Talk:Vladimir Zhoga

Quote
Thanks for the correction. I put the quote into the article, and had obviously misread the text. However, several newspapers directly accuse Zhoga specifically of murdering prisoners which led to my accident in the first place. Tag24 states "Vladimir Zhoga selbst soll zum Beispiel ukrainische Kriegsgefangene ermordet haben." - Translated: "For example, Vladimir Zhoga himself supposedly murdered Ukrainian prisoners of war". ABTC makes similar claims: "Vladimir Zhoga, a leader of a rebel military group in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), accused of brutal war crimes and shooting Ukrainian prisoners of war since its formation in 2014, has been shot dead in battle", as does the Daily Star: "He commanded the Sparta Battalion, who began fighting against the Ukrainian government several years before the start of the Russian invasion, and is thought to have been responsible for a number of vicious atrocities, including the murder of several Ukrainian prisoners of war" (although it must be noted that the Daily Star is not a reliable source). Applodion (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi
Let's sort out amicably should we place Neo-Nazi or not. While according to the Mirror source Sparta Battalion is a Neo-Nazi military group, there is no source that claimed that Zhoga is a neo-nazi himself. I have also warned for WP:3RR violation. SunDawn talk  16:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , got it. Sadbunny3 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on whether he is or not, or whether it should be included; I'm just saying that if he is, we should cite a source saying so. Anaxial (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agreed. As there is no source that is pointing to it, we should not add "Neo-Nazi" to him. SunDawn  talk  16:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe him and Sparta as such, so do we.  Volunteer Marek  22:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As seen in the discussion below, the quality of the sources is not that great. The sources also do not report hard facts; they assign labels and claim war crimes, but do not back these up with evidence. While this should be reported in the article, it must happen with attribution - as was the case before you tried to insert it into the lede. Applodion (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The sources are supposed to provide context that they they are using this term per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:LABEL. Walesonline.co.uk published the article on 12 March, about 6 days after this fake information emerged from 6 March Daily Mail article just like WalesOnline too says that it got its information from "the Daily Mail reports".
 * This is why the sentence "described as being associated with neo-Nazism in regard to ideology" should be removed. I note that Sparta Battalion has got enough coverage in scholarly sources, none of which supports anything close to Daily Mail reporting. We all know WP:DAILYMAIL is Unreliable source, thus we can safely ignore this absurd recentism. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, meaww also took up the label, and their report is clearly based on some in-depth research (as they mention stuff not included by the Daily Mail or other Western sources). However, I wanted to leave this stuff out of the intro, as can be seen in the edit history. You should discuss this matter with Volunteer Marek who has supported the inclusion of Nazism not just here, but also on the Sparta Battalion article. Applodion (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Meaww.com is a totally unreliable source as WP:RSN discussion proves. Their information depends on a Tweet by some "@OldManLefty1". I am asking you if you are fine with removal of the sentence in question from the body as well, because, like I said, it is unreliable sourced to the sources that fail to actually describe anything. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These discussions did not conclude that Meaww was unreliable for everything. Either way, I do not understand why you ask me if you can remove the sentence. I was literally opposing its inclusion for days. You have to ask supporters of the inclusion -like Volunteer Marek or My very best wishes- about the removal, not me. Applodion (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead to remove the text in question but I am not getting why Volunteer Marek is disruptively restoring his POV and refraining from talk page discussion here. Though he has shown his failure to understand that the fake information in question actually emerged from WP:DAILYMAIL the worst source as mentioned by WalesOnline that it posted what "the Daily Mail reports" and tabloid Tag24.de is his another source which also says "Wie unter anderem die britische "DailyMail" berichtet".
 * should also take a look at this and do something about this ongoing disruption by Volunteer Marek. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/world-news/russian-commanders-killed-ukraine-invasion-23360033

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Владимир Жога (cropped).jpg

Mismatch between article creation and reference retrieved date
Under references the following text appears:

"Separatist known as Vokha will become new commander of the Sparta Battalion". UA Wire. '''24 October 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2017.'''

But according to the article's history it was created after the subject's death:

"21:40, 10 March 2022‎ Applodion talk contribs‎ 6,645 bytes +6,645‎  creating article thank"

This seems like a mistake, or perhaps the result of grabbing a source from an older article.

Further, there seems to be quite a bit of duplication of sources, which attribute claims to each other, without presenting strong evidence. The Daily Mirror & Daily Mail, both cited in these references are viewed as tabloid newspapers, and the Mail in particular was deprecated in 2017, meaning that claims that refer back to it are not usable in articles like this. I will delete these references for now.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A quick note on the remaining sources. Pravda was the name for the old Soviet mouthpiece, but not sure if there's any relationship with the .ua site. Might be worth checking. The site 'eadaily' is described by third parties as a source of pro-Russian propaganda. Not sure that makes it irrelevant here.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for the retrieval time of a source to match up with the article creation. You can read the source yourself to see that it contains the information. Furthermore, if one source references another, they are in their rights to do so. Reliable media quotes propaganda sources all the time; that does not make it unreliable. In addition, most newspapers do not detail where exactly their infos come from - by that reasoning, you might as well nuke the BCC as well. The Mirror was not deprecated, and its information for this article is backed up by several other sources. The Pravda cited here is a Ukrainian successor, not the old Soviet one. Furthermore, there are currently at least two Russian news sources called Pravda, and these also differ in regards to reliability. Applodion (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider it a personal attack to refer to my good faith removal of tabloid sources as "vandalism". Tabloid newspapers are in my view not reliable sources for biographies per Wikipedia BLP:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid:"


 * and

"Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 25 March 1907 [update]) is covered by this policy unless **a reliable source has confirmed their death**. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside."


 * See details here.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your mass removal of sources which are perfectly useable under Wikipedia guidelines is a form of disruptive editing, IMO. That is not meant as personal attack. I find it hard to classify it as anything else. Your reasoning, as I explained, is just not good. Simply put, the sources used here do not fall under the category of unreliable tabloid - they are not deprecated and have not been proven to be false. They are, until proven otherwise, regarded as reliable. Your personal views on these matters are irrelevant as long as they do not match the existing guidelines. Applodion (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Like, I wouldn't speaking about vandalism if you were just trying to remove the Mirror which you criticized above. Although the Mirror can be used as of current Wikipedia guidelines, I understand the concerns. Yet you also nuked Tag24, WalesOnline, Meaww, and Novinite, none of whom have been criticized as unreliable tabloids to the extent as the Mirror has been. Without giving any proper reason for your removal. WalesOnline, Meaww, and Novinite also did not mention the Mail or Mirror as a sources (which you claimed above), and instead refer to Ukrainian media reports. Tag24 only mentions that the Mail was among several newspapers reporting Zhoga's death, but also does not say that it used the Mail as a source. Applodion (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a list for deprecated (see here) and unreliable (see here) sources. Tag24, WalesOnline, Meaww, and Novinite are not listed in either, so they are to be treated as reliable sources until proven to be false. For Mirror there "is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun." It can be used as a source per current rules. Applodion (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I want to say that I am sorry calling your two edits borderline vandalism. That is not the correct way to talk about these issues, and I retract these descriptions of your actions. I do stand by my argument, however, that your mass removal of sources is neither based on good reasons nor constructive. Applodion (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources to the article. Applodion (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what your argument for using sources described as tabloid for a biographical article? You didn't address the quoted rules, and have undone my edit, which I insist was based on my understanding of WP:BLP. I think far more than anything I have done, that is unconstructive behaviour, as you have now twice ignored substantial discussion of these edits and merely impugned my motivation as justification.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read anything I wrote above? I refuted your argument. It does not matter that you think a source is a tabloid or unreliable - as long as it is not categorized as unreliable on the guideline sites listed above or proven to be false, we can use it. I even added more sources which supported the claims made by the refs you removed! Not to mention that WP:BLP is the Biographies of living persons - and Zhoga is DEAD. Applodion (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's go through this one by one (again):
 * 1: Your quotes from above are irrelevant, as they belong to Biographies of living persons. However, Zhoga is dead. Applodion (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2.: The Mirror is indeed a problematic source, but per Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it can be used. In the context of this article, I tried to get as many other sources as possible to back up the Mirror stuff, and found several sites which claim the same. The discussion of the Mirror in the context of BLP do not apply here, again, as Zhoga is dead. However, I would be ready to remove the Mirror from the article if we come to an actual conclusion in this discussion.
 * 3: You claim that the Tag24 source is a tabloid and "referred only to information from an article by deprecated newspaper 'The Sun'". I have literally no idea how you conclude that. The ref does not mention The Sun at all. Tag24 is a regular German newspaper.
 * 4: "MEAWW Entertainment is a celebrity news site". This is plainly false. It is a news site which has "celebrity news" as a category, just as it has a "coronavirus" category - which does not mean that it is a "coronavirus site". MEAWW is not listed in Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a unreliable source, thus there is no reason to consider it unreliable.
 * Applodion (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1: Your quotes from above are irrelevant, as they belong to Biographies of living persons. However, Zhoga is dead.
 * I already provided the very specific section of BLP that deals with that above. BLP applies and I already established that by citing the rules. Why are you making me re-litigate that?


 * 2.: The Mirror is indeed a problematic source, but per Reliable sources/Perennial sources
 * RS/PS makes it clear that it is a tabloid. BLP says Wikipedia is not a tabloid. BLP does apply.


 * 3: You claim that the Tag24 source is a tabloid and "referred only to information from an article by deprecated newspaper 'The Sun'".
 * I concluded that by reading the article, which attributed it's information to the Sun. Did you not read the article?


 * 4: "MEAWW Entertainment is a celebrity news site". This is plainly false.
 * I was quoting the source. It is not false. It is their claim. You are behaving in an excessively combative way towards what were good faith edits, and I don't understand why. What is your intent here? To improve the article, or to defend tabloids?--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not "behaving in an excessively combative way". I am trying to prevent someone from nuking half an article for nonsense reasons. BLP does not apply here. It says so in the BLP guidelines: "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources." Furthermore, your POV-based definition of whatever you do not like as "tabloid" does not make a source automatically unreliable. Thus, your responses to 1), 2), and 4) are simply false. (BTW, Meaww does not define itself as "celebrity news site". It says about itself that it is "one of the world's fastest growing entertainment news publishers with offices in the US and India". This simply means that they pride themselves on reporting on these topics, not that they only cover those. Zhoga was hardly a "celebrity".) In regards to 3), "I concluded that by reading the article, which attributed it's information to the Sun" - In all honesty, do you even read German? I wonder how you conclude that Tag24 is basing its content on the Sun without it mentioning the Sun even once. Applodion (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I have removed the most dubious source from the article, the Daily Mirror. Applodion (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have thought about this again: Frankly, despite strongly disagreeing with your position, I don't want an endless edit war and I do know that the sources we discuss here are not the greatest examples of journalism. So how about this: I am also going to remove Tag24, as it is certainly a newspaper of the Boulevard kind and thus of lesser quality than other newspapers (however, it is still not comparable in badness with what you regard as unreliable tabloid - and it does not cite The Sun). In return, we keep MEAWW. Their article on Zhoga does showcase actual research - for example, they mention his involvement in battles which are not mentioned in English sources, meaning that the MEAWW author actually looked in Russian/Ukrainian media. And, as I said above, they are not categorized as unreliable source per current Wikipedia guidelines. Would this compromise be acceptable to you? Applodion (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I do not think that "the sources reporting war crimes and Nazism are of only medium quality, and do not provide proof aside of hearsay". "Medium quality" - yes, maybe, although valid RS. "Hearsay" - no. This is very much a matter of personal judgement, and I am on a fence here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With "hearsay", I meant to convey that literally no local source has accused him of being a Nazi or torturing / killing POWs. When the discussion with ConfusedAndAfraid took place (see above), I tried to find as many Ukrainian and Russian sources on him as possible. Naturally, the Ukrainian sources were extremely critical of him, calling him a traitor, warlord, drug-addict, and brutal thug who mistreated his own fighters. However, none of these anti-Russian, local sources called him a Nazi or POW murderer at any point. Naturally, one would expect Ukrainian media of all sources to highlight anything negative they could dig up. That is what makes me apprehensive about stating Nazism and POW mistreatment as facts. Applodion (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is a "local source" and what in the world does it have to do with Wikipedia policies? Also, the torturing and killing of POWs is well documented.  Volunteer Marek   08:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Local" in the sense that, as I said, Ukrainian media appears to have never accused him of torture and Nazism (though if you can find a source from Ukraine which does accuse him of Nazism and torture, please add it to the article). I am also not saying that he was innocent; my point is only that it is odd that sources most hostile to Zhoga did not mention the worst crimes which Western sources attribute to him. Applodion (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where this idea that the text has to be supported by “local sources” (whatever that means). There’s nothing in WP:RS even close to anything like that. All that’s needed is *reliable* sources.  Volunteer Marek   19:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the point, though; these English sources were not reliable for this kind of information. The source I added just today (which specializes in researching and countering far-right groups) outright said that the Neo-Nazi claims had zero grounding, and that the international media had provided no evidence for them; in essence, some non-local journalists confused Russian ultranationalism with Nazism. Applodion (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Further information available in Russian language sources
The article on Russian Wikipedia appears to have a few more sources, not currently used, discussing this officer's early life. I'm not sure if they're RS, but anyone who might want to try to include more information about him, other than his rank and circumstances of his death might find that useful. Otherwise, I'm not even sure this is enough of an article to warrant being published. Is someone seen to be notable, when the Wikipedia article about them is only produced after their demise, and the vast majority of references refer only to them dying? I'm not sure what the WP policies are on something like that.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't you see that I literally added these sources in an attempt to prove that the refs you are removing are supported by Russian & Ukrainian media? Applodion (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A pro-Russian source said he died while trying to evacuate civilians.
Ukrainian sources reject the story. Copied from Ukrainian Wikipedia Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)