correct that Right Sector's page features neo-Nazi imagery, and reliable sources, not copyright law, are the standard by which we can evaluate that.

You would have been correct that the Wolfsangel was just a werewolf rune in 1920, before the Nazis and other paramilitary groups began using it extensively, ([3],[4]) effectively appropriating it, especially once the "werewolf" became the symbol of Nazi resistance at the end of WWII ([5],[6],[7]).

Neo-Nazis around the world have created many variations on the flags of Nazi Germany over the years, often because Nazi flags themselves are banned in a number of countries. Some variations involve modifying the swastika to some degree, while others replace the swastika with an alternate white supremacist symbol such as various runes used in Nazi Germany (especially the Wolfsangel, Odal, and Life runes). The flags shown here are just a sampling of the many neo-Nazi flags that have emerged around the globe, from Europe to Asia to the Americas. Though generally arising from abroad, these flags can sometimes also be found in the United States or on American white supremacist Web sites.

Now, academic sources describe the Social-National Party of Ukraine's use of the Wolfsangel in terms of neo-Nazi imagery ([8],[9],[10]):

We should note that the “rebranding” of the SNPU was accompanied by the abandonment of its symbol (the Wolf’s Hook [wolfsangel] used as a symbol by the Waffen SS and widely known as a neo-Nazi sign in certain West European countries).

Therefore, it seems justified that this programme has been compared to National Socialism from its very beginning, and not to the traditional ideology of radical Ukrainian nationalism. This parallel was reinforced by the party’s symbol – the letters I + N (Idea of the Nation), that is graphically identical with the ‘Wolfsangel’ rune – one of the symbols of European neo-Nazi organisations.

As a party symbol, it chose a mirror image of the so-called Wolfsangel, or Wolf's Hook, which was used by several SS divisions and, after the war, by neo-Nazi organizations. It organized a paramilitary guard and recruited skinheads and football hooligans into its ranks. Its appeal to Ukrainian voters was limited.

Ukrainian far-right politics are linked historically to Ukraine's experience in WWII, and contemporary groups associate themselves with the traditions of the Waffen-SS Galizien and the national struggle against the USSR. Vampires on the other hand have nothing to do with modern Ukrainian politics. I hope that's helpful. -Darouet (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

“[Contrary to] your initial post above, … vampires … have nothing to do with modern Ukrainian politics.” Which explains this rare photograph of Yarosh in broad daylight . . . It appears that my worries were unfounded. Many thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustration at Patriots of Ukraine: “The Wolfsangel, ‘Idea of the Nation,’ the logo of Patriots of Ukraine.” “At the end of 2013 the Patriots of Ukraine joined the Right Sector movement…” --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice, finding the photo of Yarosh in daylight! Clearly not a vampire (he may be relieved too). As to the photo at Patriots of Ukraine, I guess we now have some sources, above, that we can use to improve that article and explain the nature of the Wolfsangel. -Darouet (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

I've tried to verify the statement "Its social network page contains extensive neo-Nazi imagery", as claimed by citation number 6, and failed. I've checked the page ПРАВИЙ СЕКТОР on ВКонтакте, and Pravyi Sektor on Facebook, and I haven't managed to identify extensive neo-Nazi imagery. The source of the statement is an article in The Nation, which doesn't give any sources. I would suggest to replace the citation with a link to the actual social network page in question or remove that statement. Jontemask (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What’s the reversed Wolfsangel symbol about? (Compare “Правий Сектор,” VK, with “Operation Werwolf.”) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The supposed “neo-Nazi” imagery is more similar to the collective trademark (the distinguishing brand) used by the protagonist in “Operation Werwolf,” episode 3.02 (2010) of the series, True Blood. It could more accurately be called “neo-vampire” imagery. But it’s been altered so that right becomes left and the shortest element becomes the longest. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In evolutionary biology that would be called convergent or parallel evolution. -Darouet (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Formally correct. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: “[Svoboda’s] programme has been compared to National Socialism…. This parallel was reinforced by the party’s symbol: the letters I + N (Idea of the Nation), … graphically identical with the ‘Wolfsangel’ rune – one of the symbols of European neo-Nazi organisations.…  Patriot [of Ukraine] … is still associated with Svoboda. (SNPU established [it] in 1999 as an Association of Support for the Armed Forces and Navy of Ukraine.) This organisation still uses the ‘Wolfsangel’ symbol, although transformed in such a way that its interpretation as ‘I + N’ is no longer possible.”  Tadeusz A. Olszański, Ctr. for Eastern Studies, Pol., Svoboda Party: The New Phenomenon on the Ukrainian Right-Wing Scene (July 4, 2011).

Ok, I see the similarities now. I'm unable to judge in what way the symbol should be interpreted. — Jontemask (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)