Talk:Svoboda (political party)/Archive 3

Deletion of fascistic or anti-semitic views from lead
Depending on the contex, either Lvivske or random IPs have been removing abundantly sourced descriptions of Svoboda's politics - including fascistic or anti-semitic politics - from the lead. The explanation is typically something like "reverting vandalism," and has nothing to to with vandalism, or scholarly, or journalistic depictions of Svoboda. Here are a list of immediate references, though far more can be found for anyone who has the fortitude to read about a party that founded a Josef Goebbels Research Institute.


 * Likhachev, Viacheslav, "Right-Wing Extremism on the Rise in Ukraine," Russian Politics and Law, September-October 2013. "In their propaganda, SNPU ideologues were more open, describing the confrontation with “Muscovite influence” as racial. SNPU publications proudly called the Ukrainian nation the “root of the white race.” Ukraine was viewed as an “outpost of European civilization” and Russia as an “Asiatic horde.” Ukraine—according to Andrii Parubii, one of the SNPU leaders (who later joined Our Ukraine)—must “confront the aggressiveness of the pernicious ideas of the Asiatic world, today embodied in Russia.” Alongside Russophobia, SNPU ideologues preached (and still preach) anti-Westernism: from their point of view, “internationalist Marxism and cosmopolitan liberalism are in fact two sides of the same coin.” I would add that all the ideological constructs formulated in SNPU publi- cations in the 1990s still characterize Svoboda’s current ideology. Although the party toned down its official rhetoric in the 2000s, it takes pride in the continuity of its history and the unchanging nature of its ideology."


 * Shekhovtsov, Anton, "Right Wing Populism in Europe," Routledge (2013), chapter 17: From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda. "The Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA), KUN and Svoboda are also Russophobic and antisemitic. Moreover, 'white racism’ is overtly or covertly inherent in the doctrines of the UNA, Svoboda and All-Ukrainian Party'New Force' (Nova Syla), and most evidently manifests itself through the parties’ anti-immigrant positions."


 * Rudling, Per Anders. “The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right: The Case of VO Svoboda.” In "Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text,” Eds. Ruth Wodak and John E. Richardson. Routledge, New York, 2013. "“Like those of many other far-right movements, Svoboda’s official policy documents are relatively cautious and differ from its daily activities and internal jargon, which are much more radical and racist. Svoboda subscribes to the OUN tradition of national segregation and demands the re-introduction of the Soviet 'nationality' category into Ukrainian passports. 'We are not America, a mishmash of all sorts of people,' the Svoboda website states. 'The Ukrainian needs to stay Ukrainian, the Pole—Polish, the Gagauz—Gagauz, the Uzbek—Uzbek.' Svoboda’s ultra-nationalism is supplemented with more traditional 'white racism.' Conspiracy theory is integral to Svoboda Weltanschauung, particularly conspiracies with anti-Semitic undertones."


 * Olszanski, Tadeus, "Svoboda party - the new phenomenon on the Ukrainian right-wing scene," Center for Eastern Studies, issue 56, 2011. "Among the canons of its ideology there was: a vision of the nation as a natural community, the primacy of the nation’s rights over human rights, the urge to build an ‘ethnic economy’, but also an openly racist rhetoric concerning ‘white supremacy’. Therefore, it seems justified that this programme has been compared to National Socialism from its very beginning, and not to the traditional ideology of radical Ukrainian nationalism. This parallel was reinforced by the party’s symbol – the letters I + N (Idea of the Nation), that is graphically identical with the ‘Wolfsangel’ rune – one of the symbols of European neo-Nazi organisations.


 * Syal, Rajeev, "Guardian Weekly: Shadow of racism over Euro 2012 finals: Black football fans face uncertain welcome in Ukrainian host city," The Guardian Weekly, 1 June 2012. "Lviv's ruling party, Svoboda, whose slogan is "one race, one nation, one fatherland", has been variously described as fascist, neo-Nazi and extreme. Members prefer to say they are nationalists and friends of Marine Le Pen's Front National."


 * "Head of Israel-Ukraine association surprised at agreement signed by Ukrainian opposition and Svoboda," Ukraine General Newswire-Interfax News Agency, 23 October 2012. "The head of the Israel-Ukraine inter-parliamentary association, Israel is Our Home Party MP Alex Miller, has said he does not understand why the Ukrainian opposition signed a coalition agreement with an "anti-Semitic" party - the Svo-boda All-Ukrainian Union… According to the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, Svoboda is a fascist party, and its full name - the Social-National Party of Ukraine - was chosen in association with the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP)."


 * Weinthal, Benjamin, "Wiesenthal ranks top 10 anti-Semites, Israel-bashers. Muslim Brotherhood's rise in Egypt catapults two religious figures into No. 1 spot," Jerusalem Post, 28 December 2012. "The Wiesenthal Center also cited Oleg Tyagnibok (No. 5) from the fascist Ukranian Svoboda party. He urged purges of the approximately 400,000 Jews and other minorities living in the Ukraine and has demanded that the country be liber-ated from the "Muscovite Jewish Mafia." Ukrainian MP Igor Miroshnichenko was cited for anti-Jewish remarks as well: He called Ukrainian-born American ac-tress Mila Kunis a "zhydovka" (dirty Jewess)."


 * Alex, Dan, "Ukrainian icon of revolt asks for sanctions against Kiev regime," New Europe, 21 January 2014. "Ruslana became less belligerent when I asked her about her position vis-a-vis the Svoboda ultranationalist (even cryp-to-fascist) party that is part of the three-headed opposition coalition. This is an openly xenophobic, and at times violent, Ukrainian political movement, who has been extremely active on the Maidan and in the clashes with the police special forces."


 * Feldman, Oleksandr, "Resolution of the Ukranian protests", Jerusalem Post, 15 January 2014. "However, that uplifting mood began to change in early December, when the three main opposition parties in Parliament - Fatherland, UDAR and Svoboda - began to take control of Euromaidan. Activists of the ultra-nationalist, anti-Semitic and grotesquely misnamed Svoboda ("Freedom") soon pushed to the forefront, giving the protests a progressively dark-er and more violent edge."


 * Spyer, Jonathon, "Kiev Showdown," The Jerusalem Post, 9 January 2014. "The far-right, anti-Semitic Svoboda party of Oleh Tyahnybok is also in evidence in the square. The third organized element is the Batkivschnya (Fatherland) party, which is close to Timoshenko."


 * Shvidler, Eli, "Anti-Semitic party wins 12% of seats in Ukraine parliament," Haaretz, 29 October 2012. "Svoboda, which has extreme nationalist and anti-Semitic positions, also opposes cooperation with Russia. Several complaints were filed against the party's leader, Oleg Tyahnybok, for incitement and racist and anti-Semitic remarks, such as saying Ukraine was being run by a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia" and calling to "stop Jewish expansion." Party members, who tend to be young, have been linked to several anti-Semitic attacks, including the torching of synagogues and Jewish cultural centers and the desecration of Jewish cemeteries. The party, whose name means "Freedom," also opposes the mass visits of Breslov Hasidim to the grave of Rabbi Nahman of Breslov in Uman, and has in the past tried to "defend Ukrainian rights" at the site, until the party's representatives were forcibly removed."


 * Stern, David, "What Europe Means to Ukraine's Protesters," The Atlantic,13 December 2013. "But Svoboda’s positions are somewhat at odds with the EU’s ideals of tolerance and multiculturalism, to put it mildly: It is a driving force behind Ukraine’s anti-gay rights movement; the party’s platform supports distributing government positions to various ethnicities according to their percentage makeup of the population; and, despite recent claims to the contrary, it remains, at least among its leadership, a deeply anti-Semitic organization (one deputy in parliament has described the Holocaust as a “bright period” for Europe.)"

If anyone has any other references feel free to add them. -Darouet (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You realize that potentially libelous content, especially under WP:ASSERT, has no place in a lead section, right? There's an entire *huge* section on the anti-semitism claims, and the refutations, and how the claims themselves are libelous and used in smear campaigns by political opponents. You absolutely know this because you contributed to those sections. How is it that you have concluded that it's not a blatant POV push to take one side of that argument and shoehorn it into the introduction to make it seem like they are anti-semites and fascists? Smearing political parties as such seems to be your MO on a couple articles so far, which has also included some bad faith editing practices I've caught you on (both here and on other pages). Please attempt to justify how your additions are neutral, not a POV push, not cherry picking, and not just editing warring. --Львівське (говорити) 20:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, this is just me perusing your writing here, but Svoboda never founded a "Goebbells Research Center" (a member did, not affiliated wit the party) so that's a disingenuous claim. I know you've been warned on other articles from Rudling's POV; using the Jerusalem Post to WP:CITEKILL is also bad form, considering the conflict of interest; you're citing Oleksandr Feldman, a rival politician; the rest seems to be conjecture and opinion save for 2 academic sources (Shekhovtsov and Olszanski) who are both covered well enough in the article.--Львівське (говорити) 20:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with WP:LIBEL, and I've never been "warned" about Rudling except by you, who don't like what he has to say. As to the Josef Goebbels Research Institute, yes it wasn't founded by Svoboda, but by one of its leading members. What the above sources simply show is that many or most mainstream academics and newspapers recognize Svoboda's fascistic politics and legacy. And as we've discussed on your own talk page, Israeli newspapers do not have a COI when writing about anti-semitism. -Darouet (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Faustian warned you about Rudling, but you didn't care because it fit your POV you're parading around. By your logic, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education was founded by the Republican Party. But please, ignore the fact that you're citing rival politicians and all the other bad faith editing I've called you on. This is getting sad.--Львівське (говорити) 04:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion you're referring to is here, in which it seems that Faustian was objecting to comments, below an article in the Globe and Mail, attributed to Rudling and copied into a pdf somewhere. -Darouet (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Darouet- Olszanski, Tadeus, "Svoboda party" it should be Partia Swoboda – nowa jakość na ukraińskiej prawicy Tadeusz A. Olszański, the whole article is available online in Polish and has much more info on nationalist program of the party and its views towards Russians and Poles, this fragment might be of interest to you ''Najważniejszym elementem programu Swobody jest etnocentryzm. Narodowość obywatela ma być kategorią publiczną. W organach władzy wykonawczej, siłach zbrojnych, oświacie, nauce, a nawet gospodarce ma być zaprowadzony cenzus narodowościowy: ich skład ma procentowo odpowiadać proporcji Ukraińców i mniejszości narodowych. Podobnie udział języka ukraińskiego w mediach ma być nie mniejszy od odsetka etnicznych Ukraińców w społeczeństwie. Jedynym językiem urzędowania struktur państwa (w tym oświaty) ma być ukraiński, a jedynym prawem mniejszości narodowych – tworzenie stowarzyszeń. W dokumentach programowych Swobody brak natomiast elementów rasistowskich. Oprócz programu oficjalnego istnieje również program nieoficjalny, nie ujęty w formie jawnego dokumentu, lecz dający się odczytać z wypowiedzi członków Swobody, a także podejmowanych przez nich działań. Jest on znacznie bardziej radykalny, w tym rasistowski'' Translation: "The most important element of the Svoboda program is ethnocentrism. Nationality of citizens is to become a public category. The bodies of executive power, the armed forces, education, science, and even the economy are to be subjected to census of nationalities: their percentage composition shall reflect responding proportion of Ukrainians and ethnic minorities. Similarly, the share of the Ukrainian language in the media is to be no less than the proportion of ethnic Ukrainians in society. The only language of state structures (including education) is to be Ukrainian, and the only right of national minorities - the creation of associations. In the program documents of Svoboda the racist elements are missing. There is an inofficial program of Svoboda, not in the form of open document, but one that can be read from the statements of Svoboda members, as well as from actions they undertake. It is far more radical, including racism." --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * MyMoloboaccount, before you continue attempts to recruit Darouet into a tag team (and other forms of gaming the system you've been employing}, I would ask that you respond to my query above. Your fanatically pro-Polish and anti any other Eastern Slavic ethnicity POV content pushes, as well as highly tendentious use of talk pages has been noted. After such pointedly inappropriate use of WP:TALK (WP:HOAX comes to mind) of attempting to tie 'Svoboda' in with historical facts (i.e., invasion of Poland by the Nazis as the first step towards the Thousand Year Reich). While this lack of subtlety may be laughable and dismissed as being misdirected enthusiasm, should you persist you'll be accounting for yourself before an AN/I at the next whiff of such 'enthusiasm'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, I don't know MyBolo's editing history, but since they didn't invite me into a WP:CABAL, and looking onto your interaction for the first time here, this comment, and the one you made earlier, might be interpreted in the context of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Maybe you're justified for other, past reasons for writing like a harpy! But in the mean time I think that, for the moment, there's no reason to be so anxious. Any research you do will obviously be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expression of concern but I'm not anxious, Darouet. I'm only interested in keeping him/her in check both here and on other articles as per their recent activity on various articles and talk pages. As for invoking WP:BATTLEGROUND, may I suggest that you should reacquaint yourself with WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you citing "not everything" because you're trying to argue that purported territorial claims by Svoboda don't belong in the article? Otherwise I don't know what you mean by this. Also, have we actually established that any such claims have been made? I'd be surprised if you already had an opinion about whether they're important enough to go into an article before you knew that they existed, or what they were. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find no evidence that anyone from Svoboda has made claims on Poland. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone mentioned Shekhovtsov, Anton. Well, here are his most recent statements about Svoboda: "Despite the sensationalist, Kremlin-inspired reports claiming that Ukraine was facing “a neo-fascist coup”, Svoboda has been discredited during the revolution and it will hardly be able to regain the support it enjoyed in 2012. Second, Svoboda may be more extreme than the French National Front or the Freedom Party of Austria, but it is probably less extreme than Jobbik, NPD, Golden Dawn, Tricolour Flame, BNP, etc." He and other people you listed signed the following letter: .Faustian (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oleksander Feldman was a politician and Yanukovich-ally. Hardly a neutral source.Faustian (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair, regarding Feldman, however he was only one of the ten sources I presented, and he published the article in a reputable newspaper. The statement that Lvivske continues to remove - that Svoboda's politics have been described as fascistic or anti-semitic - are still supported by the Feldman article, by the other sources I presented, and by still more sources available to any of us. Feldman can't be criticized for noting Svoboda's fascistic politics, even if he is a rival, and not neutral. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the other sources are simply journalists rather than specialists. The Wiesenthal list was strongly rejected by a Jewish community leader in Ukraine itself (see the comment below by Zissels). There were notorious anti-Polish and anti-Ukrainian reports in the British press prior to the Euro Cup (the Guardian article). Ukrainian Jewish Committee, another source, is run by Feldman. I don't know anything about Olszanski so I can't comment about him. Rudling meets wiki standards as a reliable source, despite his obvious bias.  Likhachev and Shekvovtsov seem to be the best, and expert, sources.Faustian (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is Ukrainian-Jewish community leader Josef Zissels discussing Svoboda (English-language parts here: ): " In reality, there are anti-Semitic elements in Svoboda, and we have been tracking them for more than 20 years, from the time when the party was still called the Social-national Party of Ukraine. There is less and less anti-Semitic rhetoric. For example, of the 37 Svoboda party member of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, only six or seven have ever uttered anti-Semitic statement in the last 20 years. There is nothing directly anti-Semitic in Svoboda’s [party] program, neither anything directly xenophobic, although the seeds of xenophobic elements are there. Unlike members of parliament from the Jobbik party in Hungary and Ataka party in Bulgaria, MPs from Svoboda have not uttered anything anti-Semitic from the parliamentary podium. Not a single statement."


 * Faust, can you weigh in on whether piling up one side of an argument into the lede qualifies as a POV push / WP:ASSERT? I mean, if it wasn't already clear by the above quote, for clarity sake. --Львівське (говорити) 04:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that briefly mentioning the fact that some of its members have made antisemitic statements and that this party is controversial would be appropriate for the lede.Faustian (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Faustian. A brief statement either in the body of the article or the lede is sufficient in that it would reflect the coverage in mainstream sources. But there's no reason to turn the whole article into a single purpose POV piece per WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a giant 'Criticisms' section in the body detailing every single accusation they've ever had. That in of itself may be undue, since the majority of an article of a political party is documenting everything bad its opposition has said about it. Imagine if the Republican party article was mostly negative things Democrats have said about it...yikes. --Львівське (говорити) 20:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * More radical, anti-semitic, or fascistic elements of Svoboda's politics shouldn't be placed in a "criticisms" section if those politics are an integral part of the party, its ideology, and its history. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

--Львівське (говорити) 22:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This was in Foreign Policy today:


 * Thank you Lvivske for the article. Caryl writes that Svoboda "probably" doesn't qualify as fascist, but he seems to agree with the EU's assessment that he quotes immediately after the one you've provided:
 * Otherwise, why does he find their politics "worrisome" in your view? -Darouet (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, why does he find their politics "worrisome" in your view? -Darouet (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's some confusion, I feel, about the nature of "criticism" versus "description:" anti-semitic, or ethnocentric, or fascistic politics are real all over the world, and assuming that a direct, informative description somehow constitutes slander is wrong for two very important reasons. The first is that our job, as encyclopedists, is to scour academic material on a subject and present that forthrightly, helping readers to understand, but not necessarily support or oppose. The second is that many who have far-right politics are proud of them, and that's their right. Consider what professor Rudling writes of Svoboda ideologue Mykhal’chyshyn:




 * This description shouldn't be all we write about Svoboda, but our descriptions, whatever they are, absolutely must follow serious, published sources. All arguments about WP:UNDUE, or WP:ASSERT, or WP:NPOV become hopelessly intractable and fundamentally meaningless when we argue without sources, because while everyone thinks they know the WP:TRUTH, we can only make progress on the basis of WP:VERIFICATION by sources.


 * I continue to adamantly maintain that if any of us reads academic sources on Svoboda, they will find that authors write a lot about anti-semitism, the OUN, and fascism. This is the reason why so many other sources reference this, and why Svoboda leaders keep going on record making ant-semitic statements. We need to accurately describe Svoboda's ideology, and not simply in a "criticism" section, which falsely implies that Svoboda's ideology - about which much is written - is actually just criticism of Svoboda (it's not).


 * Based on sources we have, we need to write that Svoboda's political views are described as fascistic or anti-semitic. That's obviously true, and maybe a bit generous, since it allows readers to decide whether it's actually the case. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're basing Svoboda's entire party on one member? Even in spite of having no anti-semitic or fascist policies, programs, or anything related to the party itself? This is a real stretch you're going after. --Львівське (говорити) 23:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We've discussed many people and sources throughout this talk page discussion. -Darouet (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We still need more sources to have a comprehensive view of this question, but based on the participation and research of more editors, I think we'll be able to improve the article and accurately describe Svoboda's politics in the lead and throughout. -Darouet (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment of Svoboda's antisemitism by Ukrainian Jewish leader
http://www.vaadua.org/node/551

Q: Doesn’t it bother you that there are open anti-Semites among your allies? For example, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, lists Svoboda’s leaders among the top ten anti-Semites in the world.

A: I am very familiar with the activities of the Wiesenthal Centre and I know the head of the Jerusalem branch of that organization, Efraim Zuroff, who put the names Oleh Tyahnybok and Ihor Myroshnychenko into “the top ten.” Efraim Zuroff spent a lot of time in Moscow in the past few decades and I don’t consider the portrait he has drawn to be an objective one. I think that, throughout the world, there are plenty of people who are more anti-Semitic than Tiahnybok and parties that are far more anti-Semitic than Svoboda. I deal with this issue professionally; I was commissioned to conduct a large sociological study of this topic. In reality, there are anti-Semitic elements in Svoboda, and we have been tracking them for more than 20 years, from the time when the party was still called the Social-national Party of Ukraine. There is less and less anti-Semitic rhetoric. For example, of the 37 Svoboda party member of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, only six or seven have ever uttered anti-Semitic statement in the last 20 years. There is nothing directly anti-Semitic in Svoboda’s [party] program, neither anything directly xenophobic, although the seeds of xenophobic elements are there. Unlike members of parliament from the Jobbik party in Hungary and Ataka party in Bulgaria, MPs from Svoboda have not uttered anything anti-Semitic from the parliamentary podium. Not a single statement."

Faustian (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's also consistent with what I've read about Svoboda: that there are no openly anti-semitic statements in any public documents, and yes Jobbik is far worse. -Darouet (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Given Tyahnybok's other various statements I can't say I agree that Azman's assessment is more reasonable than Zuroff's. In any event, here's an English-language news article reporting on this: . The article references Svoboda and doesn't seem to take a side. -Darouet (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Does Azman not have ties to Russia? (as opposed to Bleich) He also seems confused: "Ukrainian Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman, called on Kiev's Jews to leave the city and even the country if possible" to "there is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine.”1 2 --Львівське (говорити) 15:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Claim of Tyahnybok urging a purge of 400,000 Jews
Malexeye recently inserted this edit in the article which states that Tyahnybok urged a purging of 400,000 Jews. This was accurately sourced with a Jpost article. I understand Jpost is treated as a reliable source but the claim seemed too extraordinary to me to remain stated as a fact. I don't want to go against reliable sources but I understand that we are supposed to be especially cautious when adding information about living persons per WP:ALIVE. Does anyone have any information on this? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's true we should be able to find other confirmation, so for now I think it should be left out. His other comments, for instance, were widely reported. -Darouet (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 400,000 statement would have come out by now; between the both of us scouring this topic, you'd think one would have found it. The MJ mafia comment is widely cited, this is the first time I've heard the latter. --Львівське (говорити) 21:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section should be integrated into the article
With WP:crit in mind, I think the criticism section is way, way too long. By word count, it constitutes roughly one third of the article. My understanding is that it is generally better to integrate the criticism section into other sections of the article so as to not call undue attention to negative viewpoints. And as the essay notes, criticism sections can "lead to users with strong opinions dominating the article" and I don't feel like this article's history disproves that theory. Clearly this effort would require a lot of collaboration and discussion on the talk page. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Some things end up being mentioned twice which gives them undue weight. For instance, the 'Muscovite-Jewish mafia' incident is already covered under the All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" section but is again mentioned under the Allegations of xenophobia and racism section. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree completely that it should be integrated. Perhaps a section "incidents drawing international attention" and another "condemnations by international organizations" could replace everything else, which can easily be sent into "ideology."


 * One reason why some subjects acquire large criticism sections is that they are inherently controversial, and most coverage by academics or journalists rightly focuses on that controversy. If proponents of a controversial ideology won't accept honest descriptions in article content, the only place consensus allows is "criticism."


 * Right now, if this article were written with honesty concerning international news coverage, there would be much more focus on Svoboda's important history, its legacy regarding the OUN, the "Social National Party of Ukraine," and its transformation - described as cosmetic by most sources - into Svoboda. It would spend more time analyzing the text and subtext of Svboda's ideology, about which much has been written. We have abundant sources to work with so these improvements can be made if we're willing to write what most sources do. -Darouet (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to work with you. I think "incidents drawing international attention" could be integrated into "history" as some of its content is already covered there. "Condemnations by international organizations" sounds like a POV fork. Most of the condemnation by international organizations deals with Svoboda's ideology which could be integrated into "Ideology", perhaps under a subsection titled "Allegations of neo-nazism and political extremism" like in the Jobbik article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All your proposals sound good. -Darouet (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I don't want to make any drastic changes until we get some input from Levivske because this should go more smoothly with his collaboration. I'll go ahead and integrate "Ideological criticisms" into "Ideology". Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * im not entirely sure what's being suggested in terms of content change, is this just a reshuffle? --Львівське (говорити) 15:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, given the size of the criticism section, we'll need to take this one thing at a time but mostly it'll just be a reshuffle. When integrating, any content that is repeated verbatim in other parts of the article can just be removed. Where the same issue is covered but with different content they'll be integrated together. No significant content should be removed from the article entirely without due discussion here. I've already integrated ""Ideological criticisms" into "Ideology" and "Platform" so take that as an example. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Criticism within Svoboda", I reworded it to better reflect the source but I'm inclined to remove this part entirely for two reasons. Firstly, it's a primary source concerning a single ex-member. Secondly, and I could be wrong about this, but I don't think it's uncommon for political parties to gather demographic information, including nationality, about its members. While the source's author is concerned about Svoboda's motives for doing so, I don't think his concerns are notable enough for Wikipedia to report. I couldn't find better sources. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've deleted this section. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the last paragraph of "Incidents drawing international attention" about the March scuffle in parliament, it was my understanding that Svoboda didn't have any Deputies in parliament until after the October 2012 election but the sources seem reliable. The INYT source seems to be refering to a different fight after the October election on what it calls "Svoboda's first day in parliament" covered in more depth here. I am very confused. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure I can see Tiahnybok brawling in the grainy RT video. Whatever the case, it should be included that other opposition politicians were involved in the March scuffle. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The March scuffle was in 2013 not 2012 like I assumed (sigh) so no problem there. I can integrate this into "Post-2012 elections and Euromaidan campaign" after removing unsupporting INYT source and a little rewording to better reflect the other sources. Will add the December 2012 scuffle as well. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Integrated "incidents drawing international attention" into "history". Later, I'll work to make the new additions better fit. Already worked on the March 2013 brawl, reworded it a bit. Let me know if anyone has any problems with the changes. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thinking I can incorporate "Support for controversial figures" into "Ideology". The Stepan Bandera/UPA content can fit under subsection "nationalism" but I might trim off some of the material in separate edits after the move. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Removed content about 2004 UPA comments covered in "All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"". Keeping it didn't add much to ideology. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed paragraph with this edit. First line was redundant. Second source referred to the growth of popularity amongst Ukrainians in general, not specifically Svoboda members, and only concerning early 2014. Last line was irrelevant to Svoboda. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Why Lvivske? Why? We're trying to reduce the criticism section - not add to it. Most of what you added could have easily been incorporated into the "Ideology" section. Remember how I requested "collaboration and discussion"? In the future, please refrain from dumping information into "criticism" when it can be incorporated into the article properly (especially when it's not even criticism.) Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering that it seems to grow faster then I can chop it down and that its existence discourages editors from properly incorporating new information into the article, I've decided to move the rest of the "criticism" section into the "Ideology" section under a new sub-section "Allegations of neo-nazism and political extremism". I will then proceed to cull through the content, moving info to other sections as appropriate and reverting info that has no place here. Per WP:BRD, I expect editors to discuss any reverts I make here before re-adding content into the article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start closing down the "Criticism as device by opponents" section. I mean, of course Svoboda's opponents use criticism as a device against them, how else would they use criticism? to help them? I don't understand why such a section was allowed to stand for so long but if someone wants to explain its usefulness me please do. Otherwise, content will be moved to other appropriate sections or removed. Per WP:BRD, editors should discuss any reverts I make here before re-adding content into the article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts. I think they are a clear improvement. --RJFF (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd encourage future editors to think long and hard before resurrecting the criticism section given how the previous version grew to unseemly proportions. If so inclined, please consider WP:CRIT and open a discussion on the talk page detailing your reasons why you think this article could benefit from a criticism section and please allow a full discussion to take place before adding one. For the record, it is my firm belief that a criticism section for this article is a very bad idea. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A source
Experts cited here:. "Expert opinions on Svoboda in particular are divided. Per Anders Rudling, an associate professor at Lund University in Sweden and researcher on Ukrainian extremists, has described Svoboda as "neo-fascist". He told Britain's Channel 4 News: "Two weeks ago I could never have predicted this. A neo-fascist party like Svoboda getting the deputy prime minister position is news in its own right."

But Ivan Katchanovski, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa who has studied the far-right in Ukraine, disagreed that Svoboda was so extreme. "Svoboda is currently best described as a radical nationalist party, and not as fascist or neo-Nazi," he said. "It is now not overtly anti-Semitic."Faustian (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * and for this reason above all others, if opinion is divided one side shouldn't be presented as fact and another left out. That's the definition of pushing a single POV. All of this stuff is in the body, let the readers decide for themselves. --Львівське (говорити) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Many, many high quality academic sources describe Svoboda's politics as fascistic and anti-semitic, in keeping with their history. Right now the article reflects that by writing that their politics are described as fascistic or anti-semitic by some (in reality it is by many people). This is obviously true and should be made known to readers. I'm sure there are Svoboda supporters who aren't fascists, and I don't think we should write in the lead, "Svoboda is a fascist party." -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Darouet, this is in response to the question you posed in the, your 'concerns' expressed in the , and the general bent adopted by you throughout the development of this article. WP:NOTEVERYTHING was a reference to your heavy-handed POV content push throughout the article and talk page. I'm still trying to ascertain how expressions suggesting neutrality such as,
 * and blatant POV such as,
 * expressed by the same contributor can possibly translate as being sincere NPOV. You've appear to have been grabbing at every reportage opportunity to lead the article into an indictment of Svoboda. 'Analysing the subtext' sounds remarkably like WP:OR. How, exactly, are you proposing to do this as a neutral editor? NOTEVERYTHING is a useful method of preventing WP:TROJANs/WP:Coatracks.


 * Neither my political position nor yours have any place in Wikipedia articles (unless we're writing an essay, in which case it would have to be approved by the community for development). My sole concern is that the 'criticism' is being turned into an op ed. I don't care how eloquently content and rationale for selecting content is packaged, it still amounts to being an op ed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm writing about a "subtext" because this term is more or less used verbatim by four academic sources that I've quoted above, and also quoted in the article, only to see the text repeatedly removed as "vandalism" or otherwise by Lvivske:


 * Likhachev, Viacheslav, "Right-Wing Extremism on the Rise in Ukraine," Russian Politics and Law, September-October 2013.


 * Shekhovtsov, Anton, "Right Wing Populism in Europe," Routledge (2013), chapter 17: From Para-Militarism to Radical Right-Wing Populism: The Rise of the Ukrainian Far-Right Party Svoboda.


 * Rudling, Per Anders. “The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right: The Case of VO Svoboda.” In "Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text,” Eds. Ruth Wodak and John E. Richardson. Routledge, New York, 2013.


 * Olszanski, Tadeus, "Svoboda party - the new phenomenon on the Ukrainian right-wing scene," Center for Eastern Studies, issue 56, 2011.


 * You can see that these authors speak about Svoboda's ideology in the context of its history, the OUN, the SNPU, etc. I don't want to assume anything about what you've read regarding Svoboda, but since you hadn't seen these sources that have been presented and disputed both here and on the main article, I should point out that all verifiable statements, research and hard work will look like WP:OR to you if you haven't read about the subject under discussion. -Darouet (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Motyl on Rudling:

and then he continues on the argument we're discussing:

--Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A blog post isn't going to help us much to deflate the reputation or published record of an academic expert on far-right Ukrainian politics. There's a reason why Rudling publishes in academic sources, whereas Motyl's view, in this case, and while not worthless, still appears in a blog. There's also a reason why the other three academics, also publishing in academic sources, write the same thing. -Darouet (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the opinion of a reliable source, scholar, and an expert on Ukrainian affairs. Whether it's in World Affairs Journal or an academic journal is neither here nor there. It's also hypocritical, seeing as you regularly cite uninformed journalists & politicians.--Львівське (говорити) 20:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * More in an interview with Motyl:
 * --Львівське (говорити) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * --Львівське (говорити) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an interview in a student newspaper in Canada. What's the point of this? -Darouet (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This right here is the mentality that has crippled this article. It is entirely irrelevant if Darouet has "regularly cited uninformed journalists & politicians" as this is a simple Tu quoque argument. When Darouet supposedly did so, you should have reverted it and then Darouet and you should've discussed it here, per WP:BRD. Failing to do that and letting it remain in the article does not give you a free pass to use in the future when you want to cite an obscure author. The same standards that apply to the rest of Wikipedia also apply to Svoboda. One of those standards is Verifiability that I would encourage both of you to read. Under the section Newspaper and magazine blogs it reads, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution" and considering that Motyl is a professional - a professor of political science at Rutgers University - his blog writings are therefore acceptable but that does not mean you have carte blanche to dump reams of information in the article. You must not give Motyl undue weight - a couple of sentences should suffice but the article is currently burdened with five. Per WP:BRD, I'm going to do what Darouet should've done when he encountered the edits - revert and discuss on the talk page. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I only reverted three lines. The remaining two seem fine. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I agree with all your recent edits and am glad you've been improving the article, but you're not being fair regarding the sources I've brought here to the article and talk page, or to the journalists and academics I've cited, upon whom we all rely for this encyclopedia. What is the basis for accepting that professional journalists working for major newspapers around the world - and apparently coming to similar conclusions - are "uninformed?" At this point I've posted a great many scholarly and journalistic sources on this talk page, most of which have been ignored. I hate to say it Stephen J Sharpe, but you've ignored them too. There are four academic papers I cite immediately above, all writing about a racist subtext in Svoboda's ideology, that I've posted for the second time here. You haven't commented on them here. You haven't complained at Lvivske's removing them, along with many journalistic sources, from the lead. Why?


 * Regarding the argument that Motyl's views should lead us to avoid citing Rudling... Obviously Motyl's views generally aren't useless, and I stated as much above, and have previously mentioned that Taras Kuzio's self-published views may also be relevant because he's an expert in the field. Shekhovstov also has a blog that I've been planning to quote from, arguing to some extent against his own published record.


 * All this said, Motyl's view, and the views of all professionals or experts when published in lower quality sources, should be used either with great caution or not at all when for commentary on living people, e.g. on the quality of Rudling as a researcher (see WP:USESPS for guidelines on Kuzio's blog, for instance). Differences of opinion politically are a more valid subject in these cases than criticisms of individuals specifically. So I strongly disagree on Lvivske's suggestion that we can ignore Rudling, especially since his arguments mirror those of many other academics and journalists.


 * Lastly, since you didn't make the point above, I should just remind everyone that articles published in academic journals have undergone peer review and should be given weight with that in mind. Journalistic sources that aren't opinion pieces have usually encountered an editorial review process that, while not equivalent in rigor to peer review in academic journals, nevertheless place them above blogs. -Darouet (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "'you're not being fair regarding the sources I've brought here to the article and talk page, or to the journalists and academics I've cited'"You misunderstood me. I was just explaining how if your sources were "uninformed" (using Lvivske's words), it would be irrelevant to the question of whether Lvivske's proposed source is notable. Please re-read what I wrote. Regarding this"'I hate to say it Stephen J Sharpe, but you've ignored them too.'"I just want to note that, excepting a short period a month ago, I only started editing Wikipedia a week ago and I can only make three reverts per day on the same page per WP:3RR (which I've admittedly broken on occasion out of frustration). Between your's and Lvivske's prodigious output, it's impossible for me to keep up. I just ask that you consider Verifiability more carefully in the future when adding content. And I hope I'm not coming off as rude considering the large contribution you've both made to the article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And perhaps I wasn't clear before so I'll summarize what I was trying to say. The standards for new content have no basis on what was included in the past. Just because low-quality material was allowed in the past does not mean that current standards should be relaxed for "fairness' sake". Charges of hypocrisy for challenging low-quality material at editors who themselves may or may not have inserted low-quality material in the past is illogical, unconstructive, and reinforces the idea that standards have be lowered because of past oversights. That said, I'll be making a comprehensive review of the article over the coming week, attempting to remove past content that does not measure up to WP:V. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation, and please excuse my misunderstanding. I do agree with your point, and am thankful for your contributions to the page, which have improved it markedly. Also, just so you don't get in trouble or anything and in case you haven't seen it, look at WP:ARBEE, which I believe applies here too. For obvious reasons, the wikipedia community is stricter when regulating editing behavior on Eastern European articles. -Darouet (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record I never said outright ignore Rudling, just use him with caution. Faustian pointed it out, maybe other users have too. By coincidence, we now have an academic also pointing out how extreme he is in his views. So use scholar who talks on the fringe with caution and due weight, is all.--Львівське (говорити) 15:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He compared him to Chomsky and you might want to take consider how we'd approach a source from Chomsky on here. Even if the description was accurate, we note from WP:BIASED that, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" and from WP:NPOVFAQ,"The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias". What matters is, per WP:DUE, the "prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". That's why Chomsky would be weighted heavily - because he is prominent. It has nothing to do with how extreme his views are so Motyl's opinion on Rudling is of no consequence. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

POV tag: scholarly/media descriptions of "fascistic or anti-Semitic" politics removed from lead
I've added a POV tag to this article because the lead doesn't mention that over a dozen high quality academic or journalistic sources either state that Svoboda's politics are fascistic, neo-nazi or anti-semitic, or state that their politics are often so characterized.

There are some academic and media sources, or organizations, that state that Svoboda's politics are not fascist, "probably not fascist," not overtly anti-semitic, etc. Also, Svoboda adamantly maintains in public statements that it is not anti-semitic. However, this is no argument against the fact that "multiple academic and media sources describe Svoboda's politics as fascistic or anti-Semitic," which is not an endorsement of those views, but a recognition of them. -Darouet (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * so you're saying only one POV should be represented? An introduction should not be a battleground. --Львівське (говорити) 21:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Right now, only one POV is represented, and a major, scholarly and widely reported POV is excluded even from mention, thanks to your having repeatedly removed them. When you here asked another editor, Faustian, if this viewpoint should be represented, Faustian and Volunteer Marek, here and here wrote that the fact that party leaders have made anti-semitic statements, and that the party is controversial, should be stated briefly in the lead, while qualifying that "there's no reason to turn the whole article into a single purpose POV piece per WP:UNDUE." You ignored the advice you asked for.
 * The disputed statement that you've repeatedly removed, that some scholarly and media sources describe Svoboda's politics as fascistic or anti-Semitic, is overwhelmingly supported by sources and obviously true. Noting a major scholarly and journalistic view is not an endorsement of that view, nor is it "only one POV [being] represented," as you write above. You should stop removing reliably sourced statements that also balance the article by giving representation to important viewpoints published in high quality academic or media sources from around the world. -Darouet (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop pushing your anti-Svoboda "omg fascists and anti-semites" POV. It's unsupported and breaks every measure of neutrality. Doing so is essentially WP:LIBEL--Львівське (говорити) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you propose to evaluate whether statements are supported or unsupported, neutral or partisan? And how, given the sources that you, I and other have available to us, do you maintain that what I've added is libelous? The guidelines at WP:LIBEL repeat the encyclopedia's core tenets, requiring that contributions be neutral, and all information "referenced through the citation of reliable published sources." If write that "Svoboda's politics have been described by some scholars and media sources as fascistic or anti-semitic," and I cite ten high quality academic and journalistic sources that describe them as fascistic or anti-semitic, readers and other editors can verify what I write. Do you contest that Svoboda is described by some media sources and by some academics in this way? -Darouet (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering we have an entire (large) section on using these descriptors and allegations as a political device in smear campaigns, yes, it's a fine line to walk. My argument as always has been to let the readers decide for themselves and not to frame the article to lead them to a particular POV. If you want to inject the anti-semitic fascist POV, then I could then put in the counter points to that - and have a bloated and unconstructive lead giving too much weight to one topic. We could then, ideally, compromise but keeping both sides out since they cancel each other out, and let the readers decide in the body. I'm open to suggestions, other users have said they are too. --Львівське (говорити) 15:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Part of letting readers decide requires making the information available to them, and right now, a very prominent, scholarly and journalistic view is unavailable in the lead, and the article is therefore biased. Mentioning that viewpoint, "some scholars and journalists describe Svoboda's politics as fascistic or anti-semitic," is critical. If we followed that statement by another that was equally short, "Svoboda is adamant that its politics are nationalist but not fascist or anti-semitic, a view supported by other scholars and media," or something like that, that'd be fine. -Darouet (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Львівське? At this point a major scholarly view is still excluded from the lead, with all the references that readers at this point can't view, so that they still can't decide freely, and are presented with only one POV (one which is more sympathetic to Svoboda). I provided possible text above that would be more favorable to your position, though I think that should really be your responsibility, both in terms of drafting and most importantly in terms of sourcing. Do you have any proposals? -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I support Darouet on this particular point - I think adding this sentence to the lede would be appropriate: ""some scholars and journalists describe Svoboda's politics as fascistic or antisemitic, while other scholars and media, as well as Svoboda itself, state that its politics are nationalistic rather than fascistic or antisemitic." I think this wording make it clearer than the scholars who dispute that Svoboda is fascistic are not linked to Svoboda.Faustian (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Faustian, thanks for your note. I know we have media sources and scholars writing outside academic journals who argue against Svoboda being a fascist or anti-semitic party, and we can cite those. Do we know of any scholars making the same point in academic journals? That would be even stronger. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The situation seems to be developing quickly; pure academic sources require peer review, revision, etc. prior to publication and thus are a year or more behind in terms of how current their information is. An article that appeared in 2013 may have been originally written in 20012 or 2011.  For this reason interviews with legitimate scholars are good sources.Faustian (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most universities/colleges/tertiary institutions gather their research quantum at the same time per country/nation-state. In Australia, for example, it isn't all collated until around September. In other words, peer reviewed research is a year and a half old before you know it's been peer reviewed. A good heads up is conference papers. Look for names who come up on conference papers regularly at globally reputable conferences. Quite a few of these scholars have been interviewed at length since Euromaidan really established a high media profile (most notably from around December of last year). Being able to tie an academic to a reputable university is always a good starting point. I know Wikipedia has a rankings list page, but I'm dubious about it. Checking the education sector's listings per country could be a better approach (i.e., for Australia, there's this listing). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, based on Faustian's wording suggestion (I changed "rather than" to "but not"), and on links provided by various users above, besides the sources I'd found myself, I made this change to the article. It now states that some scholars and journalists describe Svoboda as fascistic or anti-semitic, whereas other scholars and journalists as well as Svoboda state that the party is nationalist, but not fascistic or anti-semitic. I've provided quotes for every reference. -Darouet (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC) If anyone has any other references, please suggest them here or add them to the article. I couldn't find anything by Kuzio but I'd imagine more searching would quickly yield results. -Darouet (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was advocating 'both sides or none' and Faustians suggestion leaned with being inclusive of the debate. I don't find anything biased or non-neutral in the current suggestion. It maybe a weight thing at this point but I'd prefer outside opinion from other editors just for the sake of keeping this article in line with other high-quality political party articles. Would an RfC from a political wikiproject serve this purpose? --Львівське (говорити) 15:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

the edits removed the baltic and republican comparison, while debatable for the lede, a political scientist making a parralel others might understand is informative. Can we put that (motyl?) opinion back into the body somewhere? this article sorely needs elaboration on their domestic policy that isnt from primary sources.--Львівське (говорити) 15:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Lvivske, thanks for note, and am very happy we are reaching a consensus both of us are happy with! As to Motyl, my own feeling is that his view, which I'm sure is written elsewhere too, would be appropriate for the body. -Darouet (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna, thanks for your notes about identifying scholarly sources above. See my note below in case you have access to scholarly sources: I'm trying to find scholars who argue that Svoboda isn't anti-Semitic. We need references to bolster the current consensus text (that I added myself, but that I can't verify using the sources I have available to me so far). -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have check around to see whether I can find any, Darouet. I don't know whether I'll be able to do so for a couple of days as I'm bogged down in trying to mediate on a couple of disputes. I'll let you know whether I can find anything one way or the other ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Do scholars dispute that Svoboda is anti-semitic?
Sorry to bring this up since it seems we may be reaching a compromise, but when I was implementing the changes it seemed we might all agree on, I noticed that scholars didn't seem to be disputing the Svoboda was in some way anti-semitic. Just the opposite actually: some seem to state that it's still a problem, while another comments that Svoboda is "not now overtly anti-Semitic," implying that it may be so anyway.

I'm not going to make any changes now because the sources are available and readers can therefore come to their own conclusions if they're interested. However, we do want to describe sources accurately in the long run. While it's clear that some scholars write that Svoboda isn't a fascist or neo-Nazi party, I'm not actually sure we have any scholars disputing anti-Semitism. -Darouet (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Funny you say this because I was just reading this: "we are well aware that the political opposition and the forces of social protests who have secured changes for the better are made up of different groups. They include nationalistic groups, but even the most marginal do not dare show anti-Semitism or other xenophobic behavior,” 'signed by a host of businessmen, public figures, scholars and artists.' --Львівське (говорити) 00:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * here is something:


 * Consider this excerpt from an interview last month with Joseph Zissels, Jewish community leader in Ukraine, dissident during Soviet times and today a leader of the #EuroMaidan: calling Svoboda and Tiahnybok as "hard-right antisemitic" is inaccurate and is a


 * Q: Doesn't it bother you that there are open anti-Semites among your allies? For example, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, lists Svoboda's leaders among the top ten anti-Semites in the world.


 * A: I am very familiar with the activities of the Wiesenthal Centre and I know the head of the Jerusalem branch of that organization, Efraim Zuroff, who put the names Oleh#Tyahnybok and Ihor Myroshnychenko into “the top ten.” Efraim Zuroff spent a lot of time in Moscow in the past few decades and I don’t consider the portrait he has drawn to be an objective one. I think that, throughout the world, there are plenty of people who are more anti-Semitic than #Tiahnybok and parties that are far more anti-Semitic than Svoboda. I deal with this issue professionally; I was commissioned to conduct a large sociological study of this topic. In reality, there are anti-Semitic elements in Svoboda, and we have been tracking them for more than 20 years, from the time when the party was still called the Social-national Party of Ukraine. There is less and less anti-Semitic rhetoric. For example, of the 37 Svoboda party member of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, only six or seven have ever uttered anti-Semitic statement in the last 20 years. There is nothing directly anti-Semitic in Svoboda’s [party] program, neither anything directly xenophobic, although the seeds of xenophobic elements are there. Unlike members of parliament from the Jobbik party in Hungary and Ataka party in Bulgaria, MPs from Svoboda have not uttered anything anti-Semitic from the parliamentary podium. Not a single statement.


 * In the interview, Zissels calls Svoboda a "radical nationalist party."


 * Read Russian language original in its entirety here:
 * http://www.vaadua.org/node/551Faustian (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, saw it from before when you mentioned it but it fits well in this subtopic. "There is nothing directly anti-Semitic in Svoboda’s [party] program, neither anything directly xenophobic" - I think this is a huge distinction to make, that the party itself is not anti-semitic, just maybe some members. Often what should be 'there are anti-semites in Svoboda' turns into 'Svoboda is full of anti-semites' and then 'Svoboda is anti-semitic'. It's like playing telephone. --Львівське (говорити) 03:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is a distinction between what the official platform of the party is and the alleged personal views of some of its members. The article is about the party, the viewpoints of the individuals can go into the respective bios if they exist, they don't really belong here. --Nug (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Faustian, Nug, Львівське. I'd seen the Zissels quote - since you'd referenced it above - but I hadn't added it to the sources in the lead because Zissels isn't a scholar, and the vaadua website isn't a journalistic publication. I'm not saying that Zissels isn't important: on the contrary I think this is a very important source. But I'll ask again what I asked above: do any scholars write that Svoboda is not an anti-semitic organization?

Also, just to clarify - it doesn't seem as though Zissels is arguing that Svoboda isn't anti-semitic. He's arguing that there are no overt statements or actions, and that's consistent with what some scholars write: that the party retains anti-Semitic ideology, but it's no longer official. -Darouet (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not that it retains ideology (if it did, this would be overt in its platform and Zissels says there is nothing directly antisemitic in the platform) but that there is room for antisemites within Svoboda even though not all members are antisemites.Faustian (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Seems most of the handful of sources that pin the "anti-semitic" label do so through Svoboda's association with the NSPU. The NSPU had a clearly anti-semitic platform but Svoboda does not, but that doesn't stop some sources using the guilt by association argument to imply Svoboda still retains anti-Semitic ideology when there is nothing in the party's official platform or even overt statements or actions that lend credence to that label. --Nug (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Svoboda doesn't have "association" with the SNPU: it was the SNPU before the party name and logo was changed. All academic sources review the history of the SNPU and the ideology of the party from 1991 to present, and the sources we use right now describe Svoboda directly (its current form). -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to play a telephone game and label Svoboda as anything, I'm just wondering we have any academic sources in which scholars write that that Svoboda isn't anti-semitic? If you don't mind, I think a helpful format would be something like:

"Professor John Smith, in an article titled 'My research about Svoboda' published in the Journal of Academic Research in October 2013, writes the 'Contrary to the suggestion of Anton Shekhovstov, Per Anders Rudling, Taras Kuzio, Viacheslav Likhachev and Cas Mudde, Svoboda's membership and leadership is not anti-Semitic, and anti-Semitism plays no part in the party's ideology.' "

That shouldn't be so hard. I'm the one who put the text and references in the lead that states "while other scholars and media, as well as Svoboda itself, state that its politics are nationalist, but not fascistic or antisemitic," and when I added the refs, I saw that scholars don't actually make that claim. Anyway you can read the text from the articles yourselves. Again, I'm not threatening to change the text, and I'm super happy that we seem to have a consensus, or something close. But I don't want to add text like "scholars say this" only because it satisfies us, but not because we can actually find any documents where that text is justified. -Darouet (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you're all so sure of this, maybe you can just find a few references with scholars stating what you like? And take your time please, I'm not trying to rush anyone. -Darouet (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or we could also write, "while other scholars and media, as well as Svoboda itself, state that its politics are nationalist, but not fascistic or overtly antisemitic." ? Quite a few sources refer to the discrepancy between public statements versus internal politics, and to "overt anti-Semitism", so this would be easy. Just a suggestion anyway. -Darouet (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stephen J Sharpe, RJFF and Lokalkosmopolit, if any of you have access to scholarly sources, the goal is to verify whether or not some scholars argue that Svoboda isn't anti-Semitic, as the lead now states. I think this is a simple question of research, not argumentation. -Darouet (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no jstor access right now, so I can only say what Google Scholar and Google Books results reveal. While the topic is surely not well-researched (given that the party was completely marginal until their first electoral success in 2012 parliamentary election), there are numerous Western sources that describe the party as far-right/extreme right/radical nationalist. Conversely, I couldn't find any sources that would specifically say the party is not antisemitic. There were no Google Scholar hits for 'Svoboda Ukraine ″not anti-Semitic″'. However, there was at least one source telling Tyahnybok specifically rejects the anti-Semitism label. However, these are very preliminary findings and editors with access to scholarly databases can be more useful here.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the exact words "not anti-Semitic" would be way too high of a bar, as scholars might write about the subject in any way. I think RJFF's literature list is a great place to start, and I'll start adding things there too. Then we can have a database of scholarly sources for anyone to look up anything, whether it's related to this particular issue or not. -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * using the exact search quote "not anti-semitic" would eliminate a lot of different phrasings.--Львівське (говорити) 07:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"Right" and "Far right"
I see that in this edit, User:Nug removed the description "far right" from the lead, writing in the edit summary "unsourced." Nug didn't delete the references however, which state that Svoboda is a far-right party with anti-semitic or racist politics. I left a note on Nug's talk page and am reverting based on the information below.

One of the sources Nug left in the article after the deleted text, by Rudling, is titled "The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right: the Case of VO Svoboda." The text states:

Another source by Kuzio that followed the deleted text states:

Another source by Shekhovstov that followed the deleted text states:

Again, all these sources immediately followed the "far-right" text Nug removed, writing "unsourced." So I've reverted that change and am adding in the quotes. As I told Nug, I'm open to discussion to understand what they meant. -Darouet (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * the consensus phrasing was that they are on the right of the political spectrum and some scholars define them as far-right. The part about "with anti-semitic and racist politics" was added by you and is unsourced (with regard to the phrasing, the 7 refs or whatever were specifically for supporting the 'far right' label and not other descriptors). --Львівське (говорити) 00:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that everyone agrees they are "right wing" but only some scholars (apparently Russian) use the "far right" label, it is clear that "right wing" is the consensus viewpoint and "far-right" is not. --Nug (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The changes that you (Львівське?) made to the lead seem fine to me. In my view, the consensus among reliable sources is that Svoboda is "far-right" at least, with a plausible argument that "they may become more mainstream."
 * For the info box, I think "right wing to far-right," which is what it used to say, would be a good compromise too, even though I think it should really say "far right", considering other Ukrainian political parties. -Darouet (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it worked. If I had to pick one I'd say 'right' because it encompasses everything right of center (these are of course broad, abstract terms). R to FR also works...in the context of European politics they are less 'far' than Jobbik, for example. In Ukraine, they are far more moderate than Right Sector (who effectively pushed Svoboda over - maybe that was the plan?). Of course, if they were here in Canada they'd be far right beyond a doubt. I think they're somewhere in that F2FR range, it's of course a grey area. --Львівське (говорити) 07:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Right Wing Extremism
this user keeps adding right wing extremism as a political ideology of svoboda. Can anyone else comment on its re-removal? The source is sketchy and probably not WP:RS, especially since all of our discussions here have dealt with academics and media. Also, how can 'extremism' be an ideology? It seems to be a POV push to me. While we're debating all the other descriptors of them, "extremists" has never come up in our talks. Permission to remove? --Львівське (говорити) 22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * HCPUNXKID, you have a source, but "extremist" is an especially problematic term in my view, because it implies all kinds of things, perhaps even terrorism. I think even Львівське would agree that "Far-Right politics" are what characterize Svoboda within Ukraine and Europe, and this would be a better term to use. It doesn't necessarily imply violence or legitimize a violent opposition to Svoboda either. Just my two cents. -Darouet (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First, the content is sourced, with a source used in several other political parties infoboxes and articles (see here, for example), so its valid and reliable for this, wether Svovoda's supporter (its him so states that, so it doesnt seem to be the most accurate to judge this) Львівське like it or not. As far as I know, if a content is properly sourced and refers to the subject of the article it can and must be included. Otherwise, that would be POV-pushing, if not something worst, like Vandalism. Also, I cant understand your mention of "Far-Right politics" as a sustitute of "Right Wing extremism", as this latter term just redirects to the first one. So replacing it would be simply a try to soften Svovoda's ideology definition, something we are not here to.-- HC PUNX  KID 08:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally I agree with you; personally I'd favor "far-right politics," but one of these two descriptors should be in the ideology section. -Darouet (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right to Far Right is covered in the position section, so we're good for that. This is on "ideology" which would infer they are ideological extremists, which simply isn't supported by reliable sources (you and I both know the sources, we've both read 'em all). I fail to see how parties-and-elections.eu is a reliable source in its own right. For the record, this source also calls the National Front (France) 'right wing extremist'--Львівське (говорити) 17:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I suppose that you dont consider the National Front (France) as 'right wing extremist' party. Very interesting and enlighting about your POV, perhaps you should remember that WP is not about imposing our own POV, but to bring definitions and information backed by sources. And you can keep defining "parties-and-elections.eu" as an unreliable source, but curiously it is used in dozens of politics articles in WP, and as far as I know you are the first user questioning its credibility, so if you are coherent you should start asking for the removal of that information based on that source wich you claim is unreliable. Otherwise, you would be showing that your reverts are exclusively based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- HC PUNX  KID 18:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * parties-and-elections.eu does not fulfil Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. It is a self-published website by a single German lawyer. Mr Nordsieck (the publisher) has over years diligently collected data about political parties and elections. His database is usually accurate and up-to-date. I think it is credible. But Nordsieck is not a professional researcher, he does not hold a chair for political science, he has never published his research in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book. Personally, I find it acceptable to cite this website in articles about very small parties or parties that have only recently been founded, on which very few or no academic publications exist. This is not the case with Svoboda, where there are several in-detail studies by renowned experts on Ukrainian politics and/or right-wing nationalist movements in Europe. Therefore, we should not use parties-and-elections.eu as a source in this case, where several, much stronger sources are available. --RJFF (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes, in the French context Front National has usually been considered right-wing extremist, but it is in process to broaden its base. Moreover, terminology differs from country to country and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --RJFF (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * HCPUNKKID, no, the National Front is not "extremist" and that is not a POV, as their wiki article also does not mention this extremism you're talking about. I don't care what other articles cite this website, I only care about this article and keeping its sourcing up to par. As it stands, you are pushing a minority POV using very flimsy sourcing, and now edit warring against multiple people to push this minority POV of yours. --Львівське (говорити) 19:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Львівське, RJFF, there's nothing remarkable about Nordsieck's conclusion that the FN or Svoboda are "right-wing extremist" parties: that would be consistent, more or less, with mainstream and academic views. However, HC, I don't think we should use the term "right-wing extremist" over "far-right" because, again, it doesn't add anything. What is this supposed to mean exactly?
 * We should accurately describe Svoboda, and the lead already mentions that their politics are described as far-right, anti-semitic or fascistic. I think that's appropriate. But calling them "extremist" in the info box strikes me as unwarranted, again, because I don't know what's gained in terms of knowledge beyond "far-right." -Darouet (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What doesnt have any type of sense is saying that "parties-and-elections.eu" can be used for defining some political parties but not for others, that's simply POV-pushing, no more, no less. If its a reliable source, it should be used in all political parties articles, and if its unreliable, it shouldnt be used in neither. If you want to have that definition in the "position" line of the infobox instead of the "ideology" one, its OK, I accept it, or even if you dont want it on the infobox, its OK, lets put it on the article. But what is not acceptable is to simply remove it, as thats simply a try to soften Svovoda's image, in other words, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Oh, and Darouet, the significance of "right wing extremism" is very simple, just type it in the WP search bar...-- HC PUNX  KID 01:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to be listening to what anyone has said. Just because you want to push this 'extremist' POV doesn't mean you should ignore every single credible source out there, or twist other people's words.--Львівське (говорити) 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are wrong. The reliability of sources is always relative to the statement that they are supposed to support and the context in which they are supposed to be used. (Identifying reliable sources). There is not such a thing as an absolutely reliable source. However, there are sources that are usually considered reliable. Again: Mr Nordsieck's website does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I would not say it is incredible, but it is not a reliable source in Wikipedia's terms. If you want to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, you may remove it from all other articles that use it as a source. Have fun! --RJFF (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda?
In this sentence in the second paragraph:

''Scholars and journalists disagree over Svoboda's politics, some who a priori oppose Ukraine as a nation stating members of Svoboda are fascistic or anti-semitic... [my emphasis]''

Is there any evidence to support the claim that scholars who think Svoboda are fascists "a priori oppose Ukraine as a nation"? This sounds very much like pro-Svoboda propaganda to me. It's not even clear what it means to "oppose Ukraine as a nation" - do they oppose the existence of the Ukrainian state, or do they claim that the idea of Ukrainian nationality / nationhood is a myth? Can anybody clarify this and provide sources to back up this assertion, e.g. quotes from sources 18-24 indicating that all the authors hold this view? If not then these words need to be removed. HairyDan (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No information about condemnation by Israel Foreign Ministry?
In 2012 Isreal's Foreign Ministry condemned Svoboda, I am surprised that this isn't mentioned in the article, as this is quite remarkable.  “Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote on October 27, ‘Israel is concerned by the recently signed coalition agreement between the ‘Batkyvshchyna’ party and the extremist “Svoboda” party in Ukraine. Antisemitic insults by ‘Svoboda’ have caused outrage on number of occasions both in Ukraine and in Israel. The “Svoboda” leader has praised the fight “against kikes and dirty Russians.”’ This should be added, condemnation by a country is of bigger importance than criticism just by NGO's. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think you can go ahead and add it if you have time for it. - Anonimski (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)