Talk:Right Sector/Archive 2

Some algorithms for identifying 'major publications'
Some suggestions for deciding on (1) the most “major” (greatest in size, extent, or importance) of the “major publications” in a given country and (2) the description of Right Sector used by a given publication:

---

Algorithm A 1. In a given country, identify the highest-circulation news service (or the highest-circulation weekly magazine). 2. In that publication, identify the top-ranked article about Pravy Sektor.

---

Algorithm B Example: Italy 1. Google Advanced Search Find pages with...
 * all these words: pravy sektor

Then narrow your results by...
 * region: Italy
 * site or domain: it

2. “pravy sektor site:it,” Google Search, March 29, 2014, https://www.google.com/search?as_q=pravy+sektor&cr=countryIT&as_sitesearch=it
 * Search Results
 * News for pravy sektor
 * Ucraina, gruppo estrema destra Pravy Sektor rischia messa a bando
 * TMNews - 1 day ago
 * Kiev, 28 mar. (TMNews) - Il partito ultranazionalista Pravy Sektor, Settore di destra, potrebbe essere messo al bando in Ucraina dopo il 'blitz' ...

3. “Ukraine: Extreme Right-Wing Group Pravy Sektor Likely to Be Put under Ban,” TMNews, March 28, 2014.
 * Kiev, March 28 (TMNews) - The ultra-nationalist party Pravy Sektor … could be banned in Ukraine after the 'blitz' staged yesterday in front of parliament in Kiev….

4. TMNews appears to be a high-circulation news service.
 * “Agency,” TMNews:
 * Founded in 2001 by a partnership with the Associated Press (AP), [TMNews] has progressively focused on the action spectrum of foreign information (still covered with co-workers and agreements with global agency Agence France-Presse and the Russian RIA Novosti)….

5. End of search! --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC) 03:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Compare Reliable sources checklist. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Local newspapers as reliable sources
An argument can be made that in many cases the most trustworthy source of news about a local incident is the local newspaper (or news service). Statistically, the readership of a local paper is more likely to know about the incident than the readership of a national paper — and to stop subscribing if the report isn’t accurate.

But which local paper? One idea: a ‘newspaper of general circulation.’ (“A newspaper that contains news and information of interest to the general public … and that is available to the public within a certain geographic area. Legal notices are often required by law to be published in a newspaper of general circulation.”) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Dervorguilla - while local newspapers might report on things a big newspaper would ignore, I think that, when conflicting information is presented, large nationally or internationally recognized newspapers will be treated as more reliable sources, due to the historical quality of their journalists, editorial boards, and reporting. That said, specific situations and information can all be reviewed by editors, as wikipedians at the reliable source noticeboard often point out. What are you referring to specifically here? -Darouet (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In particular, the material added by Alex Bakharev at Death of Oleksandr Muzychko, which got deleted by LokiiT (“rewrite using more reliable/english sources”) and then restored and rewritten by me. “A witness told the local news service…. Other witnesses said…”; information cited to Stephen Petrulya, “Version No. 2–Sasha White Shot,” News Rivne.
 * Most of Petrulya’s article got reprinted in Komsomolskaya Pravda. But something does appear to have been lost in the translation and paraphrasing, Darouet! Generally, even the highest-quality foreign newspaper would be less likely to have access to the only sources whose statements are based on firsthand knowledge — the eyewitnesses or (here) earwitnesses present at the scene. Also, a non-local reporter would (statistically) be much less likely to know whether a particular source has a private interest in the matter, wouldn’t you think? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * usually when tiny local newspapers contradict mainstream media outlets, it's preferable to go with the mainstream in most cases, especially when there might be a conflict of interest. If what the local newspapers are reporting is true and significant, it will be picked up by mainstream sources eventually. A lot of shady details have been surfacing since my last edit in the mainstream media, so I still don't think we should be using questionable non-English .info websites. LokiiT (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds rather like a ‘conclusory inference’, LokiiT. Can you state the facts on which the inference is based?
 * Regarding conflicts of interest: Is it in a local reporter’s private interest to expand his personal supply of helpful local sources? In a foreign reporter’s? If you misrepresent your local sources, you lose: no one will want to talk to you. If you misrepresent your foreign sources in some tiny locality, few of your sources outside the locality are likely to find out, no?
 * Regarding the use of non-English news services, you’re correct if their sources happen to be English speakers. Otherwise the reverse could be true.
 * Regarding the use of information in questionable websites that doesn’t get picked up by mainstream outlets, you’re clearly correct. Here the information was reported in the most authoritative local news service (News Rivne) and immediately picked up verbatim by a mainstream newspaper (Komsomolskaya Pravda). Can we use it? --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the local account is important and should not be excluded, but should receive less weight than the mainstream account and follow it in order within the text. -Darouet (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasonable enough!
 * A fourth option: Cite the local account to the mainstream source (Komsomolskaya Pravda) that republished it. (Or to both sources.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Local newspapers are sometimes the only source for particular info, if we have a choice between a major newspaper and a local one, then the major newspaper (even reprinting the local newspapers) are more preferable, hopefully they have better fact checking than the small local media. This is like using secondary vs primary sources. We expect secondary sources to validate primary sources for us, so they are preferable. I have a reservation regarding using Russian sources in the articles related to the present conflict though. But if a particular report unchallenged I think it should be OK Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, I'm not comfortable with the idea that Russian sources are biased, but Western sources are reliable. Many governments have interests at stake, and national media tends to follow the official line in each country. I think Russian sources are valuable but should be treated with the same skepticism that is given to all media sources, all of which have potential biases. -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Russian sources come under a next level of scrutiny since they are state owned. This is like using North Korean news as a legitimate source. State owned media has a WP:COI --Львівське (говорити) 04:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Львівське: BBC News is state-owned, correct? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I don't think BBC has a track record for state sponsored propaganda. I should revise my previous statement since the trend doesn't hold up, but Russian owned media has an incredibly bad track record when it comes to pushing policy and lacking verifiability. --Львівське (говорити) 06:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The illusion of western objectivity is just that. Corporate controlled mainstream media is just as bad. At least RT is upfront about what they do. LokiiT (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, BBC is considered a quality source by Wikipedia. RT on the other hand is a bit of a clown show; I'm sure many users would agree. --Львівське (говорити) 00:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1.) Lvovskiy, I see you haven't learned your lesson on sources and how you're still not the supreme arbitrator of credibility. it's not your place to dissect or unilaterally arbitrate on what sources are credible for the occassion or not; there are many organizations, much less editors, who can do a better job on that than you have who haven't been arbitrated before or have been cited for dubiously removing sanctions such as in this instance.

Finally, who are you to talk about credible sources when you like to add damaging, potentially libelous (a favourite word of yours) information such as this without so much as a source? Do you have a source for him being found "inebriated" or did you just think that would sound a good bit of fiction? Solntsa90 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the source, please refrain from content blanking and accusations of bad faith. Your behavior is being noted. It seems you haven't learned your lesson yet. --Львівське (говорити) 00:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Death of Oleksandr Muzychko?
I think Alexander Muzychko is Oleksandr Muzychko. --Nelisormimangusti (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've redirected it, also Aleksandr Muzychko. &mdash; rybec   05:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most English-language sources do give his name as “Oleksandr”. Only Google Translate gives it as “Alexander”. “Олександр → Alexander”. http://translate.google.com/#uk/en/Олександр --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to Alex Bakharev, regarding your edit 601611588 : “Falcon” would appear to be a legitimate translation of the term Sokol or Sokola, which could be considered a 'loan word' from Czech. See (as translated by Google) Jarosz: ‘“Right Sector” Requires Dismissal and Arrest Avakov Fighters “Falcon”’, Правий сектор, Mar. 25, 2014, http://pravyysektor.info/news/yarosh-pravyj-sektor-vymahaje-vidstavky-avakova-i-areshtu-bijtsiv-sokola/

Maybe we should write the name out as 'Sokol ("Falcon") special forces'? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The purpose of my edit was to provide a link to some info about this special purpose unit (currently available only in Russian and Ukrainian). Maybe it would inspire somebody to write an article here. I am not sure about the correct name for this article. Sokil (Сокiл) is a Ukrainian and Sokol (Сокол) is a Russian word for Falcon. Usually we do not translate such names. See e.g. Berkut (Ukraine) for the infamous police unit. There is an additional complication: currently Sokil is a disambig with the main usage Sokil Kyiv being a Ukrainian hockey club. Thus the name "Sokil (Ukraine)" would be probably misleading. I just translated the titles of the correspondent Russian and Ukrainian articles, but we do not have to follow them. I personally do not like the titles with both transliteration and translation of a name like "Sokil (Falcon)... or "Berkut (Golden Eagle) ...", but I trust the name selection by native speakers Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC News: Sokol Special Forces

Associated Press: Sokol special forces

Reuters: Sokol special unit

Guardian: Sokol special unit

Ukrainian New Agency: Sokol special police unit

Kyiv Post: Sokil special task force

“Russian Special Forces are Operating in Ukraine” (trans. from Ukrainian to English by @iFirebrand): “According to a source at the Interior Ministry, there is basis to believe that a 40-person Russian Special Forces unit has been operating secretly in Ukraine since January 20. According to Ukrainian internet news site Tsenzor.NET citing UAINFO, the unit’s base is located at 54b Gamarnik street, the resort of ‘Pushcha Voditsya,’ formerly hockey club ‘Sokil’ [‘Сокол’ in original source].” --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Solntsa90: Google returns 46 unique results for ["sasha the white" ukraine], 250 for ["sasha white" ukraine]. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

National flag of Belarus in wrong context
Why does national flag of Belarus is placed on the photo with "Right Sector activists. Euromaidan, Kiev. " disclaimer? It was deleted by 86.57.155.50 on 10:37, 4 March 2014 and returned on 20:56, 4 March 2014‎ by Darouet. http://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB-%D1%87%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8B_%D1%81%D1%86%D1%8F%D0%B3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_symbols_of_Belarus It is a historical flag which is widely used now by democratic activists in Belarus and belarusian diaspora all over the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_C-zmru6Nw http://charter97.org/photos/galleries/2014/gi-3875-18499-big.jpg http://eurobelarus.info/files/Image/20140222_Brukl-Br-Ukr_3198.jpg A lot of them have supported Maidan during protests http://gdb.rferl.org/F4160421-029E-44EF-BA0B-1C1E5F6A41EF_mw1024_n_s.jpg I request deletion of this photo because it discredits national symbols of an another country.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please discuss the requested edit with involved editors first in order to establish a consensus for this alteration. Sam Sailor Sing 19:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not clear why a flag resembling that of Belarus, in an image of Right Sector activists, would require deletion of the image. - Darouet (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not just resembling. It is! "Long live Belarus" written on it. I have posted a lot of sources which describe this flag. In the context of this image it can be easily associated with right wing movement, especially given the fact that it is not well known, right? Mike. 86.57.158.178 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the issue is, it's the Belarusian flag (adopted when Belarus declared independence), used by nationalists and pro-democracy advocates in opposition to the current soviet-era flag.--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unbiased opinion
It looks like this page is of special interest of Putin's (a la Goebbels) propaganda - he hates Right Sector (RS) for its devotion to people of Ukraine and sacrifice RS made. Right Sector did not kill or humiliate anybody, treated with equal respect people of all nationalities and religions. This group protected lives of other people on Maidan who could be hurt by special forces. They were breathing with black smoke from burning tires during weeks destroying their lungs. Everybody could see it live; I was watching this. Now there is a question: should I believe what I saw with my eyes or what some "respected" source wrote? I can bring references from multiple objective sources which confirm my words. Look at the list of people killed on Maidan - they are of multiple nationalities and religions; all supported Right Sector. On the contrary, Putin killed thousands of people and he is looking for blood; he wants conflicts and war. He escalates the conflict which can easily grow to the World War III. It can easily destroy Russia itself; other countries will be encouraged to grab Russian territory, conflicts within Russia may result in new independent states. Putin does not want to see it. He also does not understand that the revolution in Ukraine is not his business. As I said, it looks like Russian KGB is pretty much interested in destroying reputation of Right Sector. However, people of Ukraine unite around Right Sector, respect it and believe it. RS was not compromised, was not corrupted. Members of RS are ready to die for Ukraine; they are very smart and intelligent people who respect human rights. Their primary objective is to built truly democratic, independent from Russia state without corruption. That is why amount of members of RS is growing rapidly; vast majority of people of Ukraine are real supporters of Right Sector. Right Sector is a consolidating power for all Ukrainians. Merci bien — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Jacques (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree to a large extent. If you want to help with the article edit it and provide better sources. Welcome to wikipedia. --Львівське (говорити) 06:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To me these guys (Right Sector) look more like patriots, not like far-right nationalists. Nationalists usually fight for one-nation country. RS has members of different nationalities and respects people of all nations and races. I wondered what they were fighting for. I was finally convinced that RS fights for a prosperous, democratic, and technically advanced state Ukraine. RS is a very young organization which is the result of the self-organization of people on Maidan. All groups on Maidan forgot about their differences and united to protect their country from corrupted regime and preserve democratic institutions. It is an example of a true patriotism, not nationalism. Plus they have wonderful relations with other neighboring countries of Ukraine which are not aggressors. If Russia could communicate normally to other counties instead of moving armies, RS would respond adequately and friendly relations would be established. RS members are in their majority smart people; they would not want to see Russia weak and dying; balance of power is always a good thing to have plus some threats at Far East are getting stronger exponentially. I truly hope RS will have no need to fight against anybody anymore.

Phil Jacques (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It wasn't Putin who put fascist/Nazi symbols on their clothes and flags. It's not Putin who decided the first action of the new government was to oppress minorities. Always beware of those claiming to be unbiased. We all have our biases, and yours is quite evident.

LokiiT (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lokiit, you turning the talk page into a Youtube comments section of nonsense isn't helping. You're now blatantly pushing a Putinist propaganda POV, which most informed persons know has no basis in reality. --Львівське (говорити) 15:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I never heard anything about oppressing minorities in Ukraine. Just the opposite. You do not look quite aware of life in Ukraine and relations between nations over there. Soviet Union was the Empire of Evil, Russia is the Empire of Lie. It is sad, because you Russians are losing last friends you had.
 * LokiiT, I disagree with Львівське on just about everything else, but they're probably right to argue that we shouldn't have that video in the external links section. The video is genuinely fascinating, but it's neither a journalistic production, nor an official Right Sector video. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what video you're talking about. LokiiT (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not sure who put it there. Львівське it wouldn't be a revert, in my view, if you removed it. -Darouet (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed some of the 'unreliable opinions in the media' that editors were understandably worried about. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your improvements to the article. In the long term I'm hoping that the opinions/commentaries of a few scholars might be sought out and added, with attribution. Specifically, the following scholars have all written academic papers on Ukrainian far-right politics, while sometimes disagreeing:
 * Anton Shekhovtsov
 * Per Anders Rudling
 * Taras Kuzio
 * Andreas Umland
 * Cas Mudde
 * Their views are informed by a wider historical and academic perspective and would be helpful. Unfortunately, because Right Sector is a recent phenomenon, their comments so far have been published in lower quality sources. -Darouet (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the comments by Phil Jacques (talk) appear to be supported by, for example, Halya Coynash, “Chief Rabbi and Others Dismiss Putin’s ‘Anti-Semitic Extremist’ Claims,” League of Ukrainian Canadians, March 5, 2014:
 * At a press conference in New York on March 4, reported by the Voice of America Russian Service, the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine, Yaacov Dov Bleich, stated…
 * “We anticipate that the Russians will want to justify their invasion of Ukraine. They 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 and start beating up Jewish people.” …
 * The following from the anonymous report 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.” …
 * The Russian media … have played a major role in spreading certain stereotypes and inaccurate information, most especially about far-right groups and supposedly rampant anti-Semitism. Reports which cannot be easily checked and that claim to be citing a number of unidentifiable “reports” may not be deliberately aimed at misleading the public but they achieve the same effect.…
 * and “Russian Propaganda: 1984 in 2014,” The Economist, March 29, 2014, 52:
 * 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….
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Dervorguilla, the Haaretz report is very specific, and many papers reserve the right to not name their sources, usually to protect them. In this case, Haaretz writes that they have "multiple reliable reports" of Right Sector activists passing out neo-nazi literature, suggesting that they've done their homework, and are confident in their statement. Presenting other, vague sources that talk about Russian disinformation in general isn't a valid reason for removing a specific claim from a reliable source, as you did again here. Think about what the implication would be if we adopted this principle - we can remove any apparently negative information whatsoever, because we all know there's an information war, and so even reliable sources aren't… reliable?
 * As LokiiT pointed out, Russians aren't placing the wolfsangel symbols on the face masks of Right Sector activists. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Major publications
The statement in the lede limits itself to “major publications.”

Agree that Le Monde Diplomatique is an eminent publication, but is it a “major” publication compared with the others listed? Meaning, is it as great in size, extent, or importance?


 * “major,” in Dictionary.com:
 * [1.] Greater in size, extent, or importance. Synonyms: The adjectives capital, chief, major, … apply to a main or leading representative of a kind.… Major may refer to greatness of importance, number, or quantity.

How does Le Diplo compare in size, extent of circulation, and importance (consequence) with BBC News, Agence Press France, Reuters, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Time, and the like? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

“Time’s [total] subscriptions rose … to 3,240,000.” NYTimes, 2013.

“Newspaper Name: Total Average Circulation.” Poynter, 2013.
 * Wall Street Journal: 2,400,000
 * New York Times: 1,900,000
 * USA Today: 1,700,000
 * Los Angeles Times: 700,000

“When print and digital [subscriptions] are combined, the Journal rises to the top … as the country’s most widely circulated daily newspaper, with an overall average circulation of nearly 2.3 million…. Across the pond, digital subscriptions at … Financial Times … outpaced its print circulation … and have now reached 310,000.” World Association of Newspapers & News Publishers, 2012.

“Press Magazine: Dissemination or distribution total.” OJD, 2013.
 * Paris Match: 630,000
 * Le Figaro Magazine: 430,000
 * Le Monde Diplomatique: 140,000
 * Le Monde Diplomatique: 140,000

--Dervorguilla (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Haaretz has a paid circulation of 130,000 in Israel and ~15,000 in the US. Haaretz: Circulation & reputation. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You should look and see what WP:RSN posts say about these papers. In my understanding, the notability or reliability of a paper is not a function of its circulation. -Darouet (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Correct, Darouet. Indeed, common knowledge. Reliability is generally thought to be a function of more than one variable.
 * Circulation is just one of the variables. It's not the sole variable.
 * Reliable sources checklist
 * The publication
 * What's their circulation?
 * Size doesn't prove anything, but it's a data point. The New England Journal of Medicine and the North Carolina Literary Review are both scholarly journals, but they're not equal. Ditto the New York Times and the Easton (Maryland) Gazette. A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater liklihood of employing top-tier people.
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC or add new section?
Should we (1) submit the question about the subject group’s political views to RfC, (2) add a new section (perhaps “Descriptions in the press”), (3) do both, or (4) pass? --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * what is the question suggested for the rfc? i like #2. --Львівське (говорити) 08:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like “Are most major publications now describing the subject group’s views as far-right, ultranationalist, or neofascist?”. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a couple different issues being raised, one concerning the significance of the journals or newspapers describing Right Sector as neo-fascist, and another concerning their appropriate weight. Note that the intro text currently states, "described by some major publications as having (x) views." An RfC would theoretically replicate that same structure. -Darouet (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, everything we know about Right Sector stems from descriptions in newspaper articles, so we shouldn't have a separate section for that, but rather just incorporate material we have available. -Darouet (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page as #1 search result for issue in dispute
The top 3 search results for  "Right Sector" fascistic   at DuckDuckGo

Talk:Right Sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_Sector

Ukraine: Right Sector militias besiege Ukrainian parliament ... kielarowski.net/2014/04/01/ukraine-right-sector-militias-...

EU and Ukrainian regime seek to discipline fascist Right Sector wsws.org/en/articles/2014/04/05/ukra-a05.html

More Links ... --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Try the more usual adjective "fascist" instead: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Right+Sector%22+fascist ... Zezen (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Done, Zezen. Here are the top 3 search results for  "Right Sector" fascist   at DuckDuckGo:

"fascist Right Sector « WORDVIRUS kielarowski.net/tag/fascist-right-sector/ Talk:Right Sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_Sector Right Sector [Fascist leader: Kiev should be ready to ...] democracyweb.com/?p=19191 More Links ..."
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Neo-fascist views and actions removed from the article
Over the last month, citations from important american or world publications describing Right Sector's politics as fascist, or mentioning similar views of notable figures, or describing neo-fascist activities (like distributing fascist literature), have been removed from the lead. In these cases, either no explanation has been given for the removal of content, or content has been removed on the basis of WP:CITEKILL (there are too many references), or unlikely explanations have been given to show how TIME, or Die Welt, or Le Monde Diplomatique, or Haaretz are not reliable or notable sources.

Alternatively, the reporting from these sources has been questioned on the theory that actions attributed to Right Sector are the work of agitators.

These many and various excuses for removing a mainstream and important view, that is highly sourced, from the article are just not plausible. -Darouet (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I still find it a NPOV and WEIGHT issue as a few journalists opinions aren't material for an introduction. I think this stuff should be in the body. Also, Le Monde is a left-wing newspaper so their stance on right-wing matters holds a bit of conflict of interest. --Львівське (говорити) 03:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't about journalists' opinions, it's about news articles that have gone through editorial boards in major papers. You can't claim that reliable sources aren't reliable because they're just publishing the "opinion" of the people who work for them. -Darouet (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they aren't reliable, I said this was an NPOV/WEIGHT issue. You'll do good to notice no editorial opinions exist on any other political party articles introductions. --Львівське (говорити) 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Darouet admits in this 4 April 2014 comment reply that his statement about the supposed TIME edit is contrary to fact. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was incorrect in that admission, however, and realized that the quote had been taken out. I restored it in my edit (you were able to view that yourself). -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Die Welt suggests that Right Sector could be a “fascist group” only in that it quotes a Russian ministry as calling it a “fascist group”. Die Welt itself calls Right Sector an “ultranationalist” group (1 April), a “nationalist” group (25 March), and a “right-wing” group (25 February). It quotes a well-known Ukrainian researcher as calling it a makeshift party from little “right-wing” groups and gangs.
 * “‘Of course we have when we talk about disarmament, the first delivery of weapons to the militias of the Right Sector and other fascist groups in mind…’, the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said….” D.P.A., “Ukraine Have ‘Misunderstood’ Peace Plan”, 18 April 2014.
 * “For fascism- and nationalism-researcher Anton Shekhovtsov, … this … makeshift–from–various–right-wing–little–groups–and–gangs ‘party’ is held together primarily by … ‘romantic militarism’.” Richard Inger, “Jewish Experts Debunk Putin’s Propaganda”, 11 April 2014.
 * “The members of the ultranationalist group Right Sector have vacated their headquarters and handed over their weapons.” Associated Press, “Radicals in Ukraine Handed Over Their Weapons”, 1 April 2014.
 * “An activist of the nationalist group Right Sector … accused the police of having ‘murdered’ Musytschko.” Julia Smirnova, “Police Have Shot Leading Ultra-Nationalist”, 25 March 2014.
 * “The head of the right-wing group Right Sector has an impact on the hard core of the Maidan.” “Dmitri Jarosch”, 25 February 2014.
 * The unsigned material (22 February) cited by Darouet has been removed by the publisher from its searchable database. See Search Results for “"rechte sektor"”. The publisher doesn’t say why the material was removed. Should we keep it in the article? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The material is still available and hasn't been taken down: it can be found here.


 * We should consider removing the long quotes from Tarasenko and maybe even some of the quotes from Yarosh. Self-descriptions by Right Sector or its leaders aren't really helpful as they will be more self-serving than factual, neutral and informative. -Darouet (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Darouet and I appear to agree that the unsigned material is still available on the Web, that it has been removed by the publisher from its searchable database, and that Springer has yet to give its reason for removing it.
 * Happily, we do have many reliable sources that are available on their publishers’ searchable databases. Just not for this particular assertion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how your inability to find something through a search in Die Welt has anything to do with its reliability? Website search functions are notoriously bad, which is why they often use google instead. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Concerning the point about websites′ search functions being notorious for not working correctly. Isn′t this a German website, Darouet? :)


 * I don′t know whether the omission has anything to do with the reliability of the quote. One could argue that it most likely was omitted for cause. The second of the two articles we′re citing does happen to appear in Die Welt′s search results. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the argument for an Anti-Semitist branding
There are many people who trace anti-Jewish sentiments in Right Sector to the WW2 era. I think if Right Sector can be demonstrated to be antisemitic, then RS should be identified as such on Wikipedia. Such an identification should earn RS a listing among fellow antisemitic organizations so that people researching the topic have additional information that honestly informs them. As it has been going, this article on Wikipedia has even made the news as a battleground for political representation and a read of this talk page reveals that it is a sought-after source of public image improvement (by way of obfuscation) for Right Sector supporters. The burden of proof should be on those who claim that RS is antisemitic, of course, but that is -- come to find out -- not at all a problem!

Global Research is a respectable non-profit source of information:
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraines-neo-nazis-stepan-bandera-and-the-legacy-of-world-war-ii/5373773
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-backs-fascist-putsch-supports-neo-nazi-anti-semitic-forces-in-ukraine/5374768

The World Policy Institute is one of the world's leading think tanks. Here they relate beatings against Ukrain Jews and overt anti-semitism of Right Sector party members:
 * http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/03/03/fears-anti-semitism-spread-ukraine

Even often laughable liberal rag-mag The Huffington Post refers to Right Sector's "anti-semitic past":
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-h-foxman/in-ukraine-new-government_b_4875833.html

The Jewish Chronical Online reports that Kiev Jews feel concerned about anti-semitism in the new government but are afraid to speak out because they favor the pro-European takeover and fear raising their voices would be used by Russia to smear the party. This is evidence of course of repression of information.
 * http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/115960/revolution-unleashes-new-fears-kiev
 * Looking for example to some major Israeli news publications shows the anti-Russian slant is so strong that all allegations of anti-semitism are denied outright. This Times of Israel article pretends that any and all concerns about anti-semitism are "blown out of proportion" and cites Jewish sources. Honestly, that's not much different than what many Czech Jews were saying during Hitler's march across europe, and look what happened to their neighbors. http://www.timesofisrael.com/will-ukraines-real-anti-semite-please-stand-up/

The Jewish Journal reports Right Sector Igor Miroshnychenko using an ethnic slur against a Jewish celebrity and seeking political support in contextualizing the slur as widely acceptable among Ukrainians:
 * http://www.jewishjournal.com/jewrnalism/item/a_jew_and_a_zhyd
 * Right Sector Igor Miroshnychenko is [alleged to be] visible in a video on this page taking part in the beating of a newsman in his office: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/03/25/shocking-videos-here-is-ukraine-since-the-nato-coup/

A popular blogger referring to herself as The Mad Jewess gives us many sources by which to associate Right Sector with antisemitism (in the breadth of a demand for the resignation of US Senator McCain):
 * http://themadjewess.com/2014/02/25/the-gop-must-demand-sen-mccain-resign-for-his-affiliation-w-ukraine-neo-nazi-party-leader/

Foreign Policy In Focus is an academic and scholarly think-tank. Here is an article that does not mention Svobodo or Right Sector specifically, but rather discusses the history of Nazi collaboration in the Ukraine and US support of that collaboration
 * http://fpif.org/seven-decades-nazi-collaboration-americas-dirty-little-ukraine-secret/

And this article discusses how the US has been supportive of the political descendents of Nazi collaborators, the Right Sector. Paul Craig Roberts is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy and considered "one of the mose influential people in the world".
 * http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02/17/us-eu-paying-ukrainian-rioters-protesters-paul-craig-roberts/#.UwXKGpdRhLc.twitter

To illustrate just how widespread is the agreement that Svobodo are "new-Nazi" (as others have argued, "neo-Nazi" is a valuable trademark that's too valuable to be bandied about lightly!) here is an article from Caribbean Events: News for the Global Caribbean Community, describing Svobodo as such.
 * http://www.caribbean-events.com/content/ukraines-crisis-driven-ethnic-conflict

If Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation league can be so corrupted by politics as to embrace the Right Sector, we might wonder what they would have felt sitting in at the Nuremberg Trials when Nazis were denying the holocaust and were claiming to have "many Jewish friends". Would they have also embraced the Nazis?

Obviously the Ukraine situation has shown us how much political intrigue can cloud the judgments of otherwise reliable sources of information and guidance. Even if an "official" designator of who is anti-semitic and who is not feels like sitting this one out, I feel that there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the supposition that Right Sector is an anti-semitic organization, and that their recent claims otherwise are nothing more than backpedaling for public relations.

I request that Wikipedia take all of the evidence into consideration and decisively label Right Sector as a group with an anti-semitic history and supportive of anti-semitic members in its leadership and ranks.

-- Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine is an award-winning and influential Jewish issues publication owned by Nextbook, a non-profit patron of Jewish culture. In this article written by three professors of history in subjects relevant to the Ukraine situation, the strong connections between the forces that ousted Yanukovych and the anti-semitism of the OUN are clearly outlined. As we all know, the forces that took over Ukraine parliament and caused civil unrest recently are specifically the members of Right Sector. -- Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/166945/no-time-to-waste-in-ukraine

Global Research is a conspiracy site and not reliable, others you posted are also hardly reliable (blogs and whatnot) --Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To compound, the article by the Jewish Journal is countered by academic papers centered around the 'right' wing politics of Ukraine, and regarding the use of the word 'Zhyd' (Otherwise, Yid/d), which while derogatory to Jewish communities within Russia and outside of Ukraine, does not hold a negative connotation within Ukraine's Jewish, and wider, community. Apologies for a lack of sourcing here, but hopefully Lvivske has access to the papers I'm referring to. 80.47.174.102 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources (presented by Darouet)
Dervorguilla, I've listed these references here so that editors can see them and their text as a body, without your commentary. Please don't edit between them, but continue to discuss them individually below. -Darouet (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A very thoughtful recommendation, Darouet. My own opinion on the issue is that the editors would find it even more helpful to read an annotated compilation. More work for us but less work for them. Why don’t we give it a try. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not helpful because instead of seeing the sources and what they say, all they see is your commentary. You should keep your annotations below. -Darouet (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
The presence of any, or many high-quality sources describing Right Sector as fascist or fascistic has been challenged, and the information removed from the article. The information is here, for now, for anyone who is interested.


 * Terminology note: fascist = fascistic. “‘fascist’, adjective, or ‘fascistic’.” MW3 --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the OED, "fascistic" means "of or pertaining to Fascism or Fascists; having Fascist ideals." -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Correct; “fascistic” and “fascist” are synonyms. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Subject description by number of iterations in the sources selected by Darouet, listed below:
 * 5 far-right (plus 1 in NEWSBLOG ≈ 5 in RS sources)
 * 3 ultranationalist
 * 1 hard-line nationalist
 * 1 nationalist
 * 1 right-wing radical
 * 1 “also been labelled as neofascist” (27 February) -> “a nationalist group” (14 March), same publication
 * 2 neofascist in RSOPINION ≈ 0 in RS sources
 * 1 quasi-fascist in NEWSBLOG ≈ 0 in RS sources
 * (Total of 12 descriptions in RS sources.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Shuster, Simon, "Exclusive: Leader of Far-Right Ukrainian Militant Group Talks Revolution With TIME.", Time (magazine), 4 February 2014.


 * Shuster says “Far-Right Ukrainian Militant Group”
 * – “a coalition of ultra-nationalist groups”,
 * – “the far-right militant group”,
 * – “the coalition of right-wing radicals”, and
 * – “formed by … several … far-right groups”;
 * He doesn’t say “fascist” or “neofascist”. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 22:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote, which you can see above, is in the 2nd sentence of the 8th paragraph. -Darouet (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Shuster: far-right group; ultra-nationalist coalition; “ideology borders on fascism”; most hard-line nationalists; far-right group; right-wing radicals; formed by far-right groups. Group not fascist or neofascist. (And ideology not fascist or neofascist.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes: Shuster is comparing Right Sector's ideology with fascism. You know, a fascist group is also "ultra-nationalist" and "far-right:" these aren't contradictory descriptors. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not saying they are. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ishchenko, Volodymyr, "Ukrainian protesters must make a decisive break with the far right," The Guardian Op-Ed, 7 February 2014.


 * (According to The Guardian: Volodymyr Ishchenko is a sociologist studying social protests in Ukraine. He is the Deputy Director of the Center for Society Research (Kiev), an editor of Commons: Journal for Social Criticism, and a lecturer in the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.)


 * “op–ed … [A] by-lined article[] reflecting [an] individual point[] of view.” MW3.
 * “Statements of opinion. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author’s opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like “(Author) says…”. A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers.” RSOPINION. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Ishckenko is a scholar, whose viewpoint is therefore valuable. -Darouet (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Policy, please. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * McPhedran, Charles, and Luigi Serenelli, "Ukraine protesters unsatisfied with presidential field." USA Today, 27 February 2014,


 * Compare with Olga Rudenko, “In East Ukraine, Fear of Putin, Anger at Kiev,” USA Today, 14 March 2014.
 * McPhedran & Serenelli (27 February): “‘Many people from the Right Sector are ex-police people …,’ said Vladimir Usik…. Right Sector has also been labeled as neo-fascist.” Rudenko (14 March): “They railed against the Right Sector party, a nationalist group….”
 * McPhedran & Seenelli don’t say Right Sector is neofascist. Rudenko says it is nationalist. Same newspaper; Rudenko’s more current. Why not cite the more current source? --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that many high-profile journals, cited here, describe them as fascist. McPhedran and Serenelli note that view in their article by writing, "Right sector has also been labeled as neo-fascist." They don't endorse or dispute the label. Because so many high quality and important references describe Right Sector as fascist, quasi-fascist, or neo-fascist, we should record this notable view in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ?? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Name a reference that describes subject group as “fascist”, please. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Dreyfus, Emmanuel, "Ukraine Beyond Politics,", Le Monde Diplomatique, 2 March 2014.


 * “Statements of opinion… Opinion pieces” aren’t “considered reliable … for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like ‘[Author] says…’.” RSOPINION.
 * Why use statements of opinion published in low-circulation quality newspapers like the Nation rather than statements of fact published in high-circulation quality newspapers like the Wall Street Journal? Doesn’t the lede say “described by some major publications”? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Le Monde Diplomatique is a high-quality and famous publication, analogous to the New York Times Review of Books or Foreign Policy. There is no context in which its publications are not valuable. -Darouet (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Policy, please. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * REDFLAG: “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include …
 * * apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; …
 * * reports of a statement by someone that seems … against an interest they had previously defended.”
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Die Welt, "The radical Ukrainian Group Right Sector",, 22 February 2014.


 * Doesn’t say “neofascist group”. Does say “radical Ukrainian group”. An unsigned background (Hintergrund) compilation, not a signed news article. Tertiary source; why not cite a secondary source instead? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It says it is composed of neofascist splinter groups, and the piece is not just a news report, but an official resource of Die Welt, which is why it's not signed: its produced by the whole newspaper. -Darouet (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No citation for claim that the unsigned item’s produced by the whole newspaper. (It’s datelined Kiev.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The radical Ukrainian group Right Sector…
 * (“die radikale ukrainische Gruppe Rechter Sektor…”). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * “‘News reporting’ … is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.… Analysis … [is] rarely reliable for statements of fact.” NEWSORG. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Luhn, Alec, "As Far-Right Groups Infiltrate Kiev’s Institutions, the Student Movement Pushes Back",, The Nation, 4 March 2014.


 * Luhn says “far-right group”; “ultranationalists + neo-Nazis”; “ultranationalists”; doesn’t say “fascist” or “neofascist”. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hallinan, Conn, "The Dark Side of the Ukraine Revolt,", The Nation blog: Foreign Policy in Focus, 7 March 2014.


 * Says “far-right group” and “quasi-fascist group”. Doesn’t say “fascist” or “neofascist”.
 * “Newspaper and magazine blogs … Use them with caution…. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. ‘Jane Smith wrote…’).” NEWSBLOG. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason I included it is because it's a foreign policy blog for The Nation, which is a well known left paper. -Darouet (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Indeed, the Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the U.S. Does V–NEWSBLOG not apply?
 * 2. The author indicates that the subject group is not fascist.
 * “quasi-. a combining form meaning … ‘having some, but not all of the features of,’ used in the formation of compound words: … quasi-scientific.” Dictionary.com, s.v. “quasi-.”
 * --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Pfeffer, Anshul, "The New Dilemma for Jews in Ukraine,", Haaretz, 25 February 2014.


 * Says “ultranationalist movement”, not “fascist” or “neofascist”. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Emmerson, Michael, "Preparing for a post-Yanukovich Ukraine,", Centre for European Policy Studies, 3 February 2014.


 * (Emmerson is an Associate Senior Research Fellow at Centre for European Policy Studies, with an M.A. from the University of Oxford in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, and Honorary doctorates at Universities of Kent and Keele.)


 * Implies Right Sector isn’t neofascist. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It implies that Right Sector fits in nicely with neofascists, i.e. is a neo-fascist group. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a logical argument. The author is saying that radicalization could deepen both from the neofascist elements and from the Right Sector. Does he appear to be implying that (a) Right Sector is not neofascist or (b) that it is neofascist? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Higgins, Andrew, "Among Ukraine’s Jews, the Bigger Worry Is Putin, Not Pogroms,", The New York Times, 9 April 2014.


 * This was in the NYT today. Like many articles on Ukrainian far-right politics, it argues that fascism isn't a problem in Ukraine not because there are no fascists, but because fascistic groups like Right Sector are so unpopular. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Very helpful article, Darouet.
 * When protests … started …, Rabbi Kaminezki said, … some [Jews] worried about the role played by far-right groups.… But fears of a fascist revival had faded, “as there is a difference between what these people say … and what they do….”
 * Even Right Sector, a coalition of ultranationalist and in some cases neo-Nazi organizations, has made an effort to distance itself from anti-Semitism.…
 * A recent open letter [from] representatives of more than 20 Ukrainian Jewish organizations … said the protest movement … included some unsavory nationalist groups, “but even the most marginal do not show anti-Semitism”….
 * Says far-right, nationalist group. Doesn’t say “neofascist”. Doesn’t say “fascist”. Does indicate not fascist. (There’s a “difference”.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)