Talk:Misanthropic Division

Recent changes
User Bobfrombrockley  removed two sources from the article on the basis of them not mentioning the division. I believe this is a mistake due to the articles themselves clearly mentioning the division in various ways.

The first case is a 2016 paper titled 'The Far Right in Ukraine During the 'Euromaidan' and the War in Donbas' by Ukrainian writer Ivan Katchanovski, which states:

''Statements posted by the Right Sector, the SNA, and Misanthropic Division, another neo-Nazi organization, on their websites and social media sites admitted in various forms involvement of their organizations or the far right-led attackers generally in the massacre of the separatists. However, with the exception of the arrested but released Right Sector shooter, only separatists were among those arrested and tried for the Odesa massacre.''

Perhaps this mention was missed due to the fact that you must download the PDF file from website before reading, but it clearly names the organization and its involvement in the 2014 events in Odesa.

The second case is '[https://stanford.app.box.com/s/7ocm1tlvp2uydbki04qiuph4oa5j8tg9 Mapping Militant Organizations. “Azov Battalion.”]' from Stanford University, which states:

''Azov has a strong affiliation with the Misanthropic Division. The Misanthropic Division is a nihilistic neo-Nazi paramilitary organization with similar ideological views as Azov. It originally formed around 2014 and participated in the Euromaidan Protests. In 2015, the Misanthropic Division published a manifesto pledging “immediate support” for the Azov Battalion.''

The Misanthropic division is mentioned by name numerous times in this report, making the reason for its removal unclear. It overviews the ideological inclinations of the group, and is from a reliable original, therefor being a useful source.

Given this information, I will be re-adding the two sources to the article and removing the message. Daniel222potato (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The second one is my error. I searched the text and could not find these words, but it must be because of the text formatting. The first one, however, is not an error. This is a non-reliable self-published source we should not be citing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Also the unreliable source is ambiguous. It says “involvement of their organizations OR the far right-led attackers generally”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a vague passing mention in a self published source. It says that it's one of a few groups that "admitted in various forms involvement of their organizations or the far right-led attackers generally". Which isn't a sentence that really elucidates much. So I think it should just be removed. Tristario (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Having re-read the Stamford source, this does support some version of the text I removed, but should be phrased in past tense as it says that by 2021 the Division had ceased to operate independently and had disavowed militant activity. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)