Talk:Ihor Tenyukh

neofascist reference prevent linkrot

@Urartu TH: thanks for your insertion of the term neofascist with CNN and Salon links. i'd advise to use the proper inline ref format to prevent link rot. WP:LINKROT its easy: choose template from drop down menu and fill in title, esp date etc.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to death of Oleksandr Muzychko

The article as currently written creates the impression that Tenyukh's dismissal is somehow related to the death of rightist figure Muzychko. It is my understanding that Tenyukh was actually dismissed because he did not swiftly order combat operations against the Russian forces streaming into Crimea at the end of last month. Could someone look into this or provide a better explanation of how Muzychko and Tenyukh were connected?Amyzex (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated BLP violations and willful misrepresentation of sources

Ok, first, I'm no fan of the Svoboda party, in fact I find them to be a pretty nasty bunch. Having said that, you can't just call the subject of this article a "neo-fascist".

First, this is a biography of a living person, WP:BLP. The standards for including controversial information/text are higher. You need some serious sources and evidence to back up a claim like this for it to stay in the article. Note also that removing potentially defamatory information from BLP is under some circumstances actually exempt from the 3RR edit warring restriction. Of course, repeatedly putting in potentially defamatory information back into a BLP and edit-warring to keep it in, is most certainly not exempt from 3RR, and if anything, is looked upon as much worse than ye ol' plain "vanilla" edit warring. Bottom line is that once someone objects to a piece of controversial info in a BLP article, it is up to the person who wants to *add* that info in to go to the talk page and make their case and get consensus for it (in other words, it shouldn't be me who's starting the discussion)

Second, and equally seriously, what we have here is a willful misrepresentation of sources. The is being changed to "neo-fascist [1][2][3]" where the [1], the [2], and the [3] are supposedly sources which support the contentious material. These three sources are supposedly Radio Free Europe, an editorial from CNN and an editorial from Salon. There are so many issues here...

If even one of these sources does not actually say that Svoboda is a "neo-fascist" then this is at best misattribution. By putting a citation to, say, Radio Free Europe, right after "neo-fascist" what you are claiming is that Radio Free Europe said that. If they didn't, you're "lying with citations". And gee, as it turns out, they didn't.

And then. As it turns out actually NONE of the sources call Svoboda "neo-fascist". The word "fascist" does not even appear in the RFE source. In RFE Svoboda is described as a "nationalist party", not the same thing. The CNN editorial piece is entitled "Rein in Ukraine's neo-fascists" but it does not refer to Svoboda by that term. Rather it refers to the party as "far right" and at one point "ultra-nationalist". Not the same thing. Finally, the Salon piece, mostly quoting some "antifascist activist", also calls the party "ultra-nationalist".

So not only is anyone source being misrepresented, but ALL THREE citations are misrepresented. Apparently with purpose and willfully.

On top of that (like I said, many issues). Two of these three sources are editorials. One, the CNN source, is very clearly labeled as such "CNN Opinion". The Salon is essentially the same. Editorials and opinions are NOT reliable sources except for the opinions of the subjects (hence, you could use them in the article on David Speedle, if such existed, but not here). They are absolutely NOT reliable sources for controversial POV pushing on BLP articles!

Lastly, this issue popped up and was discussed over at the Svoboda (political party) article itself. There the party is described as "nationalist" and "right-wing populist" but as "neo-fascist" without a serious discussion and attribution. Now maybe, just maybe, if there was consensus over at Svoboda article to refer to the party as "neo-fascist" then you could come over here and say, "hey, I know it's a BLP but that's how we call it over there". But you can't do even that.

You want to call the party "ultra-nationalist" or "far-right" I'm sure it should be easy enough to marshal enough reliable sources (not editorials, ones which actually say that) to support that and I'm fine with that being the description. But don't push it ("it" as in POV) with the "neo-fascist" Putin propaganda.

Ok. Please be aware that in addition to the fact that BLP violations can get you smacked with blocks and sanctions a lot quicker and heavier than just regular POV pushing shenanigans, the fact that this article deals with a topic related to Eastern Europe means that Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions apply per WP:ARBEE. So let this message be a notification.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues in general

Because this is a BPL every single piece of text which is not properly cited should be removed. Which would be most the article. I've taken out the stuff that looks controversial and I'll give the rest a week, then, unless someone finds the appropriate sources, all else goes too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Svoboda is right-wing

I think it can be accepted that Svoboda is right-wing. But as is noted in the main Wikipedia article on the party, it is right wing and "some" call it far right. Accordingly in this article on a member of the party its orientation must be called right wing, not far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs) 09:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ihor Tenyukh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101107074749/http://rt.com:80/Politics/2010-03-18/crimea-black-sea-fleet.html to http://www.rt.com/Politics/2010-03-18/crimea-black-sea-fleet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)