Talk:Right Sector/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Tagged material

Paramilitary ops

Paramilitary operations, graf 4:

On 28 March 2014 EU High Representative on Foreign Policy Catherine Ashton issued a statement condemining violence by members of Right Sector, stating "I strongly condemn the pressure by activists of the Right Sector who have surrounded the building of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Such an intimidation of the parliament is against the democratic principles and rule of law. I call on the Right Sector and other parties in Ukraine to refrain from the use or threat of violence. They need to hand over any unauthorised arms to the authorities immediately."^[61]

61. ^ EU External Action Service, "Statement by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on Recent Events around the Parliament of Ukraine", news release, 28 March 2014.

Reason for tagging: {{third-party}} The citation is an adversary political organization's website; there must be more objective sources for this statement that the subject group broke a law.

The EU holds a financial relationship with Ukrainian citizens and competes with the subject group for representing their interests.

Two relevant policies: WP:IS (interest in a subject vested if source holds a financial relationship with subject — for example, where it owns a competing company); and WP:V#SOURCE (reliable third-party sources = sources not paid by the people involved or by competing entities and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the subject).

The point of adding this 69-word press release is to get across that Brussels has an interest in making Right Sector disarm, correct? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 06:46 19:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Added a tag.

The source is a paid press release by a political organization (the EU incumbent-party coalition) discrediting a competitor (a Ukrainian nationalist party).

This press release was distributed two months before the political organization's elections. (As it happens, the EU incumbents lost to nationalists; perhaps the electorate didn't trust the incumbents' press releases?)

A more objective source is needed. Policy: V#NOTRELIABLE

This particular press release appears to have been of no interest to the press. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement is made by a highly notable figure in international affairs and is attributed to that source, while no allegation is made by Wikipedia itself. The statement therefore clearly merits inclusion. -Darouet (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We all agree, Darouet, that attributing a statement to a source does make it a "statement attributed to that source". Can we also agree that if the information in the statement were worth reporting, someone else would likely have reported it? (See WP:V#Self-published sources.)

The added content appears to me to be a typical SPS violation. From WP:V, note 9:

"Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases...."

"press release. A prepared statement released to the press by ... government agencies or officials." MW3. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Republication of EU press release

May I suggest that we have a core policy about republishing press releases? It was set out (by Wifione) in 2011:

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Sources that are usually not reliable

Self-published sources

Examples of self-published sources include press releases....

We seem to have been making two straightforward allegations here:

• Press releases are self-published sources.
• Press releases usually aren't reliable sources.

We've also been saying — for nearly nine years now — that if self-published information were really worth reporting, someone else would probably have reported it.[1]

The author of the EU's press release is said to be a highly notable figure in international affairs. No one else appears to have reported the notable figure's statement. Is it likely worth reporting at all? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick search on google and saw that her statement was picked up by the Russian press (and by the World Socialist Web Site), though Ashton is important enough that an EU statement should be sufficient in and of itself. Furthermore, regarding whether it's "worth reporting at all," Ashton is correct that Right Sector surrounded the Ukrainian parliament and attempted to influence its policies. -Darouet (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Darouet's comment may help illustrate why we have a policy (SPS) against republishing official press releases. We don't have to worry about whether the EU's press release:

"Intimidation of the parliament is against … democratic principles and the rule of law"

or the U.S. Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people … to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

is correct or not. We can't report either passage as if it were a reliable source of information about this event. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, the entire first section of the article you basically wrote, until I changed it earlier tonight, was referenced by a single youtube video. You won't find a stronger supporter of the U.S. Constitution than me, but you are also unlikely to convince me that we should remove Ashton's statement, which is notable because of who they are, and because of the weight Right Sector has thrown around in contemporary Ukrainian politics. -Darouet (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

However, you comment and concern is a good demonstration of why Ashton's voice should be her own, and not that of the encyclopedia itself. -Darouet (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"The entire first section … was referenced by a single youtube video." What??? --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Here: I don't mean the lead, but the first article section, "name." -Darouet (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Derivation of subject's name

The Name (Назва) section in the Ukrainian-language article quotes Pastushenko's 70-word description in full.[2] The same section in the English-language article paraphrases it in part and omits the remainder.[3] The 9-word paraphrase is mostly erroneous (and somewhat humorous: "… its effort to protect the right side of protestors"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This looks like mythology construction, with an old man in camouflage, explaining in a video on youtube, the noble origins of the name. The source isn't even a source, it's just a video. And the whole explanation - that Right Sector boys valiantly stepped forward to protect young Ukrainian maidens against the police - looks like fascist mythology (even if it might be true - which we don't know). How do you propose to paraphrase the youtube video? -Darouet (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you can read, write in Ukrainian, you have an opportunity to improve the Ukrainian page in which the entire first section is referenced, dubiously, by a single youtube video. -Darouet (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves …" WP:V. Perhaps the Ukrainian-language editors know what they're doing, Darouet? --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't removed the source, I've simply reduced its excessive use at the onset of the article. We shouldn't have a poorly sourced story appearing at length and extravagantly at the beginning of the article. -Darouet (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the first rule of WP:ABOUTSELF states that a self-published source should not be used if 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. The story told by "Andriy Greyhair Pastushenko" looks like a heroic origin mythology, explaining how Right Sector was born out of an effort by nationalist fighters to protect their camp against the police, at the request of young Ukrainian women. Again, this version of events might be true or at least have some truth to it, but the summary I've added adequately explains this: "According to a website associated with the Euromaidan protests, Maidan Press Center, Right Sector's name derives from its effort to protect the right side of protestors at one point during the protests." -Darouet (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ukrainian maidens"?? Why all this fantasizing, Darouet? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As I understand you, Darouet, you seem to be saying that some older man has dreamt up a fantasy featuring young Ukrainian virgins. ("And the whole explanation - that Right Sector boys valiantly stepped forward to protect young Ukrainian maidens against the police - looks like fascist mythology.")

Have I misinterpreted you? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The article says the name derives from the group's "efforts to protect the right side of protestors". What the source says:

The girls were trying to unwrap the group's groundcloth. An unaffiliated speaker asked the guys to hold the right "sector" (defensive military position), where the police had grabbed it.

His request indicates that the guys had not made any "efforts to protect" the girls. Doesn't this suggest that the girls hadn't asked the guys to step in? Perhaps the girls wanted to try taking on the police themselves?

Whence this fantasy you describe about the girls being virgins ("maidens"), Darouet? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The text you had originally put into the article was, ' The girls tried to unwrap the usual oilcloth, and the police immediately tore it... Volodya Stretovych, speaking from the podium, then shouted through the microphone: "Nationalist-guys, hold the right sector, that protects the right side!" '

If you don't think the article text is supported because it doesn't match what you say is contained by the youtube video, and I don't think it's supported because we don't have a real source, we can remove the material altogether. -Darouet (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest, Darouet, that we remove all material that doesn't match the named source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So as I asked you at the onset of this discussion, how would you paraphrase this youtube video? Right now the text I placed there states, "According to a website associated with the Euromaidan protests, Maidan Press Center, Right Sector's name derives from its effort to protect the right side of protestors at one point during the protests." As far as I can tell, that's true: this video from MPC, according to the transcription you gave, has "Right Sector" confronting police on the "right side" (sector) of the protestors. -Darouet (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In my biased opinion, Darouet, Pastushenko was implying that the female protestors were making the effort to protect the right sector ("defensive military position") -- not that Right Sector was making an effort to protect the female protestors. I reasonably take his statement as feminist, you reasonably take it as fascist. A non-expert reader may find the direct quotation more helpful than even the least biased paraphrase. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

None of what you're saying makes any sense: you want to use a nonsense youtube source, and quote from it at length, and don't believe that any paraphrasing is possible, because who knows what this guy is really saying? Right. -Darouet (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." OR#STICKTOSOURCE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This video probably shouldn't appear here, but I don't mind keeping it, because it probably is why Right Sector call themselves "Right Sector," as long as we don't give it undue weight. The summary I've given is the only plausible interpretation, and though I've asked Dervorguilla to propose other summaries two times in the above discussion, they have not done so. I've removed the tags because summarizing a long rambling youtube quote is certainly less a problem of WP:OR than quoting it in full. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideology

Passages moved from article; edit summaries

According to Spiegel Online, Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector, wrote: "I wonder how it came to pass that most of the billionaires in Ukraine are Jews?".
{{when}} When did he say it (how many years ago)? Did the subject group exist at the time?
{{elucidate}} Context not given; unclear whether or how the quotation relates to the subject group.

Right Sector's leader for West Ukraine, Oleksandr Muzychko, in 2007 talked about fighting "communists, Jews and Russians for as long as blood flows in my veins".
{{better source}} RT TV News gives date of assertion as 2007; source’s documentation, a video recording, is dated 2014; must be a less confusing source somewhere.
(Also, nothing in this passage helps the reader understand that the speaker is on stage and that he appears to be acting in character.)

When asked [in an interview with a major Polish newspaper] whether Bandera was responsible for the 100,000 Poles murdered in Volhynia, Tarasenko argued that this is "nonsense".
{{importance}} Contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to subject matter.
{{elucidate}} Leader’s assertion could appear to nonexpert (and expert?) readers to be relating mainly to something unrelated to the subject group; further explanation needed.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 19:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 01:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC) 02:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, Der Spiegel doesn't note when Yarosh wrote his book, but I can't see how that's relevant to our decision to keep or remove the material. You could make the argument that Der Spiegel has misrepresented Yarosh, and attempt to defend his ideology against the source, but that's not your job: it's just to decide whether the source is a notable or reliable one, and represent it in encyclopedic form. The context of the comment is clear in this case: Right Sector attracts both extremists and ordinary people, and while its founder denies being a racist, he makes racist comments in a book he published. I can't understand what would be confusing to you. -Darouet (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Yarosh once asked a potentially offensive question, Darouet. Maybe he once made "racist comments" too; maybe he didn't. That has nothing to do with the two policy issues I brought up.

Likewise, I did not say Spiegel Online was confusing. I said RT TV News was. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think I once looked for the origin of Muzychko's quote and couldn't find it, and so I don't mind its removal. I think the quote has been widely circulated. If that circulation includes respectable sources, we could still include the quote, but note that we don't know when or where it was supposedly said. -Darouet (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Major newspapers now tagged as "unreliable sources"

Haaretz, Time (magazine), The Independent and Le Monde Diplomatique have recently been tagged by Dervorguilla as "unreliable sources." These are some of the most significant news organizations in the world, and are certainly reliable, unless a strong case can be made against them in some specific instance, which has not been done here.

Also tagged as unreliable sources are a press statement from the European Union (used to reference the fact that EU High RepresentativeCatherine Ashton made a statement about Right Sector), and an annual report by the Helsinki Human Rights group on attacks by far-right groups on immigrants and minorities in Ukraine.

A workshop report given by Taras Kuzio at Columbia University is also tagged. The report isn't peer-reviewed and isn't a publication, but Kuzio is one of the few well-known academics writing on this topic, and the source is used to reference an apparently non-controversial fact: that the organization Tryzub was founded in 1993 by the CUN. Otherwise it's hard to find basic information about this group.

Lastly, the Moscow Times, a Polish news source Rzeczpospolita, and Pravda are similarly tagged. I guess we could have a discussion about these sources and what statements they're used to support.

-Darouet (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the observations, Darouet. Time is indeed one of "the most significant news organizations in the world". (The others, not so much.)

I have accordingly removed the {Verify credibility} tag from reference 41 (Time) and added it to reference 40 (the website for Рада національної безпеки і оборони України [National Security & Defense Council of Ukraine]). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been no demonstration and hardly any effort to show that any of the sources tagged en masse by Dervorguilla are unreliable. I'm therefore removing many of the tags, as they are unsupported by any findings by Dervorguilla or the community here.

I am leaving some of the tags because I don't know the reliability of those sources. In those cases, or in the cases of sources whose tags I removed, it will be necessary for Dervorguilla to at least present some evidence regarding reliability. -Darouet (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"Haaretz … The Independent and Le Monde Diplomatique … are some of the most significant news organizations in the world, and are certainly reliable…"

Haaretz, the Independent, and Le Monde Diplomatique may or may not be significant or reliable. Most likely they do have standing to address material about Israel, Britain, or France. About Ukraine? Perhaps. But less likely. See RSVETTING:

* What's their circulation?

* Size doesn't prove anything, but it's a data point.... The New York Times and the Easton (Md.) Gazette are not equal. A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater liklihood of employing top-tier people.

* Does the source have standing to address the material?

* If the Easton Gazette is used to reference a claim that Easton High School opened in 1989, that's one thing. If it's used to reference a claim that Hitler died in Brazil, that's probably outside their area of competence.

"Adding RT news ref for Ashton statement..."

See V#What counts as a reliable source:

* "Base articles on ... sources with a reputation for ... accuracy."

and

* RfC Result: "RT should not be used on its own for attribution."

"Also tagged as unreliable sources are … an annual report by the Helsinki Human Rights group…"

The cited source is an association's "annual report on its activities", Darouet. Not a "peer-reviewed publication". Not a "book, magazine, journal, or mainstream newspaper". We say it's not a "reliable source". --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As to Haaretz, The Independent and Le Monde Diplomatique, they are repeatedly referred to as eminently reliable sources in the reliable source noticeboard: [4], [5], [6], [7].

Regarding RT and the RfC, the closure by User:FormerIP (FormerIP, I'm linking you here so you can correct me if I'm misusing your closure) stated the following: Concern was expressed by some editors about the article attributing the view to RT. Since some readers will, not without reason, be wary of RT's characterisation of anything to do with recent Ukrainian politics, this might be seen as poisoning the well. This wasn't extensively discussed, but it is clear that other sources and, in particular, sources outside Russia, have made similar characterisations. These should not be excluded, although there is no consensus on how precisely to word to attribution. I have used RT in this case as a supplementary source alongside the European Union's own press release to support the fact that Catherine Ashton, an EU High Representative, denounced Right Sector for using violence to achieve political ends when it besieged the Ukrainian Rada. That Ashton made the statement is non-controversial - it was published by the EU itself - and using RT as an additional source for this fact appears consistent with the RfC.

Lastly, concerning the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU), I find no reference at the reliable source noticeboard, but the group prodes an annual report, "Human Rights in Ukraine," that is detailed by the organization here. The report is described by the Ukraine General Newswire in the following way:

• 'The report on "Human Rights in Ukraine" is used by national and international organizations to assess the general state of human rights in Ukraine. The report was compiled by about 40 human rights organizations from all regions in Ukraine and about 60 experts in the field of human rights. The report has been issued annually since 2004.' Ukraine General Newswire, Human rights defenders: Human rights situation in Ukraine resembles a spoon of honey in a barrel of tar, 27 February 2013.

The UHHRU is cited regularly in the press. Here are a few of the first of 150 references that come up in LexisNexis academic:

• 'Svoboda's leadership needs to be monitored, but so far it has refrained from anti-Semitic statements since joining the government, he said. And the prevalence of anti-Semitic acts has not changed since before the Maidan protests, according to the ADL and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, which monitors human rights in Ukraine.' Oren Dorell, USA TODAY, Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine, Gannett News Service, April 17, 2014 (reprinted throughout North America).

• 'On Wednesday, April 16, at 13.00, the press center of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency will host a press conference to present annual report by human rights organizations entitled "Human Rights in Ukraine in 2013." Participating will be: Co-Chairman of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group Yevhen Zakharov and Member of the Board of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Volodymyr Yavorsky.' Ukraine General Newswire, Interfax-Ukraine to host press conference to present annual report by human rights organizations entitled ' Human Rights in Ukraine in 2013, April 16 2014.

• 'Conflicts in legislation limit the right of transport sector workers to hold strikes, Program Director of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Maksym Scherbatiuk has said. "Given legislative conflicts, in fact, employees in this [transport] sector are limited. We're trying to help win back this right [to strike] through the European Court of Human Rights," he said at a meeting of the press club in Kyiv on Monday.' Ukraine Business Daily, Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union: Transport workers limited in their right to hold strikes, 8 October 2013.

• 'The Ukrainian president has received more than 100 different petitions seeking Tymoshenko's release from prison since the former prime minister was convicted in 2011. They were submitted by the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (April 10, 2013), the heads of Christian churches (April 2012), and people holding the Hero of Ukraine title, representatives of the Ukrainian intellectual, writers, artists, scholars and prominent public and political figures (March 2012).' Ukraine General Newswire, Pardons commission may discuss Tymoshenko release on April 29, says source, 25 April 2013.

• 'The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union calls inefficient the work on protection of human rights, done by the Public Council under the Internal Affairs Ministry, the organisation said.' Ukrainian News Agency, Ukrainian Helsinki Union Deems Inefficient Internal Ministry Public Council's Work On Protection Of Human Rights, 24 April 2013.

• 'The report on "Human Rights in Ukraine" is used by national and international organizations to assess the general state of human rights in Ukraine. The report was compiled by about 40 human rights organizations from all regions in Ukraine and about 60 experts in the field of human rights. The report has been issued annually since 2004.' Ukraine General Newswire, Human rights defenders: Human rights situation in Ukraine resembles a spoon of honey in a barrel of tar, 27 February 2013.

• 'In Ukraine, Kiev's first Gay Pride march was abandoned last month after 500 right-wing football hooligans ambushed the parade, beating up would-be marchers. Donetsk, the drab mining town where England will play France in their opening game on 11 June and Ukraine in their final pool game, is home to the 3,500-strong neo-Nazi group The Patriot of Ukraine, about whom the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union said: "One should not underestimate the seriousness of this organisation. Their events are of an openly xenophobic and extremist nature."' Richard Bath, Scotland on Sunday, Hotbed of Hate, 3 June 2012.

• Etc.

From what I can tell, UHHRU is regularly cited and is a respected source on human rights violations, including those by the former Yanukovych government, in Ukraine. -Darouet (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Respected and well funded. Two helpful references to the association's funding sources: "With EU funding of €214,000, the project is being run by ... the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union." EU-Ukraine Cooperation News. "Organizations that received grants from the National Endowment for Democracy: Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union." Recipient of Funds: Part I.

UHHRU may indeed be a special, high-status institution, Darouet. Like other special, high-status institutions, it gets no special treatment here. Signing off for now. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Indirectly related to article subject

OR:

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite ... sources that are directly related to the topic of the article….

RSVETTING: Example #1. Q: "Does the ref indeed support the material?" A: "The ref'd material discusses [the article subject] at length...."

If the source was published before the article subject was founded, can the source discuss the subject at length? (No.) Can it discuss the subject at all? (No.)

If the source doesn't discuss the subject at all, can it be indirectly related to the subject or directly related? (Indirectly related, yes.) If it discusses the history of one of the subject's several founding groups, what's it directly related to? (The founding group.)

Suppose you add some material and you cite a source that was published before the article subject was founded. The source does discuss the history of one of the subject's founding groups. Is the material you've added OR?

It would appear to be... --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We have multiple sources stating that Right Sector is formed by a number of groups, some of them neo-Nazi groups, and this more than justifies naming and describing those groups in Right Sector's article. We also have multiple academic and journalistic publications, and two human rights reports that all describe those groups, and were published in the last few years. There's nothing involving "original research" to accurately describe those groups using sources published before Right Sector's formation just a few months ago. -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, if you're truly concerned with this, you can raise your concerns at the 'No Original Research Noticeboard', which will bring outside scrutiny here. -Darouet (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We've both got to follow Wikipedia's norms here, Darouet.

V#UNSOURCED:

"Do not leave ... poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of ... existing groups...."

--Dervorguilla (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What you have to understand is that your simple invocation of some policy, without a concrete explanation of how it applies to this article or the article's specific content, is no license to alter the article freely as you see fit. In fact, the policies you cite don't support the changes you wish to make, as any engagement with the content demonstrates.

For instance, we have academic and newspaper sources that describe in detail everything written in this article about Right Sector's constituent groups and their politics and history. Specific quotes have been provided for every citation so that it is clear to readers that the article text matches the information provided in the source. You want to remove this material and cite Wikipedia:Verifiability, a pillar of Wikipedia policy, alleging that the content is unsourced, in total and ironic disregard for the fact that you wish to remove sources, their quotes, and the content they support.

You allege that the article violates Wikipedia's ban on original research, but won't explain how arguments or facts have been advanced in this article that go beyond sources. You actually wholly ignore those sources because they say exactly what you'd like to remove from the article. And you refrain from going to a noticeboard on this issue, where you'd have to explain concretely how original research is a problem here.

You have tagged major, important sources as unreliable, without consulting the reliable source noticeboard on this instance or without citing other sources or past WP:RSN discussions. The impression you leave Dervorguilla is that you don't really know what these sources are.

Lastly, above, you suggest that content in this article "damages the reputation" of Right Sector. The cumulative effect of your efforts to remove sourced material about Right Sector or its constituents is to create a false reputation: one that omits mention of the Patriots of Ukraine or the Social-National Assembly and their far-right, fascistic politics, and attacks on minorities. These groups are what they are, and Right Sector is what it is. Anyone is free to support or oppose their politics. But we're not free, here, to invent a reputation that is contrary to what is described by reliable sources. That is the effect of your systematic campaign to remove reliable sources from the article. But you can't remove sources or content unless you demonstrate that they content isn't supported by sources, or that sources are unreliable. -Darouet (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using sources about groups written before they combined to form the Right Sector. Dervorguilla made a good point some time ago that we cannot describe the Right Sector as neonazi or neofascist just because some of its constituent groups are. But we can say what those groups are. TFD (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "alleging that the content is unsourced", Darouet. To the contrary. I'm alleging that it's sourced -- but poorly sourced.

WP:UNSOURCED = Responsibility for providing citations.

The burden to demonstrate verifiability ... is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source.... Any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion.... All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the ... sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

Do not leave ... poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of ... existing groups....

Likewise, I'm not alleging that we can't "say what those groups are", TFD. What I'm concerned about is whether we can use poorly sourced material to do it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TFD. The article nowhere states that Right Sector "is" a fascist or neo-Nazi group, but it does note that many sources describe it in this way, per the RfC above. The article does state that Patriots of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly are fascist groups, as this has been well established by sources that describe them. -Darouet (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, according to the policy on verifiability that you cited above, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source," which is what happened when I added the content with quotes from reliable sources. You note that the policy states, "any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion," and you have removed material without articulating and specific problems of this kind. -Darouet (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some specific problems, Darouet.

1. Concerning the annual report, "Human Rights in Ukraine":

The report's self-published. WP:SPS.

And it's self published by an advocacy group. So WP:NOTRELIABLE ...

2–3. Concerning Haaretz, the Independent, and Le Diplo:

They each appear to have enough resources to be reliable sources -- for national news. Two of them even had staff available who could report first-hand from Ukraine.

Haaretz apparently didn't. WP:RSVETTING, among other concerns.

The Independent isn't a reliable source for the cited material, but that's just because there's a discrepancy between the source and the material. The source indicates that at least some accuse the group;[8] the material indicates that all accuse it.[9] WP:UNSOURCED.

4. Concerning Ashton's high-status institutional press release:

"Examples of self-published sources include press releases" (high-status institution or not). WP:V.

5. Concerning RT:

"RT should not be used on its own for attribution." RfC Result.

6. Concerning the Kuzio report:

Nobody's published it. WP:V.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dervorguilla. Point by point,

1. All human rights groups publish their own reports, and there's no indication in WP:SPS that these reports are unreliable. According to UHHRU and Interfax-Ukraine, the report is put together by 60 experts in the field of human rights, and 40 human rights groups, every year. It is funded by the United Nations, the European Union, some western European embassies, and many international organizations, demonstrating that it is regarded as a legitimate and important human rights organization internationally. Regarding the information being sourced, do you actually believe that the SNA/PU didn't attack immigrants? This is important: you've never attempted to argue, so far, that the information is incorrect, and the point about evaluating reliable sources is to present accurate information to readers. It would be disingenuous to make an effort to exclude information that you didn't seriously question. [— Darouet (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)]

1. Darouet has admonished Dervorguilla not to reply to such inquiries. "You could make the argument that [the source] has misrepresented … but that's not your job: it's just to decide whether the source is a … reliable one…" -Darouet 09:24, 21 July 2014. Good point.

As noted above, the report is self published. Self published by an advocacy group.  WP:Verifiability. SPS; NOTRELIABLE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I'm not arguing that the source has been misrepresented: I think the information is being presented accurately. Here are a few links from the RSN for further discussion: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. It seems to me as though publications by human rights groups are often considered advocacy, but sometimes considered reliable as well, and often considered important enough to merit their use, perhaps with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

2-3. You don't provide any evidence for your statements about the financial or journalistic resources of Haaretz, The Independent or Le Monde Diplomatique, and your statements are contradicted by the scale of these journals' ordinary international coverage, international reputation, by past comments on the reliable source noticeboard, and by TFD's comment there (the only posted so far).

2-3. Sometimes one finds discrepancies between the source that a contributor cites and the material he adds. Here, the journal indicates that the group is accused by some of the relevant population;[15] the material Darouet added indicates that the group is accused by all of them.[16]

This means that the journal isn't a reliable source for Darouet's claim. WP:Verifiability.

Well this problem is easily resolved by acting on your discovery of my error and correcting the information in the article. -Darouet (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

4-5. WP:SPS states that self-published sources, such as press releases are viable sources for non-controversial information about the publishing organization itself. In this case, the fact that Ashton made the statement is non-controversial, and the EU press release is clearly an adequate source to demonstrate that she did. Similarly, RT's report on the fact that she made the statement is non-controversial. Are you really proposing that it's unclear that she made this statement?

4. Dervorguilla has never proposed any such thing. In fact, she added the statement to the source's own article, half a day ago.[17] WP:Verifiability. SPS. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

5. "RT should not be used on its own for attribution." RfC Result.

It seems to me as though Ashton's comments are less relevant to her own page than they are to Right Sector's, and you haven't addressed the issue that her having made the comment is being sourced by the EU, which is in this case describing itself: a non-controversial statement. -Darouet (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

6. I agree re: Kuzio's self-published workshop paper, but you haven't answered my question above: don't you think that this is a poor, but nevertheless adequate source, for the time being, for a non-controversial fact: namely that Tryzub was founded by the CUN in 1993? Do you believe that this isn't true? -Darouet (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

6. "You could make the argument that [the source] has misrepresented … but that's not your job: it's just to decide whether the source is a … reliable one…" -Darouet 09:24, 21 July 2014. Agreed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the source has been misrepresented: I'm arguing that it's a source we can live with for a non-controversial piece of information, namely the year Tryzub was founded, and who founded it. -Darouet (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've articulated six specific WP:Verifiability problems above. Darouet has presented his replies. Partial consensus on Le Diplo; full consensus on the Independent as a reliable source for the revised material. (2-3)

The remaining legitimate concerns about the Haaretz material could be addressed by including an explanatory note or two:

At a press conference in New York on 4 March 2014, reported by the Voice of America Russian Service, the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine, Yaacov Dov Bleich, stated... "[The Russians] are already claiming in the media that Bandera supporters are running about and attacking synagogues, yet none of this is happening. There could be provocation -- somebody may dress up as a Ukrainian nationalist...." The following from the anonymous reports [mentioned] in Haaretz multiplies the dangerous anonymity: "There have been reports that newly published copies of Hitler's Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been distributed on Maidan."

Halya Coynash, "Chief Rabbi and Others Dismiss Putin's 'Anti-Semitic Extremist' Claims", League of Ukrainian Canadians, 5 March 2014.

Russians have been subjected to an intense, aggressive and blunt disinformation campaign in which they were bombarded by images of violence, chaos and fascism in Ukraine.... The propaganda campaign has seen several stages since the protests on Kiev's Maidan began, says Lev Gudkov, head of the Levada Centre, an independent pollster.... It showed the protesters as nationalists, fascists and anti-Semites who had staged a putsch....

"Russian Propaganda: 1984 in 2014", Economist, 29 March 2014.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There's more that could be written about the response of Rabbis to Right Sector, if you have time! -Darouet (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Academic work or scholarly work?

Learner's definition of ACADEMIC

1. Of or relating to schools and education

        He was offered a teaching job and decided to return to academic life.

Learner's definition of SCHOLARLY

1. Concerned with or relating to formal study or research

        scholarly journals/work/writings

Does "Descriptions in academic work" or "Descriptions in scholarly work" fit better as the section title? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

How to keep edit summaries accurate

Some helpful material from WP: Edit summary ...

Provide a summary for every edit, especially when deleting; otherwise, people may question your motives.

When a significant change doesn't have an edit summary, busy editors may be more inclined to revert it without checking it in detail.

• Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another can be misleading to an editor who finds the second one more important.

If I make a deletion or other controversial edit and forget to mention it, you can expeditiously revert it. (This helps keep me honest.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page has grown very large, making it slow and unwieldy to load. General talk page guidelines suggest setting up archiving when a page “exceeds 75 kb or has more than 10 main topics”; this page is now beyond 400 kb and has almost 70 main topics. Would there be any objection to setting up automatic archiving here, so that some of the older and inactive discussion topics can migrate to the archives?  Unician ∇  10:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do so  Unician ∇ ! Thanks very much. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The archive bot ran about four hours after I set up the configuration, but it seems that the bot didn't know what to do with messages that don't have signatures (and thus timestamps). I'll put those messages back in their proper places in the archives manually.  Unician ∇  06:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, done.  Unician ∇  08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No longer 'far-right'

Since we do cite Shekhovtsov and find him a good source of analysis, I'd just like to point out that he says they are no longer a far-right group (likely because the SNA was kicked out ans so much has changed, while Yarosh has gone the populist route). --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to provide sources. Also, what is important is not what one person thinks but what the consensus is in the literature. TFD (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla has just added this back, though we have no information from the lead, body, or sources to verify it. I'm removing it per Andy's note that the information requires an inline citation, and suggest that material be added to the article body first, and only to the lead after that's been accomplished. -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla added LeVivsky's material back with a "citation needed" tag appended (per Andy's note that it needed a citation). --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Without a source, it shouldn't be in the article at all - it is flatly contradicting sourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed this unsourced assertion again - and ask that it not be restored without a valid source being provided for discussion here first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to "ask", Andy. No consensus on the issue yet, but I'd have to support you here. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Competence

A contributor has drawn our attention to the norm about WP:COMPETENCE. "I am not certain that you have the competence to improve this article because your efforts have resulted in the systematic distortion of Right Sector's politics."

On 21 July 2014 the contributor added some material about a constituent group's politics.

It constitutes a … wing of … an assemblage of … organizations and groups … that share the social-national ideology….

The contributor didn't appear to understand that nobody outside our encyclopedia uses the esoteric-sounding term "social-national ideology". The phrase is found nowhere else in the DuckDuckGo or Google databases. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 06:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

On 14 August 2014 the contributor added material about some constituents' aim of creating a one-race society. He cited it to a preeminent author (Shekhovtsov).

Shekhovstov has written that the aim of the Patriots of Ukraine and another constituent of Right Sector, the Social National Assembly, is to create a society of only one race and nation.

But the source indicates instead that a nonconstituent (Autonomous Resistance) has this aim.

"Svoboda … seems to benefit from the increasing popularity of ... organizations like the Social-National Assembly … and Autonomous Resistance, whose aim is to create ‘a uniracial and uninational society’."

The contributor doesn't appear to understand that in this sentence the pronoun whose refers to its nearest antecedent (Autonomous Resistance). --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 22:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiplication of highly similar descriptors in the lead

Do we really need to list every variation of "nationalist," "very nationalist," "very very nationalist," "ultranationalist," etc., in the lead descriptions? It looks comical and is surely unnecessary. -Darouet (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(Very) well put, Darouet. And there are, as we know, more than one or two dimensions in the multiaxial classification universe of political ideologies. (The anarchic-totalitarian spectrum is a third.) Multiply by 6 groups and the result is likely to look even more "comical", and to keep expanding over time. For now the descriptions can be compressed a bit and moved to the 'Component Groups' intro (replacing the current list). --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving the description from the lead altogether isn't appropriate, but shortening it certainly is. Let me know if you have any proposals for how this could be done while maintaining all necessary and interesting information. -Darouet (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That is only a reflection about the political smear campaign against the party. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think when you put three "verys" together, it is definitely would be considered nationalistic to the point that it is like more nationalistic than the everyone-hated Nazi party. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Paramilitary wing??

Who says that? Who came up with this definition?? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of sources say they are paramilitary: [18][19] (NYT)[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dsprc, excuse me, at least this source does not say anything at all about the Right Sector. Why are you throwing at me all this trash? Have you even read all those articles? The World Socialist Web Site calls it militia, instead of political organization, New York Times in the article calls it ultranationalist group (although the article is titled in connection with paramilitary), the CNN article does not really define the Right Sector as paramilitary organization (it does talk about UNA-UNSO member Oleksandr Muzychko), this source only mentions Right Sector, but does not really talk about it, even the Russia Today does not openly call Right Sector paramilitary organization (by the way photos there are of SNA and not the Right Sector), this source is taken completely out of context as it talks about the Right Sector Volunteer Ukrainian Corps (what do you know about the Volunteer Ukrainian Corps?), this reference looks more as a blog and it also does not really claims Right Sector as a paramilitary organization, instead it says, "The Right Sector is a nationalist Ukrainian political party that also commands a small number of volunteers in the conflict zones of eastern Ukraine."; this article really talks about a battalion sponsored by the Right Sector, the Volunteer Ukrainian Corps, this is a communist propaganda depicting the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a civil war (I guess they forgot about annexation of Crimea), this article is written by an author who thinks that the Russian military intervention in Ukraine is justifiable as well. It looks to me that you know nothing about politics of Ukraine and accuses my references in POV. How is my source POV? Your references are based on news events. The only credible sources are about the SNA which is not part of the Right Sector. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: They do, and in context. But you still have to prove "As a paramilitary organization it exists only in the Russian LifeNews and Russia 24." With someone other than yourself or Bereza. Lede is for summarization as well. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dsprc, I encourage you to read the following article (from The Jerusalem Post) which shows that it is not so simple in the politics of Ukraine. One should be careful to become part of political propaganda. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev, I've read this article and appreciate the additional point of view. Indeed, it is not simple. As the saying goes "The first casualty of war is the truth."[30] Which is why we must be more careful and particular with what we write here, as opposed to which brand or flavour of propaganda we read (or are subjected to). This is why reliable sourcing is so important - a broad selection of multiple sources would be preferable. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

The introduction states that the "Association Press found no evidence that the group committed hate crimes". However, 2014 Odessa clashes explicitly lists Right Sector militants as participating in burning Pro-Russian protesters. Considering that a hate crime is defined as - I quote - "a usually violent, ✓ prejudice motivated ✓ crime ✓ that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group ✓", wouldn't it be factually correct to remove this passage?

--79.249.16.151 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For the answer to your question, 79.249.16.151, see WP:NOTTRUTH and elsewhere. For helpful background material on the definition of "hate crime", see Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.

hate crime. A felony or misdemeanor motivated by the perpetrator's prejudice, usu. an intense bigotry, on the basis of the victim's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation.

Suppose a Right Sector member engages in homicide or arson motivated by his prejudice on the basis of the victims' membership in an opposing political group. Under common law, he's engaging in a crime but not a hate crime. We have no reason to think AP doesn't know the law.

Note also that many members are Russian speakers and identify as Russians belonging to the nation of Ukraine. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Right Sector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151113225301/http://www.cvk.gov.ua:80/wvm2015/pvm002pt001f01=100pt00_t001f01=100.html to http://www.cvk.gov.ua/wvm2015/pvm002pt001f01=100pt00_t001f01=100.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141209222458/http://vibori2014.rbc.ua/ukr/okrug/volynskaya-oblast/odnomandatny-213 to http://vibori2014.rbc.ua/ukr/okrug/volynskaya-oblast/odnomandatny-213
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529233925/http://telegraf.com.ua/ukraina/politika/1300294-rezultatyi-vyiborov-prezidenta-ukrainyi-2014-tsik-obrabotala-51-99.html to http://telegraf.com.ua/ukraina/politika/1300294-rezultatyi-vyiborov-prezidenta-ukrainyi-2014-tsik-obrabotala-51-99.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141223004531/http://vibori2014.rbc.ua/ukr/okrug/dnepropetrovskaya-oblast/odnomandatny-39 to http://vibori2014.rbc.ua/ukr/okrug/dnepropetrovskaya-oblast/odnomandatny-39
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009000000/http://www.cvk.gov.ua/pls/vnd2014/wp039ept001f01=910.html to http://www.cvk.gov.ua/pls/vnd2014/wp039ept001f01=910.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No mention of organized crime?

Right Sector according to mainstream newsources in Poland is heavily involved in organized crime on the border with Poland(smuggling)[31], with armed firefights over money and smuggling routes erupting between rival groups.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Reminder of WP:SOAP. Don't conflate extremists and reports of their activities with the party. WP:OFFTOPIC by a landslide... or do you have RS testifying to the fact that these activities are being co-ordinated, funded and directly run by the party proper? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Right Sector VS Hungarians

Hello everyone! The Right Sector members are hates the hungarians in Ukraine! Here is the proof! https://hvg.hu/vilag/20201130_karpatalja_magyarok_fenyegetes The eljönnek a magyarok gyerekeiért means in English "They are coming for the hungarians child". The masked member of the Right Sector is threating the hungarians in Ukraine, like the russians. So, the Right Sector members are hates the russian and the hungarian peoples in Ukraine. They are Anti-Russian and Anti-Hungarian ideologies that are the Right Sector members. --TomFZ67 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You might be right, but we need some sources that better describe Right Sector's hatred of Hungarians. Can you provide other links?--Mhorg (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

TomFZ67 for now I reverted your edits. I will do some research in the next few days. If you can, look for Hungarian sources.--Mhorg (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Tom has right, this video threat issue was a headline in all major Hungarian sources, what he presented is sufficient. Other cases may exits from 2014 onwards, research may be made, however it could be easily confused with events regarding Svoboda.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

I found this for now[32], for me is enough to restore that part.--Mhorg (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

Relationship with ASOV/АЗОВ?

Anyone any research on this? Have ASOV taken RS's position? Lawrence18uk (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian positioning of Right Sector as leading Ukrainian defence against the invasion

I don't know enough about this topic to try adding anything myself but another editor may be able to use this report from The Guardian, a leading liberal newspaper based in London.

• Koshiw, Isobel; Ram, Ed (24 April 2022). "'We don't want people to know': Moscow-aligned Easter service in Kyiv". The Guardian. London. "We live in a rightwing state," said the first assistant. "The president supports us but there are people who want to take the Lavra away from us – physically take it away." Asked who he meant, he named the far-right Ukrainian battalion Right Sector, which formed to fight Russian-backed separatists in 2014. Since then, Kremlin propaganda has exaggerated the power and popularity of the group in Ukraine and repeatedly accused Ukrainians who have come out against Moscow of being Right Sector members. "This war is a mistake," said the assistant.

or just ignore it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)