Talk:Far-right politics in Ukraine/Archive 1

Low life expectancy leads to more Neo-Nazism in a country?
This Wikipedia article currently claims that low life expectancy somehow leads to more Neo-Nazism in Ukraine.... Seems like a wp:fringe theory to me.... If life expectancy would be extremely low in Israel Neo-Nazism would be extremely high in Israel? —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  17:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes at least thats what we get taught in history class in Canada. Lower quality of life and economic struggle creates tough and violent conditions and grow division which make it easier for xenophobic ideas to infiltrate the mainstream. This is what happened in Germany. Perhaps not fatalistic but it is an acceptable socio-economic concept. When life gets tough people turn on each other. In the western world the rise of far right politics generally is a reflection of the growing unaffordability crisis they are experiencing. In the US a lot of Trump supporters were working class people who suffered horribly from the offshoring of american manufacturing. I also would say that life in places like Hungary and Greece is not good for their citizens and you also see high levels of far right politics in those areas. DimKhr (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Wikipedia article
This Wikipedia article is currently (mid-February 2020) based on a minimum of sources which most of them being being opinion pieces that were written to warn against raising Neo-Nazism in Ukraine. The article to me seems written by the boy who cried wolf. Although I believe that current far-right violence against Roma is a serious problem in Ukraine, the article's suggestion that ethnic Russians are under threat is something I never read in mainstream sources. You have to be an extremely sick person to believe that violence against ethnic Russians in Ukraine would not be reported by BBC, CNN or other mainstream English media...... With the current Russian government pushing the frame of "Ukrainianism = Nazism!!!!!!!!" Wikipedia should be writing careful, multi point of view and balanced articles about the situation in Ukraine. And not some botched up summary of opinion pieces written for a specific reason. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The source of the imbalance are poor quality sources and mischaracterization of the few reliable sources. The opening paragraph with the two opinion pieces that cite Twitter and Facebook are prime examples. I'll remedy that in the coming days. -- Sonic Y (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Its true that it was not covered in mainstream media but not everything is and there examples of Western media actively ignoring conflicts like a lot of what happens in the developing world. Regardless, the view presented in the Wikipedia article is noteworthy because this was essentially the Russian-speaking worlds narrative since 2014. And there have been really devastating civilian casualties in the Donbas area since and throughout the original fighting that started in 2014. In fact the BBC along with other publications found that a lot of old footages are circulating claiming to be from the current conflict. Not justifying the war but its important to understand all sides if there is to be an end DimKhr (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deletion because there ARE far right ,right wing groups in Ukraine including the far right neo naxi right sector,and the Wikipedia article does not contain excuses or reasons for russian invasion but merely offers information. Further, Wikipedia states this article as propaganda but fails to mention where is the properganda or false content exactly? If you are to censor such articles, surely as part of democratic process you should point out or draw focus to exactly what sections are propaganda or false. Other wise Wikipedia will be guilty of silencing free speech and factual information with a blanket ban on anything that criticises Ukraine or its politics as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.2.8 (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily agree with the sources of this article but a member of the Svoboda Party in Ukraine went ON THE record that an immigrant Hollywood actress is not an Ukrainian but a zhidivka (see Zhidovka). Also Ukraine did historically include Nazi collaborationists, my late grandmother, a Holocaust survivor told me of a German embassy during the war featuring a flag with a Swastika (i.e. it was a Nazi embassy). That does not detract from the heroism of Ukrainians, including ethnic Poles, Jews and even Russians, who fought back against an invading army that bombed schools, hospitals and infrastructure under the dark of night, whether by the Germans during the 'great war for the fatherland' (Soviet term for their war (see World War II) defending against the Nazis, where Kyiv happened to be the first to be attacked), or this time by the Russian army which called a democratically elected government (by the way, some material in the article is outdated, the Prime Minister is Volodymyr Zelenskyy, not Poroshenko) drug addicts and neo-Nazis (see fascist (insult)(24.46.46.43 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)LeucineZipper. 24.46.46.43 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality and removal of far-right Russian separatists
Please see the discussion here about this article's neutrality, as well as the removal of far-right Russian separatists from this and related articles. ~Asarlaí 17:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

For now, pasting the deleted section, which seems to me well-sourced and highly relevant here:
 * According to Likhachev (2016), Russian ethnic and imperialist nationalism has shaped the official ideology of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics; two self-proclaimed states controlled by pro-Russian separatists but internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. During the War in Donbas, far-right nationalist groups played a greater role on the pro-Russian side of the conflict, especially at the beginning. Leaders of the Donetsk People's Militia are closely linked to the neo-Nazi party Russian National Unity (RNU) led by Alexander Barkashov, which has recruited many fighters. A former member of RNU, Pavel Gubarev, was founder of the Donbas People's Militia and first "governor" of the Donetsk People's Republic. RNU is particularly linked to the Russian Orthodox Army, a religious ultranationalist unit which is part of the Donetsk People's Militia. Other neo-Nazi units include the 'Rusich', 'Svarozhich' and 'Ratibor' battalions, which have Slavic swastikas on their badges.


 * Some of the most influential far-right activists among the Russian separatists are neo-imperialists, who seek to revive the Russian Empire. These included Igor 'Strelkov' Girkin, first "minister of defence" of the Donetsk People's Republic. The far-right Russian Imperial Movement has recruited thousands of volunteers to join the separatists. Other Russian far-right groups whose members have joined the separatist militias include the Eurasian Youth Union and the banned Slavic Union and Movement Against Illegal Immigration.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I put it back in. This is getting kind of ridiculous and is becoming quite disruptive as it seems to be happening across multiple articles.  Volunteer Marek  09:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion on the noticeboard, I have slightly modified the section to reflect what sources really said. Regards. Segaton (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Segaton, how many more times are you going to edit-war and deny what the sources clearly say? To show there's no misrepresentation, I added numerous direct quotes from the sources, but even that didn't stop you.
 * You say you've re-worded "to reflect what sources really said". Yet look at this sentence: 'Varyag' (Varangians or Vikings), are "one of the few not to hide their extreme-right orientation" (a direct quote from the source) ...and you've changed it to this: 'Varyag' (Varangians or Vikings) is among of the few have adopted extreme-right approach. So the original sentence matched the source perfectly, and you've changed it to something you've made up, with poor English. You've also changed "members" of far-right groups to "former members", yet the sources say they're current members.
 * It seems clear from the discussion that you're simply trying to censor information no matter what. and, Russian separatist forces in Donbas has now been protected due to Segaton's edit-warring, should we request the same for this article or raise this behavior on an admin noticeboard? ~Asarlaí 17:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not protected against me, but against IP editors. I can still edit it.
 * You are supposed to ping me as well when you are pinging others. Read WP:CANVASSING.
 * I missed adding the word "who" in middle of "few" and "have". I fixed it now.
 * Your sources say that these groups are "banned", "banned ultranationalist", "now-banned". They don't say that they exist anymore. Segaton (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, it seems that you ignored the page 28 of this IFRI document which goes on to say that:

"'The fact that right-wing radicals, including self-confessed neo-Nazis, took part in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has attracted much attention from the media and in society. But although they did play their part in the first few months of the conflict, in the spring and summer of 2014, their importance has often been exaggerated.'"

And:

"'The conflict developed in such a way, moreover, that the importance of far- right groups on both sides has declined over time.'"

If you had ever read it under the title "Conclusion" on page 28 then you would have cited it too but it seems that you only read the document until page 26. I have extended the mention to page 28 here now. This sources clears it up that why far-right insurgency failed to live for a longer period in this conflict.

Since you have already notified and  I would notify other involved editors,  and  to take a look at "conclusion" at page 28 and check the progress we have done so far. Segaton (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:Asarlaí ...


 * At this moment, you are alone with making these false claims of censorship. I had made substantial response on talk page. Now we can continue here.
 * I just had a look at your recent tagging. Now let me make it clear for you that the source actually supports the sentences in question.
 * Tag 1:
 * But National Bolshevik Party and Russian National Unity were banned well before 2008. On wikipedia, we can't pretend that they existed as operational organization when they were already banned and had breakup before this whole scenario. We have to be accurate with our info.
 * Nevertheless, the source mentions Gubarev as the one who has "also been a member of the RNU", that means he was a former member. Another example is at p. 22 where the text says "activists from the RNU and other groups joined the RPA (Russian Rebel Army)", which would mean that these activists were ultimately a part of new groups during the rebellion. That's why you can't pretend them to be existing members of those organizations that didn't even exist during 2014.
 * Tag 2:
 * Yes they did, but for which reason? Answer is: The rebellion that was finally executed in 2014. The source notes that between 2006 - 2009 "the Donetsk Republic movement took part in training camps run by the Eurasian Youth Union (EYU)".
 * Finally, this quote verifies that the former members of National Bolshevik Party, Russian National Unity, or the existing Eurasian Youth Union, were working on rebellion for years before it finally executed in 2014: ""The inner logic of events around the turn of the year 2014 and the annexation of Crimea spurred these groups to change their modus operandi from periodically desecrating Ukrainian state symbols to taking violent action."
 * Tag 3:
 * Your text is: "'Varyag' (Varangians or Vikings), are "one of the few not to hide their extreme-right orientation" and are open about their neo-Nazism."
 * The text you disputed is:"'Varyag' (Varangians or Vikings) is among the few who have adopted extreme-right approach and are quite open about their neo-Nazism."
 * Source say: "Varyag is one of the few not to hide their extreme-right orientation, as it endorses its neo-Nazi ideology quite openly."
 * They are not "hiding" their orientation, which clearly indicates they have adopted it. There is nothing wrong with the word "adopted" and this word is also used for Hitler with regards to his Nazi ideology. At best, I was avoiding the violation of MOS:QUOTE because we prefer paraphrasing over quotation.
 * Let me know if you find any other issues. Segaton (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Segaton, you've just proven that your wording doesn't match the sources, but is actually WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
 * Tag 1: Can you show me a quote from the sources that they were all former members? No. And please note that "banned"/"illegal" doesn't mean "non-existent".
 * Tag 2: If you want to add a sentence about them planning rebellion that's fine. But you deleted the following sentence even tho' it's supported 100% by the sources, which are quoted in the Wiki references to prove it: In the early years of the conflict, leaders of the separatist militias were closely linked to the banned neo-Nazi party Russian National Unity (RNU) led by Alexander Barkashov, which has recruited many fighters.. Repeatedly deleting well-sourced content like that is why editors in the discussion accused you of censorship.
 * Tag 3: Does the source say "Varyag is among the few who have adopted extreme-right approach"? No. It says Varyag are "one of the few not to hide their extreme-right orientation". Those are two very different meanings. ~Asarlaí 21:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are repeating yourself at this stage. Read my reply again.
 * "Banned" does mean that they are no longer existing especially when they also went through break up. That is the case here.
 * Your sentence is problematic and can't be accepted also because of this very reliable source which says on RNU/RNE that: "However, there is no reliable information about when the RNE affiliates in Ukraine were created."
 * It is necessary for us to be accurate with our info. Ifri.org does not contradict if you read it carefully.
 * No one is deleting "well-sourced content" but only fixing your misrepresentation of sources. Learn the meaning of "censorship" before throwing the word around this recklessly.
 * "among the few" is same as "one of the few", and "adopted" is used correctly. Read MOS:QUOTE and WP:PARAPHRASE. Segaton (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an absolute farce. The sources clearly say they were RNU members at the time (2014–15), not former members.
 * Again, show me a quote from the sources saying they were all former members at the time?
 * Again, "banned" doesn't mean "non-existent" - terrorist groups are banned, but they still exist. Show me a quote from the sources saying RNU no longer existed at this time?
 * Your "very reliable source" says there's no reliable information when RNU founded branches in Ukraine. How does that contradict anything that's written?
 * Again, "Among the few who do not hide their far-right views" is definitely NOT the same as "Among the few who have adopted far-right views". So your wording totally misrepresents the source.
 * How many times must I repeat myself until you understand? ~Asarlaí 18:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The "very reliable source" rejects the false rumors about the direct role of RNE in 2014 conflict. This is another reason why you don't have to overhype their history here.
 * Another alternative wording would be "is among the few who embrace extreme-right"
 * You don't have to "repeat" yourself but understand what you are told. Segaton (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Re (1/2): "banned" clearly is not synonymous with "no longer exists" - many banned organisations exist. The "formerly" is unnecessary, as the sources show a large number of people historically active in these groups were at the same time and subsequently involved in the separatist movements. The sentence is past tense already. So "Members of the XXX actively participated in" is accurate and cleaner. In the early years of the conflict, leaders of the separatist militias were closely linked to the banned neo-Nazi party Russian National Unity (RNU) led by Alexander Barkashov, which has recruited many fighters. is an accurate rendition of the sources, but the listing of other groups makes the article more comprehensive, so I propose a more detailed version more faithful to the source: Members of the National Bolshevik Party, Russian National Unity (RNU), Eurasian Youth Union, and the Cossack units were active in shaping the separatist movement before 2014. Some of the separatist militia members had been members of the banned neo-Nazi party RNU. The party and its leader Alexander Barkashov had ties to many of the separatist militia leaders and recruited fighters for them. It's clear from the sources that the RNU (which existed as Russian National Unity (2000) until 2013) continued to be active in the Donbas after its official ban in Moscow.

Re (3): If the source says ""Varyag is one of the few not to hide their extreme-right orientation, as it endorses its neo-Nazi ideology quite openly", it would better to word as closely to that as possible. Clearly, are "one of the few not to hide their extreme-right orientation" is far more accurate than is among of the few who have adopted extreme-right approach. The latter is actually misleading, as being one of the few to be open implies others have adopted extremism. I'm going to edit this sentence now, as the current version is misleading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your detailed reply, BobFromBrockley. This discussion had been going round in circles as only myself and Segaton/Arvind had continued to take part. I think it could've been resolved quickly had there been more input from outside editors, which is why I've raised it at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I agree with your proposed wording of the sentence. ~Asarlaí 10:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * RNU was not active after 2000 as they went through breakup and were split into dozens of groups after that per here, thus we should not be providing WP:UNDUE weight to unconfirmed and debunked assertions. See this very reliable source which debunks these theories by asserting that these claims have been made only by "unreliable Ukrainian sources" and adds that "The fact that barkashov did celebrate the insurgents' actions on his Facebook page does not mean that they took orders from him." I would support the inclusion of the half of your proposed sentence with little modification and it would be  "Members linked to National Bolshevik Party, Russian National Unity (RNU), Eurasian Youth Union, and the Cossack units were active in shaping the separatist movement before 2014." But we don't need more details. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Resend ping ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with ArvindPalaskar, we are dedicating too much text for something irrelevant and undue. Mhorg (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , you claim RNU/RNE "was not active after 2000", yet your first source says "Remnants of the old RNE still remain", and all the other sources say it still existed at the start of the Donbas conflict. You keep claiming your second source "debunks" all the other reliable sources. Yet it clearly says RNE was "reactivated" and "relaunched with the crisis in Ukraine" and adds "Many central figures in Donetsk have referred, directly or indirectly, to the RNE". The "unreliable Ukrainian sources" ONLY refers to this: "the commander of the Russian Orthodox Army also is suspected of being close to Barkashov, but these links are mentioned by unreliable Ukrainian sources". You've been asked to add detail from this source into the article, but haven't done so. ~Asarlaí 13:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They were already broke after 2000. The source does not say that they were active after 2000. Read the whole sentence which is "Remnants of the old RNE still remain, but defections by dissidents have weakened it as a political force." Sure "Remnants" like Barkashov as of 2001 (the dating of the source) were trying to gain political attraction but that has nothing to do with being active for another 14 years and ultimately the 2014 Donbass conflict.
 * "unreliable Ukrainian sources" is a significant part of the entire debunked false claim about the revival of RNU which the source discussed under the heading "The myth of the RNE renaissance". It is just a "myth" and we should avoid discussing any "myth". Segaton (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and this Marlene Laruelle source is more recent and more scholarly. I would say Asarlaí would read WP:RGW and abide by this source unless he has a more scholarly source debunking Laruelle. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not repeating myself yet again., read my reply again, as it seems you still fail to understand. , read my reply again, where I showed you how the Laurelle source doesn't "debunk" all the others, and read Conflicting sources. ~Asarlaí 14:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It rejects them as a "myth", and that has been already shown to you. WP:Conflicting sources say "Prefer up-to-date sources. In the case of a conflict stemming from the fact that the general or academic consensus about the subject has changed over time, the current consensus should be given preference." This is clearly why we are relying on the information provided by academic Laruelle source and providing no WP:UNDUE weight to a rumor. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The claims that are being "debunked" here are pretty marginal to anything we might say in the article. We don't (and don't need to) go into detail on the exact contribution of one or another RNU splinter group or remnant, nor how strong it was at any given point. We simply say that this cluster of groups - which Laruelle and the Atkins encyclopedia both indicate clearly existed in various forms far beyond 2000 - was instrumental in this scene's consolidation. See also the article version of the same Laruelle text https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1023004 which shows that this fascist connection is significant and, contra Mhorg, would not be undue for a couple of paragraphs in this article. The word "formerly" is confusing because it's unclear whether they were former then or former now, so I prefer the wording that doesn't include it, as it's unnecessary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a notice that ArvindPalaskar has actually removed my inline tags with the edit summary "just get over it". This goes against Wikipedia policy, as the issue is not resolved, it is still being discussed, and Arvind is one of those involved in the dispute. I suggest he self-reverts. ~Asarlaí 12:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * With 4 editors disagreeing with your tagging, I am sure that it was fine to tell you to just get over it.
 * Thanks for this link. I have access to it and it says "How to explain this inconsistent media hype on the alleged rebirth of the RNU, with almost no open sources to confirm it?" If "former" is confusing, then we can change it to "Individuals linked to", but I don't think any other explanation is needed. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are the "4 editors" who disagreed with my tagging? Let's see the diffs.
 * Also, after all this nonsense, you've finally agreed with the point I've been making the whole time, that the word "former" doesn't belong? The problem isn't that it's "confusing", the problem is that it's completely unsourced. ~Asarlaí 13:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that agreed with Arvind P and Segaton about tagging formerly (but not about the other tags) and the fourth is presumably the redlinked ScottyTReid who removed Asarlaí's edit after a five-year absence from WP so can be discounted. "Just get over it" does not seem like a legitimate edit summary to me, but that edit has now been reverted a few edits down the line. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that this muddies the waters (and given Russian propaganda) I can see why this might need to be kept out. Except maybe as a one-line mention. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Third Opinion refused. Good afternoon all. I am Springnuts, a previously univolved editor. I am refusing the request made for a 3O, as many more than two editors are involved. Please use other dispute resolution processes. Springnuts (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Compromise wording suggestion: replace "Members formerly belonging to" with "Members and former members of", as that would be consonant with the sources cited. I've extracted full quotes into the text and this seems uncontroversial. "Individuals linked to" as proposed by ArvindPalaskar also seems fine to me, but unnecessarily vague. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed per this suggestion. Segaton (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)