Jump to content

Talk:Svoboda (political party)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Shekhovtsov

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

“I am General Editor of the Explorations of the Far Right book series at ibidem-Verlag….” Anton Shekhovtsov page, Radicalism and New Media Research Group.
“About: - General Editor of the ‘Explorations of the Far Right’ book series at ibidem-Verlag.” Anton Shekhovstov, “Anton Shekhovtsov: University College London”, Academia.edu.
“Candidate of Political Sciences (Kandydat politychnykh nauk). Current posts: - Editor of the ‘Explorations of the Far Right’ book series at ibidem-Verlag.” Home page, Anton Shekhovtsov.
“Anton Shekhovtsov … is also editor of the ‘Explorations of the Far Right’ book series at ibidem-Verlag.” Anton Shekhovtsov, “Security Threats and the Ukrainian Far Right”, openDemocracy.

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

Two questions? How do you know whether or not he is a book series editor and what relevance does it have to this article? TFD (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
After a diligent search, no evidence has been found (on the publisher’s site or elsewhere) that would support Shekhovtsov’s most impressive assertion.
And wouldn’t it be an extreme departure from ordinary academic-publishing standards, TFD, for a house like ibidem-Verlag to give a student like Shekh' the ongoing authority to decide what writers to publish?
We can and should treat the student’s extraordinary impressive assertion as erroneous.
Relevance: BLPGROUP and RS (reliability of work’s writer can affect reliability of work). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 23:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I’ve now found a source that does support Shekh’s assertion. At Amazon. Shekh is indeed a book-series editor at ibidem-Verlag. My comment was in error. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

PhD from Sevastopol NTU

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

Anton Shekhovtsov, Sevastopol National Technical University, UA

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

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

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

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

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

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

See WP:RSVETTING. And we ought to consider that the subject is a BLP group. More at Jimbo talk: Legal persons and BLP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at the Right Sector article. Political parties are not BLP groups, unless they have a tiny, tiny membership. (Sometimes they are not even legal persons for example when they are illegal parties.) TFD (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Given the comments on this issue by Wales, AndyTheGrump, and me at Jimbo Wales talk, none of us would appear to agree with those statements, TFD. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is it that you are claiming I agreed with you, Dervorguilla? I said nothing about Svoboda, Shekh or the Right Sector. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This same discussion is taking place at Talk:Right Sector. Dervorguilla, it's useless to try and find reasons for excluding published academic material on the basis of original research into their supposed failings using blogs, etc. So this researcher has put images of crowds in Russia carrying white power symbols onto his blog, and called them neo-fascists. What's that supposed to tell us? That his peer-reviewed academic journal articles, or contributed book chapters to edited, academic books are no longer reliable? -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. for my part I'm not upset that Shekhovtsov is noting the presence of white power crowds in Russia, and as Львівське has pointed out here previously, there are definitely neo-fascists and neo-fascist groups in Russia. In fact, I think you'd probably find published academic material stating that these movements have been a larger problem in Russia, historically, than in Ukraine. Also, absolutely nobody has been at all convinced, so far, that Shekhovtsov is no longer a reliable source when publishing academically, and I agree with TFD's and Львівське's comments above. -Darouet (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, given the comments by you and Jimbo Wales at Jimbo Wales talk, none of us would appear to agree with TFD’s statement that “political parties are not BLP groups unless they have a [very] tiny membership”. The relevant passages:
User talk:Jimbo Wales
2 Legal persons and BLP
… Companies are, at the end of the day, just *groups of people*. And there are very strong BLP considerations for groups of people just as there are for individual people. If someone says "Company X are thieving bastards who abuse their employees" we shouldn't just shrug and imagine that BLP doesn't have anything to say about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
2.1 Legal definitions
2.2 Implications
… Why should we apply different standards to a statement that "Gnarph Corporation murders babies" than we should to a statement that "The people of Gnarphville murder babies"? … That one refers to a fictitious 'legal person' and the other doesn't is of no relevance to the encyclopaedic merits of the information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you agree with me, AndyTheGrump, that “political parties” are reasonably analogous to “companies” and “corporations” here? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I neither agree nor disagree, since I have no idea what it is you are arguing. As I made entirely clear on Jimbo's talk page, I disagreed with the idea being proposed there - that 'legal persons' should be given the same recognition in WP:BLP policy as real persons. Beyond that, as WP:BLP policy makes clear, when discussing small groups one has to consider the effect of harmful statements "on a case-by-case basis". Since I haven't considered this case at all (rather difficult, since you haven't actually said what the case is about), and since policy requires such consideration, I will ask you not to repeat your implications that something I said on Jimbo's page can be taken to support your arguments concerning something else entirely about which I have no knowledge, and about which I've said nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem, AndyTheGrump. You did appear to imply that the hypothetical party, “Gnarph Corporation”, is analogous to the hypothetical party, “the people of Gnarphville”. So, would you or wouldn’t you agree that a (hypothetical) company or a (hypothetical) political party is analogous to a (hypothetical) group of people? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I 'imply' nothing beyond stating that - per WP:BLP policy - any issues concerning the relevance of WP:BLP policy to groups of people needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Which obviously make hypothetical analogies an irrelevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Social-National Party of Ukraine into Svoboda (political party). The latter is the legal successor to the former party, according to some sources it is even the same party that only changed its name. The content of the article Social-National Party of Ukraine is almost totally redundant to the "Social-National Party of Ukraine" sub-section of the article Svoboda (political party). Therefore it is unnecessary to have two separate articles. --RJFF (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I'm torn. On one hand it's a successor according to Tyahnybok, who radically changed the party itself and its platform beyond its name change. Legally it's a successor since the party had its name re-registered with the Ministry and not founded as a new party. Then you have the former leader and founder of the party contesting that its a real successor, while other founders left in protest. Seems like a bit of a schism to me. I think a question to ask is after Tyahnybok dissolved Patriot, how much of the 'new' Patriot was made up of former SNPU guys, who then made the SNA. In a way the SNA is a secondary successor the SNPU, though not 'legally', but this aspect could be expanded on in the SNPU article if we want to give it more depth in content. --Львівське (говорити) 17:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure and will think about it. RJFF, I'm doubt anything could be written about the SNPU that we couldn't fit into the Svoboda article, and so I tend to agree with you. Львівське, I would also argue that many (not all) of the 2004 changes were superficial: multiple academic sources describe these as "cosmetic" and intended to improve the party's image, but not its underlying ideology. I'm guessing you'd disagree with this.
Nevertheless, we might all agree that far-right politics are in flux right now in Ukraine, and I wouldn't be surprised if many go the most far-right elements around Svoboda are now attracted to Right Sector. Львівське, isn't it true that the Social-National Assembly and Patriots of Ukraine were originally groups that came from the transformation of the SNPU into Svoboda? Now these groups helped form Right Sector.
I think the Svoboda article could be improved by writing about all of this, and incorporating the SNPU material as well. It'll be easier a year from now when more academic material has been written about the current situation in Ukraine. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Darouet, Regarding ideology, I'll present this:

Tyahnybok's 2002 electoral programme featured almost nothing from the SNPU's 1991 and 1995 political programmes and cannot be considered ultra-nationalist

In 2004, the SNPU adopted a new political programme. It did not mention social-nationalism at all and was not Russophobic

Unlike previous programmes, which defended the same rights and privileges for all citizens of Ukraine, the new document supported the adoption of a law that would determine different rights and privileges for the titular ethnic group and ethnic minorities

The moderated programme of the SNPU was taken as a blueprint for the Svoboda programme...Andrushkiv did not embrace the SNPU's transformation, and neither he nor Parubiy

remained in the 'new' party.

And yes, the SNA-PoU came from the ashes of the SNPU schism and disbanding of Patriot. However, the new Patriot was based in Kharkiv and the SNA in Kiev.--Львівське (говорити) 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Though I should point out that the SNPU was pro-NATO and pro-EU, like Svoboda is pro-EU, the SNA is against the EU and is atypical of Eurosceptic far-right parties. --Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The text above - is that text you've drafted that you recommend using in the article? Or are you quoting from a source? If so you forgot to add the source! -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a quote (highlighted sentences, not the full paragraph). It's from 'From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism' by Shekhovtsov --Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! We're reading many of the same articles and will be able to compile great resources to describe this process. Thanks for the info above on PoU, SNA, SNPU and Svoboda. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In Poland, the Democratic Left Alliance of Aleksander Kwasniewki is a successor of the Social Democracy of the Republic of Poland, which is a successor of the Soviet-era ruling party Polish United Workers' Party. All of these parties have their own articles (i.e., Kwasniewski is not a Communist).Faustian (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

SNPU an intentional reference to Hitler?

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

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

I had similar concerns when I read that. Consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; While Der Speigal is a reliable source for news events, I'd argue it's not a reliable source for the inner thoughts and intentions of SNPU's founders. I've found other sources that make the same claim but none of them offer any evidence. Any source that doesn't directly reference the SNPU or its founders or at least some party members is arguably not a reliable source for this statement. At the most it could be rewritten as 'Critics and media commentators have liken the name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party' but I'm not sure that would be considered notable. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Stephen J Sharpe, who do you feel is a better source for something like this: Svoboda or SNPU leaders themselves (since they would know the "inner thoughts and intentions of SNPU founders" you refer to), or reliable third party sources? Or do you think that we just can't repeat statements made by otherwise reliable third party sources if we think that they're making statements about things they couldn't possibly know? -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think he's just saying that primary sources are good in the proper context, and expert analysis is good as well, but cursory passing mention by sources that provide neither primary source quotes (re: evidence) nor critical analysis, aren't exactly the best reliable sources to be using for definitive statements. --Львівське (говорити) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This Spiegel piece is a rather weak source. It is journalistic, not academic. We have several academic sources dealing with Svoboda's/SNPU's ideology and history. None of them claims that SNP was "an intentional reference to the Nazi Party in Germany". According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". The Spiegel article does not cite its source for this claim. It is not an exceptional, but a relatively weak and therefore unsufficient source for this statement. The sentence should therefore be removed. --RJFF (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Der Spiegel is Germany's most important magazine and is respected all over the world. I'm surprised that, given Svoboda's heritage in the OUN, the openly racist rhetoric of its leadership, the choice of the Wolfsangel as an early symbol, and the volumes written about Svoboda's racist politics, you would find Der Spiegel's claim extraordinary. What are you reading about the party and its history that informs your skepticism? -Darouet (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This further leads to the inclusion of this material as WP:LIBEL, seeing as they dispute the claims here --Львівське (говорити) 15:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


SN vs NS

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

As Zloyvolsheb explained very well above, Svoboda follows in the radical right-wing nationalist tradition, and has nothing to do with Left-wing nationalism (which is the redirect you get when you follow Social Nationalism). Is there any debate about whether Svoboda or the earlier SNPU are right or left wing? Some in the party are actually proud of their heritage to the OUN and Stepan Bandera. Svoboda's most consistent ideology is anti-communism.
Above, you just supported someone removing an article by Der Spiegel describing Svoboda's heritage with National Socialism, the Nazis, and Adolf Hitler. There are academics who write about this too. What references to you have concerning Svoboda's links with Left Wing Nationalism? -Darouet (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
a) I think that social-nationalism should wiki link to its own article, then; b) I'm sure I've argued this before on the talk page, but "right" and "left" wings aren't absolutes, they have a right wing social, foreign, and domestic policy, but a left wing economic policy from what I've read. They do tie, IMO, into the left wing nationalism article in terms of policy, as we see: "national self-determination.[1] It has its origins in the Jacobinism of the French Revolution.[1] Left-wing nationalism typically espouses anti-imperialism.[2][3] It stands in contrast to right-wing nationalism, and has often rejected racist nationalism and fascism,[2] although minor forms of left-wing nationalism have included intolerance and racial prejudice.[2]". I don't think they are excluded from this, but I do think SN should have its own article since it's very specific in its platform. They are definitely not National Socialists, as you suggested, which is its own beast. --Львівське (говорити) 17:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, right and left wing nationalism both share "nationalism" in common. Do you have any references to support the idea that Svoboda is left wing? That it is linked historically or organizationally to left wing groups? That any of its members consider themselves or Svoboda left wing? Otherwise this kind of argumentation descends into original research. -Darouet (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no connection between Svoboda and Hitler. In fact, I have seen several interviews by Oleh Tyahnybok, where he proposes to ban both the symbols of both extremes: communism and fascism. I don't know how people could still make this suggestion about Svoboda, when part of their agenda is to ban fascism. It's pretty clear that they are against it.--BoguSlav 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
So are you here arguing that any otherwise reliable sources that make such a connection are wrong? Do you need to provide any sources to justify or explain your belief or is that not necessary? Suppose someone found a scholarly source or major newspaper making such a connection: should they be allowed to edit the article accordingly? If so, what would be the criteria for removing or altering that edit? -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The obvious solution is to show both sides of the story and attribute who says what properly.--Львівське (говорити) 01:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree, but what you've done is remove sources, not add them. I'd appreciate it if you added back the Spiegel source and contributed "the other side of the story," rather than removing the uncomfortable side. -Darouet (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
the left i'm talking about here has to do with social services, not them being a "left wing group". Let's look at TO again just for an overview:

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

So as a summary: pro taxation for services (VAT), state control of farmlands (as opposed to right-wing, which would be privatized), and emphasis on health care (a 'left' social service). --Львівське (говорити) 19:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Having somewhat leftist economic platform is typical for parties that are described as far-right. NSDAP was no exception here. If you look at Golden Dawn in Greece, then they are anti-liberal in economic questions and pro-state intervention. In fact, I find it highly likely that economic policies will become a huge bone of contention for the present government in Ukraine.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This picture suggests ties and support for fascism within the party by OT himself http://i44.tinypic.com/2ez1m3k.jpg Most of what politicians say doesn't equal what they do.24.158.236.8 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Darouet, the Wikipedia does not have an article on Social Nationalism. Someone decided to create a redirect. Social Nationalism is not "left-wing nationalism". Both National Socialism and Social Nationalism do have nationalism in common, yet one (NS) is socialist, another (SN) is social. Socialist and Social are not one and the same. The first propagates socialist ideas, the second ideas of family. Also, sources that call "creditable" some of them can hardly qualify as such. Anton Shekhvtsov is a Russian political scientist, Per Anders Rudling is an American historian who denies the existence of Ukrainian history and maybe even Ukraine, there are even sources from the "Voice of Russia" and that is when Vladimir Putin openly declared that Ukraine is not even a state. So, who is Nazi here? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev, this isn't a forum for general discussion, but rather a page dedicated to improving the wikipedia article for Svoboda. Productive discussion therefore requires a presentation and discussion of reliable sources, which means doing research (work) to figure out and show what those sources say. If you are going to comment here, please do so in a format that is productive: present sources, text, and discuss them. -Darouet (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just want to chime in, but Shekhovtsov is Ukrainian and from Crimea, not "a Russian political scientist." He's also against Russia politically, so let's not lump him in as biased against Ukraine or for Moscow simply based on his surname. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre

The current text makes the following statement: Svoboda advisor Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn established a "Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre" in 2005, later changing "Joseph Goebbels" to "Ernst Jünger."

Apart from the misuse of the indefinite article in the sentence, upon reading that sentence one can easily get the impression that we're dealing with some sort of institute, while in reality we're dealing with a rather pompously named blog

http://nachtigal88.livejournal.com/

I am not an expert on Wikipedia rules. I have no idea for example if calling a blog a blog is considered original research. This is why I bring this to the attention of the editors of this article.65.78.92.139 (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I can remember that in a (2012???) version of this article it was also stated it was a blog.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Both - many organizations publicize themselves via blogs. Right now we have a reliable source describing the establishment of the research center, but we don't have a source describing the establishment of a blog. Can we find one before making this change? The text as now altered isn't supported by the source. -Darouet (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the source says: The Internet 'Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre' (the centre later changed Goebbels for Ernst Jünger) was founded in 2005 by Yuri Mykhailyshyn... Phrased as such is not correct English, so shouldn't be used verbatim on Wikipedia. The website itself is hosted on livejournal.com and the only reference to a "center" is in the title, which reads: "Центр політичних досліджень ім. Е. Юнгера", according to Google translate this means: "Center for Political Studies. E. Junger". There is no contact information for an organization, and the user profile of the blog is a person from "Lembek" (Lviv), born 14 November 1980. The text of the blog never refers to itself as a "center" other than in its title, but on occasion it refers to itself as "I" (first person). The blog site was registered February 20, 2005 and that day 11 posts were made, 9 of which are poems by one Євген Маланюк (Eugene Malanyuk), one is a broken link to a photo, and one post is an unattributed poem (not the type of content one associates with a political research center, or "think tank" as some political commentators have even called it). The reliable source gives very little information about this so-called center. I understand that actually going to the site and read the material is "original research", but doing so makes it very clear that it really is the blog of a person who rather pompously names it a "center". As it is, my original remark still stands. The original text reads as if we're dealing with some sort of "politial research center", based on one source that takes little effort to explain the nature of the 'Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre'. He prefixes the name with the word "internet" and puts the name in quotes. In reality, we're dealing with just another blog. 65.78.92.139 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, well I'll look and see if there are any other references in the academic literature, or by major papers. One option is to mirror the source's wording exactly and call it the Internet "Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center," etc, but there should be a reference outside the OSW source. -Darouet (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ukranians as "neo-nazis"

No nationalist parties in Ukraine can be neo-nazi, because the nazis actually viewed slavs as inferior humans. Actually sub-human, together with jewish people. I just thought I should mention that. 80.213.179.200 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not far right

This party is accused by political opponents of being far right. But its political position is nationalist and right wing, not far right. Similarly the fact that opponents call it a fascist and/or anti-semitic party does not make it so. Wikipedia should not be used by far left elements to denigrate right wing parties. I note that those who say it is far right are either political opponents on the far left, or outsiders with limited knowledge of Ukraine. Notable "Ihor Kolomoyskyi, president of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine, stated in 2010 that the party has clearly shifted from the far-right to the centre". With comments like his and political scientists in Ukraine, it is untenable to continue to call the party far right. I would be happy to withdraw this observation if anyone can provide independent evidence that the party's policies are either far right or anti-Semitic.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

"It is widely considered a fascist and/or anti-semitic party by Russian ultranationalist groups,[20][21][22][23][24][25] while others have disputed the neo-fascist label, and simply considers it a radical nationalist party."

According to this, only Russian ultranationalists (not even plain nationalists) consider this group to be fascist while others consider it a "radical nationalist party". This doesn't seem very neutral, especially since fascism is a form of radical nationalism.. 2601:602:9802:A1B0:2D3C:9228:5DE5:9FF9 (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

7 Svoboda members currently in the Ukrainian parliament?

According to the current Infobox of this Wikipedia article 7 Svoboda members are currently in the Ukrainian parliament. But according to this source 2 Svoboda members elected in 2014 have left the party. Is the loss of these 2 reflected in the current Infobox? Or are there only 5 Svoboda members currently in the Ukrainian parliament.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly help if we knew the names of the Svoboda members. Neither the Verkhovna Rada site, nor the official Svoboda site seem to keep updated lists of members... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Svoboda (political party). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Svoboda (political party) which happens to be the previous name of the article per consensus below. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Freedom (political party) → All-Ukrainian Union "Freedom" – Two reasons: 1. All Ukrainian political parties whose names begin with "All Ukrainian Union" are titled as such except for this one (see All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland", All-Ukrainian Union "Center", etc.) 2. There are dozens of political parties called freedom (see Freedom Party); using the title "Freedom (political party) for one specific marginal Ukrainian political party rather than a disambiguation page makes absolutely no sense. Cran32 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A milder kind of anti-Semitic fascism

From the lede: It is positioned between the right-wing and the far-right of the political spectrum. It is widely considered a fascist and/or anti-semitic party while others have disputed the neo-fascist label, and simply considers it a radical nationalist party.

The party’s position “between the right-wing and the far-right of the political spectrum” is presented as a statement of fact...but the very next sentence we learn it is “widely considered” to be fascist and anti-Semitic. If this isn’t textbook far-right, that term has lost all meaning. The sentence goes on to say that “others” (such as...?) “simply considers [sic] it a radical nationalist party” which is an extremely lame attempt at polishing a turd.

If this right-wing party - which has been openly anti-Semitic and feels close enough to the fascist Nazis to appropriate the SS Wolfsangel symbol - were not on the side of a NATO/EU geopolitical conflict with Russia it would be labeled far-right and fascistic, if not outright fascist, and nobody would take the mealy mouthed “between the right and far-right” apologist nonsense seriously.

Many of the European right populist parties are called “far-right” and are far less extremist than this lot. So cut the BS.This is a far-right party and ought to be clearly labeled as such. User2346 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC improve Svoboda (political party) lede

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

General consensus to make political position on the far-right clearer and reflective of sources, several other changes suggested during the discussion and applied. Bacondrum (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I came across this article recently and noticed some glaring issues with the lede:

  • First, this statement "It is positioned between the right-wing and the far-right of the political spectrum. It is widely considered a fascist and/or anti-semitic party" sounds weaselly to me. We shouldn't be approximating these things, is the party any of those things or isn't it?
  • Second, do we need a breakdown of different election results in the lede? Doesn't that kind of detail belong in the body?
  • Third, if we include election results, shouldn't they be summarised?
  • Fourth, the prose are really clunky, how can they be improved?

Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Suggestion - I propose rewriting the lede to something like this, but I'm open to suggestions:

The All-Ukrainian Union or "Svoboda" (Ukrainian: Всеукраїнське об'єднання «Свобода», Vseukrayinske obyednannia "Svoboda") party, is a far-right, radical nationalist party that has been described by Russian academic Dmitry Likhachov and numerous journalists as fascist and antisemitic.

The party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Соціал-національна партія України) and acts as a populist proponent of extreme nationalism.

The party was renamed Svoboda (meaning "freedom" in Ukranian) in 2004, and since then Oleh Tyahnybok has been party leader. In recent years Svoboda has become a significant force in Ukranian politics.

Bacondrum (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support your points.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC))
  • Generally support, but there is no need to limit academic criticism to Russian academic Dmitry Likhachov, as Svoboda is widely described as antisemitic and fascist, for example this paper writes: "Svoboda is also known for the antisemitic views of its members. Its leader, Oleg Tiagnybok, a forty-four-year-old urological surgeon by training, has been charged in the past for racist and antisemitic comments. Its members were behind many antisemitic incidents, including arson of synagogues and other Jewish facilities, and desecration of Jewish graves, mostly in western Ukraine, where, as noted, most of the party’s supporters reside.". I would write "described by numerous academics and journalists as fascist and antisemitic". Vici Vidi (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the paper, I agree his opinion alone seems undue, I was just working with what we had. The entire article has major issues. I think "described by numerous academics and journalists as fascist and antisemitic" would be an improvement in light of the new source. Bacondrum (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Vici Vidi: I don't disagree with you, but doesn't the phrase "numerous academics and journalists" count as weasel words? Ezhao02 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, we could just describe them, based on sources, as far-right and antisemitic. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
That would refect the source. Bacondrum (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I still think we should describe them as either right or far-right. Based on the weight of the sources I think far-right is appropriate. I think those other articles you mention should be specific too, they are exceptions to the rule. I can think of nowhere else on Wikipedia where that kind of wishy-washy description would stand. Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with you, Svoboda have been more radical than the parties listed here and involved in more incidents.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC))
It seems not be the exception : on the other hand, Portuguese Left Bloc and Red–Green Alliance (Denmark) have left-wing to far-left, Greek Syriza has centre-left to left-wing, Portuguese CDS – People's Party has centre-right to right-wing etc. --Martopa (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, every party should be judged in the end individually in a manner. I see recently the waters regarding Ukraine are not still due to international issues, but the party entered into harsh incidents against some minorities in the past years, but ties with the Right Sector implying as well what I have drawn the attention.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC))
I think these kinds of vagaries being present elsewhere is problematic and a reason to correct them at those articles as well, not a reason to have them here.
Sure, as I said, every party has to be judged on it's own article, comparisons with other may be just a second-level approach, however what I indicated stands for Svoboda.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC))
I do think that we should consider what is mentioned at Svoboda (political party)#Political image. Notably, it says that Svoboda has been described as having changed from the extreme right to becoming less anti-democratic and centrist (relative to before). However, there may be a couple issues with this section: (1) this may or may not be a case of undue weight and (2) it is clearly outdated. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure it's about 2010, when anyway extremism flourished, but afterwards also have been several issues...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC))
I'm inclined to believe you. Can you update the section with sources? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, if academics and journalists are describing them them as far-right, fascist and antisemitic it would be silly, even ridiculous to claim they are merely "right". Bacondrum (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ezhao02, I made the update. Bacondrum, go on then with edits, update anything needed.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC))
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political orientation

Ultranationalism and neo-fascism are by definition very far-right political orientations. Why did 'far-right' (2021 page) change to 'right-wing to far-right' (current page) if Svoboda is, without a doubt, a far-right political party? 2A02:A212:A142:7580:E862:14C8:7E3A:5B07 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fascism in infobox

{relevant diff)

The infobox should be limited to straightforward facts, based primarily on the body. The infobox currently includes "Neo-Fascist" (capital F), which redirects to Neo-fascism (small f). Currently the lead says:

  • made efforts to moderate the party's image by changing the party's name and symbols and expelling neo-Nazi and neofascist groups. Although Tyahnybok expelled neofascist groups from his party, it never abandoned ethnic ultranationalist views.
  • It has been also widely considered as a neofascist, neo-Nazi and antisemitic party by multiple journalists and organizations, although those labels are disputed, while some consider them as a radical-right nationalist party.}

The body mentions its predecessor using a fascist symbol, then:

  • On formation Svoboda also pushed neo-Nazi and other radical groups out of the party, distancing itself from its neofascist past while retaining the support of extreme nationalists.
  • Olexiy Haran, a political science professor at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, says "There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding Svoboda" and that the party is not fascist, but radical.
  • Tyahnybok defined nationalism as love of one's homeland and drew a distinction from chauvinism and fascism which he defined as the superiority of one nation over another.
  • Alexander J. Motyl contends that Svoboda is not fascist, neither in behaviour or in ideology, and that "they are far more like the Tea Party or right-wing Republicans than like fascists or neo-Nazis."

In other words, the body does not support the use of the term in the infobox. At the very least, it should say "contested" or something, but given that all of the references to fascism in the body say the opposite, even that would be a reach. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case we could write in the infobox from what year to what year it was called 'neo-fascist', to the years when it would become a more moderate party. Anyway Per Anders Rudling calls it 'neo-fascist'.[4] Mhorg (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
If you think the body inadequately describes its orientation, the place to start is by editing that, e.g. add in Rudling, and then, when that's sorted, fill out the infobox. At the moment, the body does not say it was neo-fascist at any point. (SNPU seems uncontested, but that's currently a different article. If you think the articles should be merged, that's another thing to discuss.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Also Rudling would not be enough for us to simply call it fascist or neo-fascist in the infobox, as it is clear from this source that it's contested:
Expert opinions on Svoboda in particular are divided. Per Anders Rudling, an associate professor at Lund University in Sweden and researcher on Ukrainian extremists, has described Svoboda as “neo-fascist”. He told Britain’s Channel 4 News: “Two weeks ago I could never have predicted this. A neo-fascist party like Svoboda getting the deputy prime minister position is news in its own right.”
But Ivan Katchanovski, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa who has studied the far-right in Ukraine, disagreed that Svoboda was so extreme. “Svoboda is currently best described as a radical nationalist party, and not as fascist or neo-Nazi,” he said. “It is now not overtly anti-Semitic.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not against adding Katchanovski's opinion, I consider him a highly reliable source. However, I think that if in the early years it was defined as a neo-fascist party, we could indicate the range of years in the infobox. Mhorg (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
To be in the infobox, it needs to not only be defined as a neo-fascist by one source; it needs to be the commonly agreed, uncontroversial definition. If it's controversial, we can discuss it in body and leave it out of infobox. There is nothing in the current article to suggest at any point it was the commonly agreed definition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The party is far-right

In no universe is this party only right-wing. 2A02:3030:80B:99C2:1:0:7DE1:47AB (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources say different things on this, and we need to follow WP:NPOV, that is, represent what different sources say on the matter. Tristario (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Economic nationalism"

is in the body with a source. What's the problem with including it in infobox? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing

There are only 2 sources for this while there are 8 for far-right, i think we should remove right-wing Braganza (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Mhorg (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@Manyareasexpert: Braganza (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes but please, let's use more actual sources, like Unexpected Friendships: Cooperation of Ukrainian Ultra-Nationalists with Russian and Pro-Kremlin Actors | illiberalism.org . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Manyareasexpert: oh yeah if you have newer ones you can remove the older ones (e.g. European Parliament (2012), Taras Kuzio (2010) and Per Anders Rudling (2012)) Braganza (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Svoboda_(political_party)/Archive_4&oldid=1218428569"