Talk:Svoboda (political party)/Archive 2

User:Lvivske Misquoting sources: "Jewish and pro-Soviet groups"?
I recently added a sentence paraphrasing a statement from The Economist. The exact wording of The Economist source was: "In Russian-speaking cities, such as Donetsk or Odessa, Stepan Bandera, the wartime nationalist leader who is Svoboda’s great hero, is widely viewed as a murderous Nazi collaborator." In this earlier version of our Svoboda article my paraphrase went: "According to The Economist, historical figure Stepan Bandera is considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members, but a Nazi collaborator by others."

In this edit, User:Lvivske changed the text to read "The party has also been criticized by Jewish and pro-Soviet groups for their honoring historical figure Stepan Bandera, who is considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members and many Ukrainians, but a Nazi collaborator by others." As you can see, this change is not supported by the text of The Economist. User:Lvivske later added another reference, found here, which has no mention of "Jewish and pro-Soviet groups" with respect to Bandera.

User:Lvivske, please do not alter text to misrepresent sources. This is not the first time you have done this here (e.g. removing sourced information about association with paramilitary groups or removing information about the wolfsangel rune commonly used by neo-nazi groups). -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The two diffs you are using as examples of "altering text to misrepresent sources" are out of context, in bad faith, and in poor taste. The first was proven false after I provided further references to disprove your theory about further association since you were using a dated source; the second, as I explained, appeared on the outset to be WP:OR, so I removed it. Your act here is getting tiring. --Львівське (говорити) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it appears I used the jamestown ref accidentally in place of another already in the article, but literally 2 minutes on google yielded multiple sources on the topic, proving the pro-soviet part. The Jewish groups part is also supported by other refs on the article in that very section.--Львівське (говорити) 21:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You weren't able to verify a quote that I and another editor both provided for you on this talk page, so you reverted to a version you knew wasn't supported by the source you provided? Now, you've added more sources, and again you either haven't read them or are purposefully misquoting them. For instance:
 * You cite this article from The Nation but avoid its statement that Bandera "ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Polish civilians."
 * You cite this article from global research.ca but exclude its description of Bandera as a "Nazi collaborator."
 * You cite this article from The Straits Times which demonstrates that Svoboda and Right Sector Ukranians regard Bandera as a hero, but not "many Ukranians," as you've ambiguously written.
 * You cite an article from the Kyiv Post that's behind a paywall. While I can't access the particular article you're citing, others written by the Kyiv Post this month describe Bandera as a Nazi collaborator.
 * I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to glorify Bandera in the text: for instance, "regarded as a hero… fighting for independence…" while excluding other possible descriptions: "Nazi collaborator… ethnic cleansing…" I didn't glorify or vilify him in the text I added myself, and I can't see how you can justify your choices as neutral. Lastly, I'd appreciate it if you provided text from the Chris Miller piece you cite to justify your sentence, "smear campaign." -Darouet (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you're just trying to bash Bandera. Let me remind you that this is an article about Svoboda; if they support Bandera, state it and explain why they support him, and if there is criticism (in this case, about "anti semitism") qualify who the criticism is coming from. I didn't need to include the Polish snafu (theres a huge article on that already, this opens a can of worms if we get into wartime specifics and intend to keep the narrative neutral - plus, Bandera was in a Nazi concentration camp from 41-44 when the Polish-Ukrainian civil war kicked off in '43), nor did I need to include more 'collaborator' claims since one is enough in that paragraph. We also have to bear in mind that Bandera was posthumously awarded the title Hero of Ukraine by the Yushchenko government; revering him as a war hero is not a Svoboda-centric phenomenon (which I think is an important aspect to include in the article; that this perspective is mainstream in Ukraine for a good chunk of the population, and not some fringe-radical off the rails picture a lot of opponents try to paint).


 * As for Miller, here are the quotes verbatim: "Despite being the target of a heavy smear campaign by Soviet propaganda that portrayed him as an anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator, many Ukrainians deem Bandera a hero of the country’s liberation movement during World War II." and in the opening, "He is considered a hero by many Ukrainians while Soviet propaganda vilified him as a Nazi supporter." --Львівське (говорити) 02:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * your economist link does not work, but the injection of the phrase "murderous nazi collaborator" reeks POV pushing and has been reverted. You changed your own wording from the balanced and neutral paraphrase of "Stepan Bandera is considered a Ukranian hero by Svoboda members, but a Nazi collaborator by others." to "Stepan Bandera, the wartime nationalist leader who is Svoboda’s great hero, is widely viewed as a murderous Nazi collaborator.", rife with sensationalist rhetoric (which, again, your link does not work so I cannot verify what you quoted) --Львівське (говорити) 20:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase is a direct quote from the source you say you can't find, but that is quoted by me above and RJFF below on your behalf. I returned the exact wording of the article because you removed my "balanced and neutral paraphrase" in order to write a bunch of nonsense about "Jews" and "pro-Soviets" that isn't supported anywhere in these references. -Darouet (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This link is working (for me, at least). The original quote is "The biggest immediate problem with the prominent role played by Svoboda, as Andreas Umland, a specialist in Ukrainian history, has argued, is that it alienates southern and eastern Ukrainians. In Russian-speaking cities, such as Donetsk or Odessa, Stepan Bandera, the wartime nationalist leader who is Svoboda’s great hero, is widely viewed as a murderous Nazi collaborator." It refers to this article by Umland in the Kyiv Post ("How spread of Banderite slogans and symbols undermines Ukrainian nation-building"). --RJFF (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you RJ, that link you provided does work. --Львівське (говорити) 22:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, the POV Pushing by Darouet is getting out of hand IMO. Now putting the contentious material into the lead? Saying Social-Nationalism was an intentional reference to Hitler? (absolutely, with no counter debate). Saying that scholars call it neo-nazi while citing a public radio broadcaster? This is just cherry picking sources and being downright disingenuous at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Michael Goldfarb (author and journalist) is a respected journalist whose primary work has been for National Public Radio and the BBC. So, when he's not described as a "Jewish writer" or an "author of Jewish history," he can't be a journalist but rather a "broadcaster?" And what is your contention about Goldfarb and Olzanski's statements: you believe they're incorrect (you haven't even tried to argue that yet), or that you don't want them written in this article? - Darouet (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're deflecting from the main point: you stated that many scholars and academics call them neo-nazi while providing 1 scholar who does NOT call them neo nazi and a single journalist, while ignoring all of the sourcing out there who say they are not neo-nazi, or not anti-semitic, and so on. You also included this incredulous statement with the references to other scholars to say they are far-right, who make zero reference to 'neo-nazism'. This is the definition of cherry picking sources (and misrepresenting them) to push a POV. Goldfarb is a broadcaster and a journalist, and also an author who has written a couple of books. A lot of his material is on Jewish affairs (his site has enough about emancipation and his first link in his bio links to an article he wrote on anti-semitism). --Львівське (говорити) 16:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon fact checking what Darouet added, it seems he knowingly and intentionally inserted false material into the lead to push his POV. In this portion I removed he had Der Speigel news and Olszański cited as "according to many academics and journalists a proponent of racism or anti-semitism in Ukrainian politics" 1 newspaper and 1 academic is not "many academics and journalists", first off. Second, the single academic he cited says this in his article if he bothered to read it: "Svoboda’s policy documents contain no racist elements." (page 4) and the article makes no mention of anti-semitism whatsoever. --Львівське (говорити) 04:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article currently cites many academics and journalists who write on anti-semitism or racism in Svoboda: because I was editing the lead, I only added two sources, one from a prominent academic, and from one of the most important news magazines globally. I've read Olzanski's piece a number of times. You claim I misquote Olzanski, but don't finish the quote you began:
 * "Ethnocentrism is a pivotal element of Svoboda’s program. The nationality of a citizen is to become a public category. An ethnic census is to be implemented in the bodies of executive power, the armed forces, education, science, and even in the economy: their national composition is to strictly correspond to the proportion of Ukrainians and ethnic minorities. Similarly, the share of the Ukrainian language in the media is to be no smaller than the proportion of ethnic Ukrainians in society. The only official language of state structures (including the sphere of education) is to be Ukrainian, and the rights of national minorities are to be restricted to the creation of associations. On the other hand, Svoboda’s policy documents contain no racist elements. Apart from the official program, there is also an unofficial one, not written down in document form, but implicit in statements and actions by members of Svoboda. It is much more radical, and racist. In their outlook upon the nation, the ‘new’ nationalists reject the previous, biologistic concept of a national community (the nation as equivalent to species) and opt for the idea that the nation is an ‘incarnation of the idea of history in the dialectical development of the spirit’. This kind of neo-Romantic approach, consistent with the spirit of postmodernism, makes it practically impossible to hold rational debates with Svoboda’s programme. Other references to Svoboda’s unofficial programme are their large-scale propaganda actions taken on the anniversary of SS Division ‘Galizien’, repeated attempts to interrupt the celebrations in honour of Poles murdered by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in Huta Pieniacka, appeals to Russian residents of Lviv to ‘Ukrainise’ the names of their children, attacks on demonstrations for the legalisation of marijuana, acceptance of controversial statements on the party forum that approve of Hitler’s activities, etc."
 * The document clearly states that Svoboda has an unofficial program that is racist, and in this context my quote, which you removed, accurately described what Olzanski writes and thinks about Svoboda. Your characterization of his writing, which ignores sentences immediately before and after the one you provided above, is obviously incomplete to the point of error. Why didn't you quote the next sentence after the one you provided above? -Darouet (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * His footnote for this is "A song popular among Svoboda activists refers to attempts to restitute the Ukrainian state in the summer of 1941, under the patronage of the Third Reich: ‘Nachtigal and Roland army liberate the Aryan country / Aryan country, Ukraine...’- To say they have an unofficial, ghost program is highly speculative. His sourcing is a song? A deadlink to an article in Pravda? (which I checked archive.org and it does not exist there either) Also, an off the books amount of 'racism' does not equate them to "being a proponent of anti-semitism and racism", that's a far stretch from the source material. --Львівське (говорити) 16:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the footnote. I'm not certain that Olszanski's statement is based entirely on the footnote, given everything else we read about Svoboda, and I'm not about to start trying to pick apart the source and figure out if he might be wrong about Svoboda's racism, or view of the Third Reich. There are plenty of other sources in the article Svoboda that address this, and anti-Semitism as well. -Darouet (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to assess thees three things in isolation: svoboda the party, social-nationalism the ideology (which they obviously are inexplicably tied to), and svoboda in public perception (accusations, 'unofficial programs', things they are associated with or rumored to be associated with, etc.). When 'social nationalism contains racism' turns into 'svoboda the party is a proponent of racism', a disconnect appears in the sourcing and it borders on, or is, original research. That said, social-nationalism itself needs more expansion, and TO does a good job at providing some insight on this.--Львівське (говорити) 20:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with plenty of what you write. I've downloaded a few dozen academic and newspaper articles on the subject of Svoboda's origins and present day politics, and am making notes. Hopefully those articles will help provide material for some of that expansion. -Darouet (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * cool, i look forward to it. BTW I just did a few edits and it ends up that Oleksandr Feldman (who was in the jewish groups section since he owns one) is actually a financial backer of the president and party member, and all of his statements seem to fall into the politically motivated section, so I added some info and moved it over.--Львівське (говорити) 04:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Found another false statement inserted by Darouet, "The Nation has written that Bandera participated in the extermination of Jews during WWII" but the article actually says "Some historians have accused the Ukrainian Insurgent Army of cooperating in the massacres of thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the Nazi occupation" - goes without saying that there is a huge difference between 'Bandera participating in the extermination of Jews' and a group he founded ALLEGEDLY according to some "cooperating" --Львівське (говорити) 05:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the full quote from the article in The Nation: "On New Year’s Day, Svoboda led about 15,000 people in a torchlight march in honor of Stepan Bandera, the controversial leader of the wartime Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which fought the Soviets for an independent Ukrainian state but also ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Polish civilians. (Right Sector also announced its own march that day in honor of Bandera.) Some historians have accused the Ukrainian Insurgent Army of cooperating in the massacres of thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the Nazi occupation, and Tyahnybok even commended the rebels in 2004 for fighting “Russians, Germans, Jewry and other crap.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center put Svoboda at number five on its 2012 list of top anti-semitic slurs, citing Tyahnybok’s “Moscow-Jewish mafia” comment and Miroshnychenko calling Ukrainian-born actress Mila Kunis a “dirty Jewess.”" -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Львівське. The text as written was not supported by the source and was rightfully removed. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Global Research
I removed the one reference to Global Research which said they said Bandera was a collaborator. They don't seem to be an RS so citing them as an authoritative source seems to be giving them too much weight. I saw this on twitter which discredits them as being a bit of a wack-job site, and Rick Rozoff who wrote the article is specifically named in that pic as unreliable; I'm sure we could fact check it but the sentence itself wasn't important enough to do a big expedition over (however his bio on "the 4th media" says hes just a blogger). Owner Michel Chossudovsky does have a wiki and does confirm he is one of "Canada's nuttiest professors"...so...--Львівське (говорити) 17:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine, Львівське. They sometimes publish interesting material and might occasionally be used for editorial commentary, but I agree they're not a reliable source. Just for the record however, it was you, and not me who added them here as a reference. I just included their full quote after they'd been added, because I felt the source's commentary wasn't being properly represented. -Darouet (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah, i realize i added it but since we're being careful with this stuff I didn't want to just blank a sentence and make it look like it was WP:DONTLIKEIT. Also, just in case they come up again.--Львівське (говорити) 06:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted wikitable "Electoral results" (on 8 March 2013‎)
Yerevanci just deleted the wikitable shown below this sentence; probably rightly so because of no references and since Wikipedia is not an almanac; not to let it go to oblivion (it was well crafted) I decided to copy it to this talkpage. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think that it is not as relevant. No other parties have such detail and there is no record of previous results of elections. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

One Race
So I wanted to see if it was true that Svoboda called for "one race" in its platform, so I did some digging and came up with this

In the article now:

What Goldfarb says is this:

So he says the party calls for it, not that it's part of the party's platform. A distinction to be made, I guess. Also, I just want ot note that the "it is rooted in Nazi collaboration" is a highly inflammatory and baseless statement - are Svoboda in favor of Nazi collaboration? Was it founded by collaborators? What is he trying to say? Or is this just some gymnastic leap between "they like the UPA, who some say collaborated" to "anyone who likes the UPA is ideologically rooted in Nazism". I digress.

I found he got all of his info on this (and the Waffen SS stuff) from Per Anders Rudling's The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right link:

So it's more like at a rally, some said it in a mixed crowd of supporters and others, but it's not part of the party platform. According to Rudling, the march was led by, and according to Goldfarb, it was organized by Michalchyshyn of the Autonomous Nationalists.--Львівське (говорити) 05:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The passage from The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right states the the march was "organized by Svoboda and the "autonomous nationalists"" not just the Autonomous Nationalists. I think the Goldfarb citation should be replaced with the Rudling citation and reworded to better reflect the source. That said, I'm not entirely sure it's notable for inclusion in any case. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a march organized by the two, participants chanted it - not a svoboda spokesperson or by someone in an official capacity. For all we know, it was a chant cooked up by the autonomous nationalists in the crowd. --Львівське (говорити) 15:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Removal or rewording makes sense to me. Arguably it isn't notable for the reasons you gave. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, he cites 'Ukrainian history Andriy Kozitsky (андрій козитзки?) as saying " "Ethnically, Ukraine doesn't exist, The western part of the country nestled up against Poland and Hungary is a mix of many groups: Russian, Ukrainians, Armenians." - this is a racist, Ukrainophobic statement and highly inflammatory and makes me really question where Goldfarb is getting his material. To say that the Ukrainian ethnicity doesn't exist, and that it's just a mix of other "true" ethnicities is disgusting. What's more, I can't find any results (zero) on this historian...(also, Armenia is nowhere near ukraine nevermind western ukraine, so this guy is just making things up it seems)--Львівське (говорити) 06:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "a mix of many groups: Russian, Ukrainians, Armenians". He just said that the population of Western Ukraine was ethnically mixed, not that there were no Ukrainians at all. It is a reality that the population of Ukraine has never been 100 % ethnic Ukrainian, but has traditionally been multi-ethnic. "Ethnically, Ukraine doesn't exist" is a provocative statement, but it does not mean that ethnic Ukrainians do not exist, but rather that there is not such a thing as an ethnically pure/homogenous Ukraine. (I totally understand your sensitivity when it comes to these things, because of the Soviet Era claims that Ukraine was only a construct, that Ukrainian is just a dialect of Russian etc. And I am afraid that there are still people making these stupid claims.) --RJFF (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You could say that about any country: that a population or ethnic group is made up of different roots. It's another to say that the Ukrainian ethnicity is not a 'real' ethnicity and just a byproduct of other 'real' ethnicities merging together. You could say then that "ethnically Russia does not exist" because its Rus' people merging with Ukrainians and Finns and Urgic people and other indigenous populations over time. Every single ethnic group in the world can be subdivided into tribal or extraterritorial roots. This is a racial purity argument, not an ethnic group argument, and when we get into which 'race' of people is more pure than others, well, you know where that heads...so I guess the question is, why did Goldfarb bring this up and cite this unknown historian? Is this a shot at discrediting the validity of Ukrainian nationalism? Something else?--Львівське (говорити) 19:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rudling isn't an unknown historian: he's very well published in academic journals and is one of the most knowledgeable academics writing today on the subject of extreme-right politics in Eastern Europe, and in Ukraine. He's also frequently cited by other historians writing on Eastern Europe and on Ukraine. Have you read his work? -Darouet (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Львівське I don't think Rudling has any intention to "discredit the validity of Ukrainian Nationalism…" more likely he's trying to give it some historical context. There are many strains of nationalism and some can embrace multi-ethnic communities, while others reject them. -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Kozitsky here, not Rudling. I cited Rudling in a positive context to fact check Goldfarb's wording. I know who Rudling is ;) --Львівське (говорити) 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Goldfarb is a ghostbuster ;) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Muscovite-Jewish mafia
"Muscovite-Jewish" is translated from "zhido-moskalski" which the article describes as "two highly insulting words to describe Russians and Jews" (accurately reflecting the BBC source) but later in the article under the section "Incidents drawing international attention" it is written, "Both Ukrainian academics and Svoboda argued that in the Ukrainian language the word does not have the anti-semitic connotations that it always does in the Russian language; the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice declared that Miroshnichenko's use of the word was legal because it is an archaic term for Jew, and not necessarily a slur. It seems inconsistent for 'zhid' to "not have anti-semitic connotations", to be "not necessarily a slur" and to be "highly insulting" to describe Jews. At least, it should be noted that the party does not consider 'Zhid' to be insulting, preferring it over the more commonly accepted "yevrey" on linguistic and historical grounds. Regarding "Moskali", the source and text are unclear whether it's referring to ethnic Russians (presumably including Ukrainian nationals) or Russian nationals and further it seems that Moskali or Moscovite can be a "derogatory Ukrainian term for Russian great-power chauvinists who refused to accept Ukraine as a nation. "I think the prudent thing to do would be to not assume to know the intentions of the speaker (even if the BBC does). Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Honestly, a lot of issues occur when meaning is lost in translation. The Jewish part is just that, but some I've spoken to argue that just mentioning the Jewish mafia is in of itself prejudice - however, when I first read the quote the first thing that came to my mind was Semion Mogilevich: Jewish don of the Russia mafia, born in Kiev and based in Moscow - who according to his wiki has ties to Dmytro Firtash and Oleksandr Turchynov. Now, personally, *if* this is what he was referencing, it's about as bad as calling out the Italian mafia and being called anti-Italian. As for the 'Moskal' jab, when I hear that it sounds more like a jab at the Kremlin than Russians as a whole, it's literally just 'Muscovite'. This said, perhaps it's wrong of the wiki to translate Moskalski into Russian but instead should just link to Moscow? It'd be like if someone said 'New Yorker' and we changed it to 'Americans' - or is the equivalent here yankee? --Львівське (говорити) 17:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the two of you would agree that Svoboda is a reliable source concerning which words do, or do not, carry anti-semitic connotations. Can you both imagine a single organization in Ukraine less qualified to provide a commentary on such a subject? I'm sure there are many Svoboda members who are not anti-semitic, but the history of the organization simply cannot leave it a more reliable source on this subject than the BBC, for instance. -Darouet (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, where did he use Svoboda as a source? Nonetheless, it would be good to get the primary source quote, rather than a bad translation. As with the Mila Kunis quote, "zhydivka" turned into "dirty kike jewess" in several news articles that criticized the remarks.--Львівське (говорити) 06:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just realized that I added the sources incorrectly but they should work now. I didn't use Svoboda as a source; I simply suggested that the article should at least note the position of Svoboda on the nature of the word 'zhid' not because Svoboda is an authority on linguistics but because Svoboda is an authority on the beliefs of Svoboda which is relevant to the issue - consider how often politicians respond to these sorts of issues by saying, 'it wasn't my intention to offend' or something like that. It can be deduced that it wasn't Tyahnybok's intention to offend if he doesn't believe 'zhid' is a slur at all. The sources regarding the word 'zhid' and its connotations are taken from the article section "Incidents drawing international attention" and should be included in this section as well for the sake of context. I think both sections should be rewritten to better reflect the contentious status of 'zhid'. As it stands now, the article is inconsistent or at least confusing. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section with a few new sources. Let me know if there's any concern with the changes. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Львівське - you wrote that zhyd is not controversial in western Ukraine but the sources you added to support that don't seem to be working. As this seems to run counter to the preexisting sources I've removed it but I'm not necessarily opposed if you can reinsert them correctly. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * i took it from ukrainian wiki. On page 36 it does provide a translation guide, and it says Zhyd means Jew, whereas Zhydiuha is the pejorative (ugly, dirty Jew). Zhyd translates directly to Jew in English, and is the root of all words related to Jews; ie, Zhydivsky is Jewish and Judophobe is Zhydofob. Can you translate the rest of the page to confirm it's regional? At the very least this guide confirms it's normal Ukrainian parlance / language and not merely an archaism. The title of the book is "Yevreyi or Zhydy" so it seems to be a guide on the proper word to use. --Львівське (говорити) 22:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article is the place to get into a drawn out exploration of Ukrainian parlance. Perhaps these sources can be added to the Zhydovka article but I think it's enough here to say that the term is controversial in Ukrainian. I mean, to say the word is controversial is not to say that it isn't proper or even common - just that at least a significant (or vocal) minority of Ukrainians consider the term derogatory or insulting and given the local reaction, as noted in the "incidents drawing international attention, and the numerous sources provided, I think it's fair to say there is a controversy. The Ukrainian justice ministry considers it archaic but if there are more authoritative sources from the Ukrainian wiki that assert it is common then I'd support the removal of the descriptor archaic. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * do we have a source that it is controversial IN UKRAINIAN or in Ukraine? It seems everything just says it's a slur in Russian which makes it controversial in English. AFAIK he got in trouble for the context, not fur the use of the term. As with the guy talking about Mila Kunis, the furor came out from the western and israeli press, not Ukraine, right? That the government would agree it's not controversial in Ukraine says enough about its regionality. --Львівське (говорити) 00:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I also expect the furor over the use of zhid is mostly a foreign creation but we can't dismiss otherwise reliable sources unless we have something better. The government ruled that it wasn't necessarily a slur (as paraphrased by the Times of Israel) which is not the same as saying it isn't controversial. Further, the ruling was a response to a petition by Ukrainian Jews requesting the banning of the word in the public sphere so there is at least some domestic concern. If there are good sources that explicitly state that there is no controversy in region X then I'd support your previous edit. How about we add a footnote with a short bit explaining the issue? We could also use this footnote in the Mila Kunis part. That way, the article doesn't get bloated and avoids repeating itself. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * my current edit reflects now that is is controversial in ukraine (no argument there, since as you said it was petitioned by ukrainian jews) but i qualified this controversy due to its use in the russian language. this sound right? --Львівське (говорити) 02:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Very POV Content
Greetings to all people of good will!

I've noticed this warning The neutrality of this article is disputed. at the top of this article.

Tried to make the content more encyclopaiedic by a) removing suggested content understanding (Allegations) and b) removing references providing not facts, rather opinions (Tadeusz A. Olszański, as the matter of fact, just one).

Facing reverts, disqualifications, and accusations. I have only pure academic view of the nature of this party. I'd like to get support in moving the article content in that direction.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * removing content like Olszanski, who is a scholar, is not helpful. It is not "just an opinion", it's expert analysis. On the other hand, taking allegations from political groups and framing them as "proof" is disingenuous editing and POV pushing.--Львівське (говорити) 01:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How can you provide a "pure academic view" without citing the studies of academics who have published about this field. Olszanski's seems to be one of the most in-depth studies about Svoboda's history and ideology by a political scientist currently available. --RJFF (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I second this question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Olshanski is not a scientist, he is a propagandist 'in-depth'. Please, differ these two notions.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Libeling a scholar as an "in-depth propagandist" will not get you far.--Львівське (говорити) 17:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Neonazis and fascists
thats their ideology, i dont get why its not included there in the ideology category. The article tries to portray them as some kind of conservatives which is wrong.--Delighty85 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * according to you, not reality. --Львівське (говорити) 00:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delighty85 this is a longstanding issue. If you have access to neutral, reliable sources stating that Svoboda is fascistic you can post them here, and they could be incorporated. Random posts on the talk page though won't change anything. -Darouet (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

IP injecting hyperbole
in these edits, the IP user is changing the entire lead to call them far-right populist (no source calls them this), ultra nationalist (hyperbole), and an extremist group (again, no sources). I think we all here in our discussions and work on the article have a pretty stable intro that presents a neutral POV concerning the opinions of academia; using op-ed smear pieces to inject the ultra-Xtreme talk undoes what we've done. As is injecting non-scholarly sources like news articles in sentences that cite scholars: this is misrepresenting the sources. I'm posting this here to get discussion going if its necessary. The general prosecutor of Ukraine is in Svoboda, and the party is now in official ruling coalition - presending them as a fringe extremist group is bad faith for the year 2014, as is it contradictory. I should also note it's hard to be populist and extreme, they cancel each other out. --Львівське (говорити) 00:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Львівське you know I disagree with you about their politics: there are academic sources that call them far-right and maybe even fascistic. But I haven't brought them here yet and I agree that no additions should be made without sources. -Darouet (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * as it stands, we have several academic sources describing them as far-right and the lede as well as the infobox reflects that. I think we have two sources that say they are "right wing populist" but in this case the user changed it to "far-right wing populist", which isn't even a thing. Anyway I've made my case. I think he should discuss it here if he wants to change things. You, me, and others have argued about this wording for a while now and it's been stable for months, let's hold that consensus. --Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

the edit war is continuing. Because it's an IP I'm being bolder than usual, especially since he's not using the talk page and ignoring calls to use it. I did get this note on my talk page: "you brag that you are part of the Ukrainian political movement. Furthermore, on your profile, you have a link banner to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which was a neo-nationalist guerilla warfare extremist group that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Poles, Jews and other minorities taking advantage of the German occupation during WW2. You are not and cannot be possibly objective. STOP EDITING UKRAINIAN POLITICAL articles." Just seems inflammatory so excuse me if I skirt normal conduct (that say, an engaged registered user would use whereby we discuss things and find consensus). --Львівське (говорити) 22:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The user Lvivske and other ukrainian political activists should be black-listed globally or at least suspended for a defined time period from editing wikipedia as they obviously are partisan and continue to promote their ideology through our encyclopedia platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.25.212.194 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. IP user edit warring and accusing bad faith "promoting ideology". I think this talk page has had its arguments but it's made for a better, agreeable article over the years. Actions from those like the above only sets things back. --Львівське (говорити) 00:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Львівське should be banned from editing politcal articles on Wikipedia -- judging from her/his activity is interested in the dissemination of specific party ideology instead of encyclopedic knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.224.152 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Center-right
Moscow Times calls them center-right, which is now being reverted/removed to keep the article at 'far-right'. The Moscow Times is a reliable source, and the attribution in the article simply stated they were "described as center-right" - which they were - so I have no clue why a reliable source is being removed. I'd understand if I used it in the first line of the intro and absolutely stated they were a center-right party, but this wasn't the case.--Львівське (говорити) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Scholarly sources provided clearly take precedence over a single (!) mention as center-right in a newspaper article. The majority view clearly is that it is a hard-right party, possibly far-right. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The scholarly sources which said far-right were not touched.--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now a St Petersburg Times article,, that's 2 newspapers --Львівське (говорити) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, exactly, both being written by the same author - Oleg Sukhov . Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * nonetheless, you still havent explained why you removed the reliable source which was properly attributed. Saying it's fringe is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Львівське (говорити) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a silly Wikipedia for Dummies tour earlier and the section on NPOV described what you're doing. It asked what NPOV means, with one of the "wrong" choices being that Wikipedia should represent what everyone says. No, it should reflect a consensus of what secondary sources say without reflecting our opinion. In other words, one person saying something doesn't get the same weight as the five who say something else. You can't cherry pick the guy you agree with when very reliable sources use language like ultra-nationalist. Sai Weng (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand it may be undue weight. That said, *personally* I don't think they are centre-right, but I do think they range in their policy from centre-right to far-right, more-so the former in recent years. Also, they are in a parliamentary coalition with the 2 major centre-right parties at the moment, take that for what it's worth.--Львівське (говорити) 16:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what we *personally* think. "Far-right" is supported by academic studies by political scientists who have specialised on Eastern European politics and/or nationalist parties and movements. They are published in academic journals and publishing houses for specialist literature. "Centre-right" is only supported by a cherry-picked, random online news article. It is not acceptable that you deny the validity of these high-quality sources, without presenting sources of the same quality level that would support your assertions. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. --RJFF (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The assertion that I "cherry picked" something is assuming bad faith, and is way out of line. Also, where did I ever deny the validity of any sources? All I've ever argued for is proper context (side note: even the Hezbollah article doesn't inject superlatives like 'radical' and 'ultra' and 'far-anything', even though I'm sure you could find millions). Further, I realize personal opinions don't matter, but this being my field of expertise, while I don't have a PhD on the subject, was just me simply expressing an opinion and injecting some reason. --Львівське (говорити) 15:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case you should try and get your expertise published in a peer-reviewed journal or by a reputable publisher (like your colleagues Shekhovtsov, Kuzio, Rudling, Bojcun did) so that we can cite it. If you are a political scientist, it surprises me even more that you cite a random article like that "Moscow Times" piece and refuse to accept that in the academic community, Svoboda is predominantly seen as a far-right party, and a radical nationalist one to distinguish it from other Ukrainian nationalist parties that are considered more moderate. I do not agree that "radical nationalist" and "far-right" are superlatives or subjective labels. They are simply descriptors for Svoboda's policies. Do you seriously dispute that Svoboda's nationalism is more radical than the one of Batkivshchyna or "Our Ukraine"? When Svoboda will further moderate its line in the future, authors will probably revise their categorization. But for now, you have not presented any academic literature that would verify Svoboda having left their far-right position. As a political scientist and expert in this field, I would expect that you have an overview about the relevant literature and where to find citable titles. --RJFF (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I like how you're being dismissive of the Moscow Times, which clearly falls under reliable sources. I also like how you're continuing to push this notion that I'm refusing to 'accept' something here, is it your POV I'm refusing to 'accept'? The thing is, they aren't a Jobbik or a National Front (UK), and aren't firing on all 'far right' cylinders all the time. How is their 'nationalism' more 'radical' than that of the other opposition parties? Is there a quantitative radicalness scale I can look up? If you want to compare them on a Ukrainian political scale, then UDAR is centre-right, and Svoboda would just be standard entrenched right-wing, and then UNA-UNSO would be far-right / extreme / radical right. They do fall into the far-right, absolutely, and have some pretty crazy members that stand out like a sore thumb. But not always. They're about as far right as Republicans, realistically, and even though some might call the Tea Party faction a bunch of names to describe their behavior, they don't represent the part on the whole; and I think that's the case I've made for Svoboda: a few far-left members or few policies doesn't accurately describe the party and its policy on the whole. PS: I have provided sources that show they are not always seen as far of right by academics. --Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oleh Kotsyuba of the journal Krytyka (NYT contributor, so that's something) had this to say "Right-wing, semi-radical political parties, such as Svoboda, joined in the protests, focusing on exclusively Ukrainian ethnic linguistic identity." - see, I'm not totally out to lunch here --Львівське (говорити) 16:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where to include this yet but it's a good, interesting quote by Bernard-Henri Lévy: "The emergence of new leaders who have diluted the extreme right’s monopoly on radicalism has marginalized Svoboda" --Львівське (говорити) 17:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Львівське - I think we really need to present Svoboda's extreme-right politics in total honesty here, and I don't think the article does that sufficiently yet. Another part of the story, however, is the party's transition towards the mainstream (however complete or incomplete that transition might be). We don't really have that either. So I'd encourage you to use that source if you can find a place in its history, probably here: Svoboda_(political_party). -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe, I'm not sure, I mean it's a very good source and political mind discussing it so a flag went off in my head that "this could be valuable", but I did post it here because I was unsure what it adds. In the quote, is he talking about Right Sector and other groups diluting them, or within Svoboda? I would agree that in the last few months and the emergence os the "true far right", Svoboda looks mild in comparison (if only in presentation). Right Sector working with the SNA (Patriot) essentially picks up where the SNP left off. --Львівське (говорити) 18:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove reference to US Republican Party
Source 17 is the World Affairs Journal, which asserts, "First, most Ukrainians certainly didn’t vote for Svoboda because they read its program. If they had, they would have noticed that Svoboda’s socioeconomic vision of Ukraine resembles that of the Republican Party ..." This silly statement in an ideologically driven official organ of a peace organization is hardly worthy of the basis of a wiki article assertion,that this party's neo-fascist third way economics - as spelled out later in the article- resembles the American GOP. 7o62x39 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 7o62x39 2/23/14
 * so essentially, you don't like it. This is from Alexander J. Motyl, a political expert. To call him not a reliable source in assessing policy, you need to back it up. To call it an "ideologically driven official organ of a peace organization" makes me question where you're at.--Львівське (говорити) 04:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not want to query Motyl's expertise. But this comparison is very surprising and seems rather implausible to me. Two threads above, Svoboda's economic programme is described as "explicitly statist", pro nationalisation of land, taxes and health care. This is contrary to the "socioeconomic vision" that is typically associated with the US Republicans, being pro-market, privatisation, tax cuts and against public health care. The comparison with the US Republicans is therefore confusing and not helpful to readers. The article should describe Svoboda's ideology and programme in concrete terms rather than draw lame comparisons with parties in other countries (the US having a completely different political landscape and different current issues than Ukraine). --RJFF (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. I thought it was helpful since it was a straightforward, north american comparison that readers could identify with, but if you say it's not true based on other sources we have, perhaps we could have a better summary of their policies? Currently everything is either a list or a 'controversy' section which isn't helpful in explaining their actual politics.--Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, the piece is not an article published in the World Affairs Journal, but a post in Motyl's blog, which is hosted by the World Affairs Journal's website. While Motyl of course is a reputable expert, blogs are usually not considered strong, reliable sources (WP:SPS). The article is not peer-reviewed or anything, it solely reflects Motyl's personal opinion. --RJFF (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alexander J. Motyl may be reputable for other matters, but one can be serious scholar and have partisan stake somewhere. I guess it's the case here. The comparison with the Republican Party is outright wrong. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think comparing them to the Republicans displays bias or partisanship, it can either be a good thing or bad thing. If you're a democrat it's a bad thing, if you're european then maybe it's good because it's legitimate. I don't think the comparison hurts or helps - but if its wrong then it should go. --Львівське (говорити) 17:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Far-right
There is a number of high-quality reliable sources, written by independent scholars, which classify Svoboda as a far-right party. There is consensus among political scientists who publish on Svoboda to consider it far-right. How can you claim that this were the POV of Svoboda's political opponents only? Independent scholars from different countries are by no means Svoboda's political opponents. --RJFF (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While they definitely were far-right at one point, this isn't necessarily the case today. What sources describe them as, is ultimately, a subjective descriptor. Sources describe them as both right-wing and far-right, they also describe them in a number of other terms that don't necessarily belong in the lede sentence. 'Right-wing' should be sufficient enough, and the 'far-right' label should be present in proper context - as the party itself does not self-identify as being at an extreme point of the political spectrum, nor is it unanimous. Furthermore, from what I've seen from other top articles on political parties, their position in the political spectrum is hardly ever placed in the first sentence, if at all.--Львівське (говорити) 05:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All reliable, scholarly sources I found classify Svoboda as far-right. Maybe my research was not thorough enough. You are invited to do your own research and present sources of the same quality level that dispute the placement of Svoboda on the far right. But as long as the sources that are currently cited in the article stand undisputed, it is unacceptable to remove the far-right tag and replace it by mere 'right-wing'. The sources are (as far as I know) all by reputable political scientists, published in expert journals or academic presses and they are all very current (late 2010, 2011 or 2012), so you can neither claim that they were subjective or out-of-date. --RJFF (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They are also described as "fascist", "neo-fascist", and having rhetoric that "borders on fascist". If you feel that "far-right" should be deleted and replaced by "fascist" or "neo-fascist" that would be OK.  Other words that describe them are "anti-semitic" and "homophobic".--Toddy1 (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't a fascist or neo-fascist party, though. Putting that in the lede sentence would be a blatant POV violation. --Львівське (говорити) 18:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All this nonsense about them not being Fascists is part of a public relations push by the party. New York Times, Ukraine’s Ultranationalists Show Surprising Strength at Polls by David M. Herszenhorn, 8 November 2012.
 * Neo-fascist Bloomberg, Don’t Isolate Ukraine, and Watch Those Neo-Fascists, by Tim Judah 30 October 2012
 * Neo-Nazi Israelnationalnews.com, Clinton Indirectly Legitimizing Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Party?, 6 November 2012
 * "Neo-fascist" "tradition of West Ukrainian Nazi collaborators", ocnus.net, Fatherland and Freedom, 2 November 2012.
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please, those second two sources are incredibly biased. Any author who dives head first into the whole "UPA were nazi collaborators" has an uneducated angle to push. The Bloomberg link is an op-ed piece (I'm assuming by a Jew?) and doesn't qualify as a RS. The Israelnational link is sensationalist schlock. You're missing hte point though: just because some journalist describes them as "far right" (or other nonsense descriptions) doesn't mean it belongs in the first sentence of the lede. I'm sure there are enough articles about far-right or religious right elements in the Republican party, but the wiki article doesn't start off "The GOP is a radical religious right party in the USA", that'd be ridiculous. --Львівське (говорити) 19:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

RJFF: why are you continually changing the edits that say they are described as far-right to just say outright that they are outright 'far right'? Keep it neutral. Notice how neither the National Front or BNP articles mention far-right, or outright political alignment as a fact anywhere in their leads? Spectrum position is very subjective, don't treat it as fact when it's just opinion.--Львівське (говорити) 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to go out on a limb here based on google results, but [svoboda "right wing" -radical -far] yields 1.6 million results, whereas [svoboda + "far right"] yeilds only 230 thousands. Svoboda is by a wide margin spoken of as simply right wing without the radical far right diatribe being mentioned. A 10:1 ratio also exists when searching books. --Львівське (говорити) 18:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not surprising - some people have Svoboda as their family name. They show up quite a bit in Google searches.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would someone who's name is Svoboda also match for "right wing"?--Львівське (говорити) 19:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this problem a number of times when I searched on the word together with adjectives. It makes it difficult to do these counts.  I do not know what proportion of results are due to these false positives.  It seems to vary a lot - probably because of Google's cookies.  This of course means that one search can have a high proportion of true results and another have a lower proportion.  Also with Google searches you have to go to the page of last results - if you do this suddenly the number drops by a huge amount.  Here are some examples of false positive - the first two have "right wing" the third has "fascist".
 * Jaroslav Svoboda
 * Cyril Svoboda
 * Terese Svoboda
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, damn hockey players.--Львівське (говорити) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disputed sentence in lede
Right now the sentence being revv'd is "It is positioned on the right of the Ukrainian political spectrum, and has often been noted for its alignment with the far-right". Please explain what is wrong with this? IMO this is as neutral as it gets, whereas stating they are flat-out "a far right group" is a matter of opinion stated as fact. I think that stating they are on the right of the political spectrum, and then saying that it's backed up that they lean towards the far-right, should be something that is entirely agreeable here.--Львівське (говорити) 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The cited sources don't say "It is positioned on the right of the Ukrainian political spectrum, and has often been noted for its alignment with the far-right", but "It is a far-right party". Your formulation is WP:Weasely and not supported by WP:Reliable sources. --RJFF (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My position is neutral, as those sources subjectively describe it as far-right. Since political alignment isn't an exact science, it is nothing more than personal opinion of those sources to the best of their understanding. Personally, I see how they are far right from a western point of view, but in Ukrainian politics they aren't far right - that's for Patriot Ukraine & UNA-UNSO. Also, stating they are on the right is the most neutral and universally accepted way of putting it, because 'far right' is still on the right half of things.--Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now, it's about as neutral as it gets. They are on the right, and referred to as far-right by some academics and media sources. Other sources just refer to them as 'right', so to pick one as an absolute would indicate a non neutral way of looking at things. Also, why are you accusing me of COI here? That's like saying a Yankees fan can't work on Yankees articles, or half of Americans can't work on articles relating to the Democrats or Republicans. It's a silly assertion.--Львівське (говорити) 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the response I got from asking on the MOS:"If there is a reliable, and ideally unbiased, source that defines the party as far right, then you should be able to include this descriptor in the lead, as long as it is clear that it is the source's description of the party, not Wikipedia's." As it stands, the article combines some neutral with some biased sources to come to a conclusion, and fails to make clear that it is the source's description.--Львівське (говорити) 07:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Round 3
Not trying to change the current wording or anything, but just thought I'd point out that with the rise of Right Sector and other extremist groups, it seems that the general opinion is that Svoboda is on the moderate right wing now, while these groups represent the actual far right in Ukraine's political spectrum. Now, that's not to say that Svoboda isn't 'far right' in the context of European or western politics, but just within Ukraine itself, it's seeming the evidence over the last year and the wording used in media and interviews is that they are just nationalist and right-wing. Just food for thought, I haven't started aggressively collecting sources yet to back this up (though some in the article already speak of this moderate shift and split with the extremist groups) --Львівське (говорити) 22:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Globe: "Pravy Sektor, an umbrella group of fascist, nationalist, football-hooligan and right-wing extremist gangs – some with neo-Nazi histories – which is generally considered to the right of Svoboda"
 * "supporters of the more mainstream right-wing Ukrainian-nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party"

For what it's worth, the US State Department does not consider Svoboda to be far-right. here: " Far-right wing ultranationalist groups [...] are not represented in the Rada." --Львівське (говорити) 01:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I read a piece today, I think by Shekhovtsov, in which he argues that Svoboda's popularity has actually decreased on the far-right, superseded by other groups (like Right Sector). -Darouet (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it was his blog actually, but since he's a respected scholar on the far right in Ukraine, I'm sure we could cite it, noting that it's his particular view. It'd help readers who are interested. -Darouet (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wolfsangl thumbnail
I tried to clean it up but was reverted. I originally had an issue with the use by neo-nazi orgs line because I found it to be WP:OR but it is how the source describes it. Thing is, to me it's like having, say, "This is the state seal of the United States, eagles were also used by the Roman Empire and Nazi Germany" - while factually accurate, it implies the logo in the picture was directly used because of the latter use association. The source only says the logo was chosen because of the "I N" letter use, the rest is IMO trivia. (side note: I've spoken to a Patriot member to find out more about it, and he argued left and right there were no Nazi implications and that it was "I-N" as well as an 'ancient slavic symbol', where he then proceeded to email me pics of Ukrainian family coat of arms with the symbol in it to further his argument, take this for what it is) As it stands a whole host of reasons could have contributed to picking the symbol, maybe the founder was a total dick and just wanted to be controversial, maybe they wanted to appeal to neo-Nazis to recruit them as street muscle...we simply don't know.

Anyways

I absolutely think the content is appropriate within context, in the body of the article. I re-inserted it in the part where it says Tyahnybok changed the logo to moderate the image. Saying the logo is associated with neo-Nazi groups help the reader understand why they had to change the logo in the first place. In this context it's entirely appropriate.

My main issue, more than anything, is that it's far too much info to cram into a thumbnail description. It shows up as like 1-2 words per line and is hard to read. It's just aesthetically too much info shoehorned into a thumbnail.--Львівське (говорити) 03:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't find the thumbnail hard to read at all. Also your comparison between the US seal, eagles, and the Nazis is inappropriate: multiple academic or reliable sources, and some leaders of Svoboda itself, describe the Social National Party of Ukraine as intentionally drawing upon the historical legacy of the OUN, including it's fascist legacy. The wolfsangel symbol isn't an accident: it's intentional. If you want to focus on how different Svoboda is now, try to find sources that describe how much it's really changed, if you're able. -Darouet (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's incredibly hard to read and this comes into WP:WEIGHT as well. Also, you can't say they drew on the OUN and "its fascist legacy" and now WP:OR connect that to the Wolfsangl symbol, which has nothing to do with the OUN whatsoever and you know that. Saying they chose the Wolfsangl because it was fascist and the "OUN was fascist" is WP:SYN connect the dots, and wrong.--Львівське (говорити) 05:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * per WP:PIC " If additional alt text is added, it should be a succinct description that complies with the content policies" - not "going off on a tangent". Per WP:ALT "Alternative text should be short, such as "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush". If it needs to be longer, the important details should appear in the first few words, allowing the user of a screen reader to skip forward once the key points are understood. Very long descriptions can be left for the body of the article" and here's a screenshot of how junky it looks --Львівське (говорити) 05:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You know, the fact that Svoboda used the Wolfsangel symbol is really important to people, which is why sources write about it. -Darouet (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And still uses it actually, if images from Svoboda protests mean anything. -Darouet (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why I underlined to emphasize that this is important and should be in the article, I'm only talking about the bloat on the thumbnail description. Description's aren't a place to do a comprehensive history, just state "this was their symbol (year-year)"--Львівське (говорити) 15:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, an image of the symbol is really important because it is visually striking and its similarity with other fascistic symbols can be observed. Correspondingly, noting that in the text below, like the sources that describe the issue, is appropriate and helpful to readers. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said remove the image...*shrug*...--Львівське (говорити) 16:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Darouet. It seems that this whole time Lvivske is trying to spin-doctor the wikipedia article about Svoboda to make it a more mainstream right-wing party. He states that the whole world knows that Svoboda is a fascist party but intentionally deletes text and photos which makes would make this knowledge clear publicly.

Shame on you Lvivske. Unless you're an NSA operative pretending to be Ukrainian, you will be banned soon from editing futher articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.224.152 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't insult people or accuse them of being operatives. If you have content to contribute, that is what is most useful: provide references, text, links. Arguing or insulting people won't help anything. -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've returned the information, since it's highly readable, more than appropriate considering WP:CAPTION, and is necessary to let readers know what they're looking at. -Darouet (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's readable. But like this, the caption is nearly as long as the thumbnail picture itself. You can expect users to read the article and not only look at the pictures and captions. Wikipedia is not a picture-book. Unnecessary to repeat content that is already in the main text. The caption should only say what the picture shows, it does not need to include contentual explanations. That is what the main text is for. --RJFF (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, citing WP:CAPTION, it is much more relevant for Svoboda/SNPU's use of the symbol to say that it shows the letters I+N standing for Idea Natsii than to refer to other groups using a similar symbol (per WP:Caption criterion #3 "establishes the picture's relevance to the article" - the caption should explain what the symbol means to this organisation, not what it means to other organisations). The reference to neo-Nazi organizations using a similar symbol is not necessary for understanding why this picture is placed there. This is what the guideline WP:CAPTION says which you have cited. --RJFF (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary but certainly not distracting and is also helpful because it explains what the symbol is, why Svoboda chose it (according to academic sources), and draws readers into the article.
 * Sources that describe Svoboda's use of the Wolfsangel note that SNPU leaders maintain that the I+N meaning is distinct from other possible meanings, without being particularly credulous of the claim. I think that our treatment should resemble theirs: state what the symbol ordinarily means, and note that SNPU leaders talk about I+N. To be frank, I think it'd be awesome to add a (very) short sentence below the caption as it now stands, recapitulating this: "Svoboda leaders state the symbol represents I+N: 'idea of the nation.' " -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the caption again would be longer than the picture itself. --RJFF (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. I don't understand what your objection is… you keep writing that an explanation of the Wolfsangel in the caption is "not necessary." Many things aren't "necessary" but are still "good," "better" or "helpful." Maybe Wikipedia isn't necessary, but we all do this because we're trying to help people learn. The point of pictures is to draw people into an article and help give context. The context of the Wolfsangel is important and not understood unless explained to someone who hasn't read about it. -Darouet (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think RJFF explained it to you well enough, what don't you understand at this point? --Львівське (говорити) 20:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Many details here
I'm too busy IRL to work on this article, but here is a good source:. It discusses in detail Svoboda's links to various nasty far-right and neo-Naazi parties but confirms that Svoboda itself "could not be considered a neo-Nazi party." I hope editors will use this source in a neutral way (i.e., not just cherry-pick the Nazi links). Faustian (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * An interesting article, thanks. Shekhovstov - who is no fan of Svoboda - has a less critical attitude than Cas Mudde or Per Anders Rudling. One of Shekhovstov's points, and he's written this repeatedly, is that Ukrainians are actually far less sympathetic to fascistic or neo-Nazi politics than people in many other Eastern European countries. He's argued the point very convincingly. Anyway here's another thing he says about Svoboda, below the portion you quoted:
 * -Darouet (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Territorial claims against Poland.
As far as I understand the leading party members advocate also annexing Przemysl and other territories of Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, MyMoloboaccount. You appear to have been around on Wikipedia long enough to know that, 'As far as I understand...' would require qualification via WP:V and WP:RS. Could you bring something other than 'forum' gossip to the table, please? (In case you've forgotten, there's an explicit reminder at the top of every article talk page as to usage of a talk page) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, MyMoloboaccount, maybe you both can do some research to see if Svoboda leaders maintain territorial claims against other countries. I haven't investigated and honestly don't know the answer. What have you both read about it? -Darouet (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)