Talk:Svoboda (political party)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comments

So Vladimir Zhirinovsky isn't ultra right wing becuse he's Russian but these people are ultra right wing because they don't want to look like Russians? Somebody on Wikipedia is pushing his own racist agenda's Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideology

What exactly is "Social Nationalism", and how does it differ from National Socialism? --Tavrian 21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about Svoboda ideology but here is a good definition of Social Nationalism (a type of nationalism) [1]. Hope that helps. The book also says that the more common term is Civic nationalism. Of course Svoboda may mean something different. Ostap 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Euronat

According to Kyiv Post the party is a member of Euronat, but according to the Euronat website it doesn't have any Ukrainian members... so I assume there not members. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.svoboda.org.ua/dopysy/zmi/010319/ --Vasyl` Babych (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Light boxes with “Ukrainian Division Halychyna, They defended Ukraine” inscription ordered by Svoboda

See here. worth mentioning in this or other articles? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume they mean 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian), see photo here and the "Red army fans" reaction to it here. What picture of wich statue did the "Red army fans" place on there poster? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 interesting sources of information to expand this article

here + here + here, but I don't have the time now.... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

well, these are opinion pieces. Kyiv Post is notoriously anti-right and pro-yulia. the icare link obviously has a POV to push...--Львівське (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

3 fingers

What do the 3 upright fingers in the logo stand for and (how) is it related to the history of Ukraine? — Mariah-Yulia (talk)

Look to Coat of arms of Ukraine, lol. --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

three fingers is stylized Coat of Arms of Ukraine (and Old Ruthenia 1000 years ago) and also holy buddha-symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.162.43.68 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How about the 2002 elections?

Oleh Tyahnybok run those elections on a Our Ukraine Bloc ticket. But the Ukrainian wikipedia says (without a source!) that the party did run in consistency’s and sd.net says it did not run at all. Anybody good a good source on that?
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 03:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If the British National Front article has no “Controversies” section…

Why should this article have one? Unless you think British National Front is not controversial (if so why?). The “Controversies” thingies should be placed in the rest of the article. Besides since when did wikipedia became the place to read transcriptions of Svoboda Savika Shustera (Freedom of Savik Shuster). And is it so newsworthy what Natalia Vitrenko, Hanna Herman and “Lev Myrymsky the resident of Crimea” (phrasing it that way makes it look like either Crimea has only one inhabitant or he is a significant person there… his party does not get enough votes there to be significant (around 5%)) think about "Svoboda"? I think not.
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 04:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Old version can be read here (in itself it is interesting, but it belongs in a +100 page biography about Oleh Tyahnybok not in wikipedia in this form). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 04:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I found the section quite good, but maybe poorly named. I think the article has some bias in it, as such, the section was a relief for it. It has a great quote from the leader.Stepanstas (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrative resource makes Svoboda big?

Professor Umland talks of "political machinations by Party of Regions that tried to split the ukrainophile national vote, and to reduce the vote count of the main opposition group, Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna party by promoting Svoboda". Since unlike the rest of the article he shows no proof I left a According to Umland "political machinations by the Party of Regions that tried to split the ukrainophile national vote, and to reduce the vote count of the main opposition group, Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna party by promoting Svoboda" out of this article. Although in the book "Virtual Politics - Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World" Andrew Wilson proofs this sort of practices have taken place in Ukraine (then towards Our Ukraine and Socialist Party of Ukraine). Any objection to this?
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Since now also novelist Andrey Kurkov has also accused the Party of Regions of giving "unofficial support" to Svobada to make there main opponent BYuT weaker I decided to put those accusation into this article since they seem widespread now (Umland and Kurkov do not seem to work together). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Social Nationalism

A certain user has been adamantly attempting to change the pipe link of the group's ideology of "social nationalism" from going to Left-wing nationalism. Social nationalism is a left-wing nationalist ideology. They are synonymic. This is why the LWN article on the .ru and .ua wiki's is titled 'social-nationalism'. The user who is making the edits is well aware of this, but can't seem to wrap his head around how 'ideology' and 'political position' are two different things (that is, them being a "right wing" party with a 'left wing' position, like it's a paradox). The very fact that "social nationalism" has the word "social" in it, (socialism being the epitome of "left"), should make this dispute a non-starter, but alas, it is now. Any other users want to weigh in?--Львівське (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Kyiv Post describes Svoboda as the "right-wing nationalist Svoboda political party".

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency refers to Svoboda as "A right-wing nationalist Ukrainian party" that disturbs Jews.

Going back to 1997-1998, when the party used the name social-nationalist, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism stated that

The Ukrainian Social National Party (USNP) is an extremist, right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism. It has about 2,000 members, mostly youth and young adults, in the areas of western Ukraine. Its registration by the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice in November 1995 was not rescinded even after party members caused riots in 1996 and 1997 (on May 9, Victory Day over the Germans, and November 7, Communist Revolution Day) in Lvov and other cities. Hundreds, mostly communists, were injured in these riots. ([2], emphasis mine)

Of course, "German National Socialism" is another ideological concept that sounds vaguely left-wing but is actually described by most scholars as right-wing, and not labelled "left-wing nationalist."

Since these are reliable sources (WP:RS), we need to rely on them - and not on editors' judgment about what "social-nationalist" means. To do so would be WP:OR.

Actually, what you're doing is OR. You are coming to your own conclusions on their social-nationalist program based on out of context quotes from sources.--Львівське (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you are doing OR on the basis of the name that they used. The fact that it was called the "Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine" is not evidence of it being ideologically left-wing. If the party is introduced as "right-wing nationalist" in the Kyiv Post (no comma between right-wing and nationalist), it is "right-wing nationalist" rather than "left-wing nationalist" per WP:RS. You do need equivalent or better secondary sources (or indisputable primary ones) showing the published description of this party as "right-wing nationalist" to be out of context - and not assertions of your own. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If Sboboda is "right-wing nationalist", how can its ideology become a "left-wing nationalism" on Wikipedia?

Whatever assumptions about "social-nationalist" you may regard as true, there apparently is no evidence that the party either self-describes as "left-wing" or is actually described that way by any sources. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing 'ideology' and 'political position'. The latter defines what part of the political spectrum they lean towards, the former is, well, their program.They are two separate words and that is why right-wing and nationalist pipe link to different articles, respectively. They are a right-wing party. They are a nationalist party. What kind of nationalism? Social nationalism, a form of left-wing nationalism. There is no contradiction going on here.--Львівське (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I am confusing ideology and political position. (You are linking "Social-Nationalism" to left-wing nationalism in the ideology section of the infobox; I am linking to Ukrainian nationalism.) And I don't mind linking to left-wing nationalism in pinciple, but to be a left-wing nationalist party, a party must share left-wing views. To be a right-wing party, a party must share right-wing views. If sources describe the party as "right-wing nationalist," what is the problem?

In western Ukraine, in particular, but by no means limited to this region, a plethora of right-wing nationalist groups, such as the Social Nationalist Party, the Ukrainian Nationalist League, and other self proclaimed successsors to the OUN, more and more frequently insist on a hard-line nationalist policy toward Russia. . . . (Prizel, Ilya. (1994). "The influence of ethnicity on foreign policy: the case of Ukraine". In Sporzluk, Roman (ed.), National identity and ethnicity in Russia and the new states of Eurasia (Volume 2 of The International Politics of Eurasia). p. 121. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Emphasis mine.)

You may hold that the party is left-wing - for humor's sake, you may even be right. But Wikipedia is written based on what the sources tell us, not what we "know is true". Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but if you reading these RS's verbatim and out of context, then what good are sources? You're reading right-wing as an adjective to nationalist, when in the LWN case its all part of a single proper noun. You say yourself that "to be a left wing nationalist party, they must share left wing views", well, by that definition the social in social-nationalism should be sticking out as what makes it politically leftist. Though they advocate social welfare, that doesn't make them a LW party, because 9/10 other things the stand for are all still RW. One LW stance on economics doesn't make them a centrist party or anything like that.--Львівське (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If sources -- the Kyiv Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Ilya Prizel (1994), how are they supposed to be read? Figuratively? Political labels don't mean as much as you believe - the Italian Social Republic was a fascist state, the Spanish Republican Social Movement is a neo-fascist group, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is not held up as either liberal or democratic, etc. You claim that Svoboda advocates social welfare, but then write that "that doesn't make them a LW party, because 9/10 other things the stand for are all still RW. One LW stance on economics doesn't make them a centrist party or anything like that." Well, that sure begs the question: if they are a right-wing party - "one LW stance on economics doesn't make them a centrist party or anything like that" - what makes them a "left-wing nationalist" party at the same time? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, this wasn't too hard to dig up, just had to read the sub-section on LWN on the Nationalism wiki article, but: "Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)"

And here are some snippets from the journal article cited in that sentence:

• "‘socialist nationalism’ is here used to mean the socialist development of a democratic or radical nationalism whose origins go back to the French Revolution."
• "This latter type of nationalism, a nationalism of the right, defined the nation in quite different terms, and envisaged its unity and security as depending on the overthrow of the democratic regime and its replacement by an authoritarian system."
• "nationalism of the left with the following features. The nation is defined as a democratic community [with] its own distinguishing characteristics: a particular history, language, and culture. This particular history involves a common past of resistance to oppression and tyranny, whether internal or external to the nation. In this perspective, the nation is the context within which all citizens can participate in exercising their democratic rights and in that way shape their own destiny."
• "Right-wing nationalism defines the nation in terms of mystical non-rational or irrational concepts, such as that of race, or blood, or what Barres called ‘la terre et les morts’, the soil and the dead"

So what defines LWN from RWN is the Left is based on democracy, (socialism), and nation (ethnicity; history, language, culture). The Right is authoritarian and racialist. Svoboda is very much the former. In regards to their democratic stance, in case you were in doubt, #29: "Require the widest direct democracy in local communities - referendum, plebiscite, general meetings and so on. Hold local referendums on vital issues. Provide a mechanism for communities to veto decisions of local governments" I hope this helps --Львівське (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your argument, then, is based on the left-wing nationalism article on Wikipedia (not a reliable source), your interpretation of it in this instance (WP:OR), and your application of it to this article (WP:SYNTHESIS). That cannot work. Left-wing nationalism may have a tendency to call for democratic principles, but there is no reason to suppose that right-wing ideologies and right-wing nationalists cannot employ the rhetoric of democratic values as well. Your difficulty of interpretation is compounded by the fact that the labels used by parties like Svoboda don't always correspond to the actual substance of the ideology -- and this is pointed out in the secondary sources that discuss the Svoboda party. In this case, Andreas Umland observes that

But, it would also be difficult for national democratic groups to move from the current informal cooperation with "Svoboda" at public events or in television debates to an official alliance. The programmes of the nationalists and the national democrats do have points of contact on issues of national historiography, pro-Europeanism or anti-Putinism. What is more, Yanukovych’s recent attempts to change the Ukrainian political system have brought the interests of all nationally oriented parties closer together. The battle to preserve their organizations as significant public actors, and to protect the independence of Ukraine on the international stage, may lead to further rapprochement between the "Orange" parties and Svoboda.

But outside this context, the fundamental mindset, political ideas and future vision of Ukraine among liberal national democrats on the one hand, and ethnic nationalists on the other, have little in common. This becomes clear already from reading Svoboda’s programme. And, it should be noted that, typically for parties of this kind, official documents only partially reflect the real party ideology. They are written to comply with the political correctness of their countries, and thus are more moderate (often considerably so) than the actual, internally discussed agenda of the given organization.

. . . Tyahnybok’s party is a member of the so-called Alliance of European National Movements (AENM), which includes the French right-wing extremist Front national led by Le Pen and the Italian neo-fascist party "Fiamma Tricolore" led by Romagnoli.

Svoboda’s membership of this pan-European alliance is a good illustration of the type of nationalism represented by Tyahnybok’s movement. The AENM is not an association of parties like the Austrian Freedom Party, which could be classified as right-wing populist. Besides "Svoboda," the Front national and Fiamma Tricolore, the AENM comprises several extremely nationalist parties. These groups are even more xenophobic than the neo-populist right-wing parties that have become widespread in Europe recently. AENM members include the British National Party, the Belgian National Front, the Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik), the Portuguese National Renovator Party, and also the Spanish Republican Social Movement. These parties occupy the far right-wing niche in the political spectra of their countries, and exist in greater or lesser isolation from the political mainstream. (Umland, Andreas (5 January 2011). "Ukraine's Party System in Transition? The Rise of the Radically Right-Wing All-Ukrainian Association 'Svoboda'". Geopolitka Centre for Geopolitical Studies. Emphasis mine.)

And that's coherent with the way we are expected to write our articles according to policy - not based on Svoboda itself, but based on what the journalists and scholars say about it. That is made clear in WP:SECONDARY - and I will quote it to make it clear what it states in an explicit manner:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
(Emphasis mine)

If you still think that "left-wing nationalist" is an appropriate way to categorize Svoboda, you need to find secondary sources to support your view. I have provided various secondary sources which assert the opposite. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As it currently stands you are debating the following quote, which is cited from an academic journal, that LWN is"occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism".To that end none of your sources apply here. If you can find a source stating that Svoboda does not adhere to Left-wing Nationalism or that Social Nationalism, their ideology, is not a form of LWN, then you may have something. Outside of that you have not once provided a legitimate source that pertains to this discussion, just out of context quotes that synthetically combine their position, "right wing", and their main platform, "nationalism". Your combination of these two into a single entity is a form of WP:SYN and I kindly ask that you read the source material and understand the topics and material you are arguing before continuing. --Львівське (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to quote an academic journal article, you have the burden of at least identifying its title and author, and providing a convenience link if available. (I don't see any such journal on the left-wing nationalism article.) It also should be clear that the claims made theirein need to be relevant here - are we talking about "socialist nationalism" as applied to left-wing Marxist groups, or are we talking about a right-wing social-nationalist party (Svoboda)? We aren't discusssing left-wing nationalism in general; we are discussing the ideology of Svoboda, which is discussed as "right-wing" and "right-wing nationalist", but not "left-wing" and not "left-wing nationalist". Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The link is in the ref tag, and if you bothered to even read the Nationalism article you would see it there too, in the first sentence. The ideology of Svoboda is "Social-Nationalism" and I have provided proof after proof that Social-Nationalism is synonymic to Left-wing nationalism. Your argument, however, is that what their ideology is doesn't matter, because they are generally a right-wing party, and thus you are inferring through some of your own original conclusions that there is a contradiction between them being right-wing and social-nationalist. Your entire argument is based on your own synthesis of separate topics.--Львівське (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any link in the ref tag you posted, because there is no references section to go with that ref. The first ref in the Nationalism article is National Identity, apparently an unrelated book by Anthony D. Smith that you would need to give some page numbers for. The source for "Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)" is a 1987 journal article, not available in full, apparently discussing nationalism among supporters of socialism (see the abstract). It does not discuss the Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine, which formed years after its publication and is described as a rightist group. You are appealing to an unrelated source that employs similar terminology in order to avoid the various aforementioned sources that directly deal with Svoboda's right-wing nationalist politics. In fact, the Stephen Roth link I provided earlier states that Svoboda is a "right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism" - please try to be alert to the unsubtle contradiction. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need to discuss Svoboda, it discusses Social-nationalism and says it is synonymic with LWN. End of story. And it's available to me and I can confirm the contents of said article.--Львівське (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Some background info that might help this discussion: a Ukrainian party containing different political groups with diverging ideological outlooks is quite normal in Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

9 May 2011

There are some recent "developments" around and possible involving Svoboda:

• Lviv nationalists clash with police
• Ukrainian nationalist protests anger Moscow (I don't see any Svoboda-flags in this video)
• Regions Party calls Svoboda a 'fascist organization,' demands it be banned

Should these be mentioned in this article, or are the to newsy? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 11:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Right of Left 2

I removed the "left" because it is clear the original investigation and simply illogical. Let's start from the beginning.

• 1 A party sometime in the authoritative sources dates itself to the left? No
• 2 Authoritative sources attributed the party's left? None.
• 3. The party contacts with the leftist nationalists, such as the Basques or the Irish? No
• 4. The Left Party will hold what we videm in Lviv? None.
• 5. The provisions in the program like a "superpeople" and so it is left edeology ? No
• 6. By the way, most parties of the left nationalism are on the left blocks, and international. Liberty is in them? No

I'm not right and not left, and I do not care about the account policy. But I do not understand why committed without au and any justification we need to keep the article clearly incorrect conclusion? Mistery Spectre (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The paramilitary organization Ukraine’s Patriot

I wrote in the lead "The paramilitary organization Ukraine’s Patriot is associated with Svoboda" based on my explanation of a reliable source. Although the source is not very clear on how this Ukraine’s Patriot is connected with Svoboda. Is it so loosely connected with it it should not be mentioned in the lead? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Other wikipeia's claim this organization broke ties with them in 2005 (although no sources used there...); There website holds no reference with Svoboda.... Hence I am removing the sentence from the lead... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Patriot Ukrainy made a statement staying it was severing absolutely any contact with Svoboda here: http://www.una-unso.info/articlePrint/id-2/subid-9/artid-1051/lang-ukr/index.html. And in spring/summer they attacked Svoboda members giving leaflets in Kharkiv http://www.svoboda.org.ua/diyalnist/novyny/022990/, http://newzz.in.ua/newzz/1148868398-u-xarkovi-pobili-aktivistiv-svobodi.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljudyna (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Internet ‘Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre’ (the centre was later renamed after Ernst Jünger)

An editor has complained about the sentence currently in the article "In 2005 the party founded the Internet ‘Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre’ (the centre was later renamed after Ernst Jünger)." I am thinking it could have been a blog from a member (or something), thus that the Polish historian made a mistake, but a reference is needed to remove or change referenced information. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What reference is needed? Some unknown author can write that Svoboda receives money from aliens from mars, and it's credible enough to enter? Or, at least edit what you originally wrote and say that "it is claimed that the party created...", because, if you've noticed, the author doesn't give any source in his article, either. I'm saying that in English a center implies an orginization and where is any information about it? It was a blog with that name which is very different. Also, here, the member denies having control over that blog: http://ukr.obozrevatel.com/news/nimetskij-rezhiser-hoche-znyati-film-pro-koruptsiyu-na-ukrainsko-polskomu-kordoni.htm. Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

After some Googling I found out that the centre seems nothing more then this livejournal account.... That indeed seems not party afiliated, hence I removing this "centre" from the article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Beta Press

Unfortunately, Beta Press is not known for accurate or impartial reporting. Let's not use them to portray individuals as pedophiles in the future. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

POV/SYN edits regarding AENM

Figured I'd start up a talk. The line in the lede, "Svoboda is a member of the Alliance of European National Movements (AENM), along with the Italian neo-fascist party Fiamma Tricolore and the prominent French far-right party Front National.[7]" which is taken from Umland's op-ed piece just seems POV'ish and slanted. I think it would be sufficient to say they are a member of the AENM. Why cherry pick what other members are in the group? If there is no connection between them and Svoboda, why is it in the lede? Umland includes these groups because he is trying to make a point in his piece and make connections between Svoboda and other rightist or fascist movements. In the lede, it should just be giving the straight goods, not making WP:SYN observations. Just because Umland makes an observation doesn't mean it would be encyclopedic to do the same. Why not include Jobbik in the lede? The BNP? NF?--Львівське (говорити) 22:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, good point in the recent edit, but what should (if any parties are mentioned) define those parties? Should it not be something related to Svoboda, like nationalism? Why mention fascism or any other ideology? Why not call them eurosceptics? Why the countries, is Ukraine related to France and Italy? I'm just not seeing the connections unless the point is to just name-drop controversial parties and push the reader to draw conclusions.--Львівське (говорити) 23:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Львівське here; besides people can click on Alliance of European National Movements and found out there what kind of "partners" Svoboda has. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being objective, Yulia Romero. By the way, maybe it isn't necessary to enter, but if you wanted to see if Svoboda is growing in the east, here is an example of a source http://www.svoboda.org.ua/diyalnist/novyny/020439/. They got almost 10% in Kharkiv and in Donetsk are around 3% now (from 0.19%), which is an increase of almost 16 times. Five years ago in western Ukraine they didn't even have 3%, nevermind 10%.

Also, well said, Львівське.Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

Don't now how related this is, but Patriot Ukraine (the radical splinter from Svoboda) is located in Kharkiv, and the NSBM scene in Ukraine is almost entirely in the east...which really bucks the trend of the west being the nationalist center.--Львівське (говорити) 23:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting observation, Львівське. And to go even further, almost all of the most influential Ukrainian nationalists in history are from the east (Donstov, Stsiborsky, Mikhnovsky, Shevchenko, etc). Ljudyna —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

I actuality don't see Kharkiv as being in Eastern Ukraine (I see it as being in Northern Ukraine...) When people mention "Eastern Ukraine" I usually only think of the Donbass... where they get 3%. I think that caused for your/a little confusion... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it strikes me that there is an awful lot of PoV in this article, which is interfering with its reliability. Does anyone know any good third-party sources on Svoboda? Ones with no affiliation with the party or its opponents? I know a subject like this is likely to divide opinion, but we must all try to be objective. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend sticking to journal articles. Not a lot to work with, though. I think the secondary sources should be kept to a minimum, ie, "critics say" and just keep it brief; not rely heavily on op-ed and slanted pieces to form major parts of the article - by either side. This page needs a lot of work. Ugh.--Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is that a lot of the article is taken from English language reports of people who are not as neutral as one thinks. The greatest source of information in this article is from the Kyiv post, which is owned by certain individuals abroad who are inheritantly against anything Christian, Ukrainian, or in general against any form of European culture. Because of that, that paper is institutionally hostile to Svoboda, yet the article here was practically written by them. The best place to find actual information is Svoboda's site, and to avoid possible bias, simply say what it is they support (i.e. returning nuclear weapons), without stating what they actually say about that (i.e. if they say it's good to have nuclear weapons). --Ljudyna (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Ljudyna

I find the Kyiv Post to be a great source and very impartial. I've yet to see them go hard ton Svoboda. They mostly support Tymoshchenko Bloc and will commonly syndicate pieces by prominent Ukrainian diaspora scholars.--Львівське (говорити) 01:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can we get some sort of consensus going on whether naming unrelated parties is WP:UNDUE weight? I think its like 3-0 right now --Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove--Львівське (говорити) 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove unrelated name dropping, scurrilous accusations, etc., etc. etc. This is not a political commentary article to assign guilt or innocence by association. Also, to suggest the the KIEV POST ownership is, based on the owner's name, "inheritantly [sic.] against anything Christian, Ukrainian, or in general against any form of European culture" should be retracted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I should mention that memberships in "other groups" are often used to both promote and attack reputability by association. Let's not indulge in that sort of "journalism" here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Both names appear to be used in reliable sources, but the new name does not seem to be more common. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

---

All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" → Svoboda (party) – Sovoboda is the common name of this political organization. Yerevanci (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Relevant scholarly works use All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda",[3][4] All-Ukrainian Union "Freedom",[5][6] or All-Ukrainian Association "Svoboda".[7] Ukraine's English-language newspapers use All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda", as well.(Kyiv Post, Kyiv Weekly)

I don't want to be rude but Kyiv Post does not seem to do that all the time; it seems to use "Svoboda" (stand alone) more)... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree; BBC News and other English sources seem to do so also. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but we should not let the usage in media be the only deciding factor. In the media, the most common name for the Republican Party (United States) is GOP. Still we are well-advised not to move the article, even though it would be the consequent implementation of WP:COMMON. Kyiv Post was only a supporting argument, my main argument was the usage in scholarly sources. --RJFF (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case I suport a move to GOP for Republican Party (United States) . I do think usage in media is the only deciding factor in naming of articles since people now subjects from the media; not from scholarly sources. Besides renaming Republican Party (United States) → GOP is confusing; renaming All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" → Svoboda (party) is not confusing. Hence I would not support: Republican Party (United States) → GOP— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Svoboda's presentation of book on SS Nachtigall Battalion in Crimea

that looks like a provocation... Do they do more of this kind of actions? And, if so, should it be mentioned in this article? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On site of Crimea organizatione All-Ukrainian Union "Freedom" [8] --Vasyl` Babych (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Batallion Nachtigal was a part of Wermacht, not SS. --149.156.67.237 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Interfax-Ukraine said it was a part of SS, so I was misinformed. Interfax-Ukraine never looked pro-Soviet, pro-Russian or anti-Ukrainian nationalism to me so I assume they where misinformed to, probably by someone who wanted to make Svoboda look bad/evil... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nachtigall was not even under direct command of Wermacht, but rather the German special operations Abwehr headed by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. Interfax tries to stay neutral, however it is a government agency and it does have a soviet mentality. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange edit today.........

Is this edit a joke? Atleast give a source for this info... A communist Ukrainian parliament outlawing a communist party in 1989? Did they even had the autority to do that? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It was done after the August putsch. There was a special parliamentary commission that investigated that issue. Among the commission members was Bohatyryova. Later the Constitution Court of Ukraine overturned the parliamentary commission conclusion as unconstitutional. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Igor Miroshnichenko Vs. Mila Kunis is not so interesting...

The current info in this Wikipedia article about Igor Miroshnichenko Vs. Mila Kunis is too long in my opinion. I would prefer to bold it all down in the sentence: In December 2012 a controversy arose when Svoboda deputy leader and member of parliament Ihor Miroshnychenko called Mila Kunis, a American actress of Ukrainian descent, ”not Ukrainian but a zhydovka” and placing the rest of the information in a footnote in the article. Now it looks like an MP talking about an Hollywood star is one of the most important things this party has ever done.... Seems to me that that is not so... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit misses an important point. They know that they are using words that at least half of the population find offensive. They have said that they are going to carry on using them.

In another language. He wasn't speaking Russian, nor was he addressing Russian speakers.--Львівське (говорити) 20:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the issue of wikilinks to other language Wikipedias - well it gives readers some ability to know who these people are, as opposed to no ability at all.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you find more noticeable "They know that they are using words that at least half of the population find offensive. They have said that they are going to carry on using them." then "What an MP says about an Hollywood star" rewrite the part entirely please. Now (to me) it just looks like Wikipedia is becoming TMZ on TV. I am an editor against "Wikirazzi" — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph has to be neutral point of view - not just cherry picking points normal people may like. That is why it needs to explain. As it happens, the Svoboda Party spokesman has a point that those who speak up against this are Jews, so that has to be mentioned too as part of balance.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

How about: In December 2012 a controversy arose when Svoboda deputy leader and member of parliament Ihor Miroshnychenko called Mila Kunis, a American actress of Ukrainian descent, ”not Ukrainian but a zhydovka”. Svoboda has repeatedly stated that it will not stop using such words, which it says are legitimate Ukrainian parlance.

I thought I had once read on Wikipedia linking to other Wikipedia's is discouraged.... But maybe I understood that wrong... Better link to this (+ the Ukrainian Wiki article is a TMZ on TV for now...) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally see no relevance "in that those who speak up against this are Jews". Besides this could all be explained in a long footnote. Now we have 1 incident who takes up 25% of the space of the section "Xenophobia". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The footnote I want is: Igor Miroshnichenko, Svoboda deputy leader and member of parliament, on December 19, 2012 drew criticism from Jewish organisations for calling American actress Mila Kunis, who was born in the Ukrainian SSR, ”not Ukrainian but a zhydovka,”[56] which they contended was a slur.[57] Svoboda has repeatedly stated that it will not stop using such words, which it says are legitimate Ukrainian parlance.[56] Professor Alexander Ponomarev stated that in the Ukrainian language the word does not have the anti-semitic connotations that it always does in the Russian language.[58] The Ukrainian Ministry of Justice has declared that Miroshnichenko's use of the word was legal because it is an archaic term for Jew, and not necessarily a slur. + sources as in Reference number 2 in the Wikipedia article about Mila Kunis. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this is such a joke of an event to take up so much space. One guy posts something completely inoffensive on Facebook, some "kiev jews" website picks up on it and criticizes it, and now it's in israeli press and we're talking about anti-semitism and all sorts of other nonsense? Surely this might fall under a rule about wikipedia not being a newspaper. While it received press attention by those looking to exploit the anti-semitism media machine, its relevance is overblown.--Львівське (говорити) 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of others in the lead

Today and on 1 January information on what political opponents of this party think about it was removed because RJFF and I believed that "what the political opponents of this party think about it, does not belong in the introductory section". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct.--Львівське (говорити) 20:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The party has to be described from a neutral point of view, especially in the lead section which should be a concise summary, not going to much into details. The view of the party's opponents might be outlined and explained somewhere else in the article, but certainly not in the first, introductory, paragraphs. --RJFF (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as is the lead section of (could be seen as Svoboda's UK-counterpart) the Wiki article on British National Party. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-corruption" in lead

I removed the parties reference to being "Anti-corruption" because it is not really neutral enough to put it like this in the lead (+ going to much into details...); all Ukrainian parties claim to be anti-corruption. It is not a unique quality of them and if they made no significant "victories" in "fighting corruption" it does not belong in the lead since this party is not widely known for its "victories" in "fighting corruption". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

PS Quotation marks where used because terms are synonyms. It is not a comment on anything! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The source is neutral and fine, and used throughout the article so I'm not sure what you're driving at. I agree that many Ukrainian political parties are anti-corruption, but I don't see why that should be a basis for exclusion. They are a major opposition party; it's not like the POR or CPU are vocally anti-corruption. The list itself (anti-communism, anti-corruption, and pro-ukrainian) isn't exactly in need of trimming for brevity.--Львівське (говорити) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject

I do not see the point to the current "Conflict of interest"-template since Lvivske is open for criticism and (at least my own) does not object to other editors balancing his edits. But the template says Please discuss further on the talk page. That is here and not at User_talk:Toddy1#COI... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand why this "conflict of interest" smear is going on against me. It appears to be completely fabricated and based on the fact that I "like" them. Me "liking" them doesn't mean I have an interest or stake in their representation. I have no dog in this race, so to speak.--Львівське (говорити) 23:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In parliament the party is working in cooperation with Batkivshchyna

I removed the above sentence from the article just now per Wikipedia:Recentism. This new parliament is not even 1 month in session, it is too early to say they are cooperating in it. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read quite a few times that they intend to act as a coalition, shouldn't sources from both sides talking a bout this be sufficient? It's not a matter of trends (and reporting early) but official alliances.--Львівське (говорити) 23:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

i readded it since upon further looking, they signed an actual agreement, so they absolutely are cooperating, officially.--Львівське (говорити) 23:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had overlooked this agreement... And you are right this belongs in the article (this agreement)... But not in the lead.... Please do not stuff the lead with details Lvivske... The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. This agreement is not one of the most important things in the history of Svoboda... (especially since we don't know yet if it will last...) I moved and rewrote it a bid. And I prefer to not put a qualification of Batkivshchyna in any other article then Batkivshchyna to prevent content forking and since it does not seem to be very relevant... in the past Batkivshchyna was in a coalition with the Socialist Party of Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the agreement might be better in the body. I think the reasoning behind my insertion was that there's this push by some editors to paint them as a "radical extreme right-wing" party, without any substance, but them being in an official coalition with a democratic center-right major party kind of shows the bigger picture in regards to their position/alignment.--Львівське (говорити) 23:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Expulsion from AENM=Hoax

Not only did Svoboda itself denied it was expelled from AENM I also could find no conformation of that story on Ukrayinska Pravda and let alone on an English lingua franca website. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We'll need an official hoax confirmation from a news source like polemika.ua for removal. Svoboda naturally would deny it.--Galassi (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We'll need confirmation from credible sources (AENM itself) before putting anything in the article. Until then it's only original research and retelling of rumors. Refrain from putting such unconfirmed information in the future. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.159.10 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the AENM isn't important enough to have an official website.--Львівське (говорити) 18:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it from the lede and it was put back. Is there a reason this is relevant to the intro? The AENM seems like a ragtag grouping of political parties, not all that relevant on any scale. If their coalition with Fatherland was removed (relevant to Ukrainian politics), why is this still there? (since it's irrelevant to European politics)--Львівське (говорити) 07:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. This type of info is already in the infobox very close to the lead. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:SPECULATION: Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. But on the other hand some good arguments that about the expulsion are given at: Talk:Alliance of European National Movements. It seems that they try to get rid of Svoboda Ministry of Truth-style. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed "Svoboda" was not expelled from Alliance of European National Movements... because it was never a member but an observer. A 24-01-2013 statement of the Alliance, the text of which has BBC Ukraine says they will remain them observers status. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

POV

How many more reliable, academic sources do you need to accept that this is the generally accepted classification of the party, that this is academic consensus? To comply with WP:NPOV, articles have to take into account all views that are represented in reliable sources. They don't have to take into account the view of the party itself and its supporters. If you would present reliable sources (by this I mean academic studies or books) that deny that Svoboda is far-right or that their nationalism is radical, I would agree to change the wording. But, at the moment, I can only see four different reliable sources by reputable political scientists, experts for Ukrainian politics (Shekhovtsov, Kuzio, Bojcun) or at least Eastern European politics (Rudling), all placing the party on the far-right. Their studies are all pretty up to date (late 2010 to 2012). There aren't any newer studies. On the other hand, I haven't seen a single source disputing this classification. Therefore, I have to ask you to please accept this academic consensus and stop trying to diminish the validity of these statements. --RJFF (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

one person saying "radical" is not consensus, neither is 2-3 dated sources saying "far right" or "extreme". Consensus is "right wing" since it's broad and generally overlapping among all sources. On the other hand, cherry picking politically loaded terms don't belong in the lede anyway as per wikipedia policy, especially if they are coming from biased or slanted sources; and your refusal to attribute the sources in question and present their subjective opinions as widespread common-knowledge fact is pretty shifty.--Львівське (говорити) 23:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted this question on the MOS and this is what was said:

"If there is a reliable, and ideally unbiased, source that defines the party as far right or whatever, then you should be able to include this descriptor in the lead, as long as it is clear that it is the source's description of the party, not Wikipedia's. Of course if there are multiple sources and there is no doubt as to the political stance (as would be the case with the Nazi Party for example) then you needn't be so careful."--Львівське (говорити) 06:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the GOP article as an example of neutrality. Note, no mention of "political spectrum" is mentioned, and it's alignment is spoken of in neutral generalities - not absolutes:--Львівське (говорити) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

:::"The Republican Party (also called the GOP, or "Grand Old Party") is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery activists in 1854, it dominated politics nationally for most of the period from 1860 to 1932. There have been 18 Republican presidents, the first being Abraham Lincoln, serving from 1861-1865, and the most recent being George W. Bush, serving from 2001-2009. Currently the party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the U.S. political spectrum."

There is no serious, academic source that would claim that the GOP as a whole is a far-right party. There are several academic studies (all of the recent studies dealing with Svoboda that I could find) that consider Svoboda far-right. If you would cite a single scholarly source that supports a different view, to show that the sources that I cited do not represent the whole academic community, I might think differently. But if all of the available sources dealing with Svoboda agree that it is far-right, I see no reason why the text should somehow disassociate from this classification, as Wikipedia articles are always to be based on third-party, reliable sources. --RJFF (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not far right, just right-wing; and a google search will yeild a million hits for "right wing" and "conservative right" with regard to the GOP - yet it's not something that's in their lede.--Львівське (говорити) 21:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW,, Alexander J. Motyl, who is an authority on this stuff, simply refers to them as "right-wing". I searched his other articles and he only refers to them as "right wing" several times, "right wing nationalist" once, "anti-Russian", and on one occasion he called them 'radical' but qualified it by saying they are no more radical than other political parties in Ukraine.

^{Most people would point to the right-wing Svoboda party under the leadership of the charismatic demagogue, Oleh Tyahnybok. And they’d be right. Svoboda (or, ironically, “Freedom”) is xenophobic, radical, and anti-democratic: the three defining features of extremism. But they’d be only partly right. No less xenophobic, no less radical, and no less anti-democratic are two other political groups—the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Party of Regions.} --Львівське (говорити) 00:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to add further to presenting information from a neutral point of view, look at the North Korea article. It doesn't start off with "North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship", but rather, the subjective labeling comes later in the intro section, in the format of "North Korea has been described as a totalitarian, Stalinist dictatorship[12][13][21][22][23]", which is similar to how I presented the far-right labeling - it's something that has been attributed to them, not something that is categorically 100% correct. Even in the NK example, where we know they absolutely are those things, the neutral way of presenting objective material is the aforementioned style. --Львівське (говорити) 03:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Svoboda

I'm Ukrainian and I can tell you that Svoboda is no different than Golden Dawn in Greece. Don't sugar this article, they are far right neofascist loonies. Svoboda wants Ukrainie free of Poles, Jews and Russians they also believe in Jewish conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not confuse trying to create a neutral point of view Wikipedia article with "sugaring" ; if you feel this article is missing some important info please add it with the use of references (but keep in mind that what some individual members believe/say does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Svoboda). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And then they suddenly were called "Neo-fascist"

I just undid an IP-edit that introduced to the lead "Svoboda is a Ukrainian neofascist political party" per WP:UNDUE + WP:NOTEVERYTHING= 1 professor/scholar made this comparison... That is not enough to include it in this Wikipedia article. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. (+) (Generally,) the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use headlines of articles to claim the party is Neo-fascist if in the rest of the article it is not claimed they are... Headlines are generally written by a copy editor, but may also be written by the writer, the page layout designer, or other editors... (in this case the writer of the headline did not read the article so it seems...). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Below userbox I created today explains my editing etiquettes/actions on "Svoboda" much better much better then I did so far on this Talkpage:

This user is against
editors who cry wolf.

People who cry wolf do only make problems worse! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Official history page

User RJFF recently reverted a bunch of material on the grounds that 'primary sources arent allowed on wikipedia', which is patently false. In the historical context, primary sources are crucial in gathering quotes or other direct information, like their official views or statements. The source in question was mostly used to reference official dates, quotes, or stances they took - and was referred to as such and was transparent. While primary sources can have issues, they are not bad, as every source is a primary source in the right context. For further reference on the allowed and accepted use of primary sources, please see WP:USINGPRIMARY.--Львівське (говорити) 14:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never said that 'primary sources arent allowed on wikipedia' and you quote an essay, not a policy or guideline. The official policy is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." (WP:NOR) --RJFF (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The proble in this case is less that a primary source is cited, but that a first-party source is cited, which is published by the subject of the article itself. Therefore, this source is not independent and cannot be neutral. --RJFF (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Primary and first part are the same things, first off. Second, if you have a problem with a source's veracity or bias, that's something you take to the talk page, but to dismiss a source because it isn't "neutral" with regards to official policy or dates, that's just crazy. Please look at the article and actually read the material and context before reverting/edit warring. If you have a problem, tag it, and use the talk page. You don't own the article to set wikipedia policy - which is very much in favor of how those sources were used here. What I'm seeing here is more along the lines of "I don't like Svoboda, so their sources aren't neutral" without even pointing out what POV was being pushed.--Львівське (говорити) 20:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Radical"

The cited scholars (Olszański and Polyakova) do not use "radical nationalist" as an expression of their personal opinion vis-à-vis Svoboda, but in order to distinguish their variant of nationalism from the "liberal" or "moderate nationalism" espoused by the centre-right parties like Batkivshchyna and Our Ukraine (which are nationalist parties too, albeight not radical nationalist like Svoboda). These sources are not journalistic opinion pieces, but academic analysis by political scientists. It is not up to Wikipedia users to simply discard their findings per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --RJFF (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(Not really related here but this info might be useful) Batkivshchyna and Our Ukraine are most of the time described by scholars as National Democrats. And most of the time their ideology is more "all-over-the-place" then "centre-right". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RJFF and just added 3 scholarly sources to back his(/our) case up. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

These are still the opinions of scholars dependent on a certain period of time and should not be in the lede. Some scholars define the republican party as far-right, but it's not in their lede/intro. I just read analysis that the Democratic party is far-right by European standards - this is also not in their lede because it's not an absolute defining characteristic. This is an improper use of sources and clear undue weight. If you want to talk about their "radicalism", focus on a policy of theirs that defines them that has appropriate weight. Most of this stuff should be in the body, not directly in the first line of the article. Follow the guidelines and format of other political party articles and keep POV pushing out.--Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources by quite a few political scientists who are doing research on Ukrainian politics and/or nationalism in Eastern Europe. This is not a fringe view, but mainstream among the relevant academic community. Several articles and books dealing with Ukrainian politics explain that there are distinct variants of Ukrainian nationalism. Batkivshchyna and Our Ukraine, for example, are described as "moderate nationalists" or "national democrats", while Svoboda are considered "radical nationalists". If Svoboda's ideology is different from Batkivshchyna's and Our Ukraine's, it is important to note this in the article and not just to write "nationalist", which is too general and imprecise. --RJFF (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And describing political parties in a manner consistent with that of scholars is not "POV pushing," obviously. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is apply attribution of what is obviously an objective opinion.--Львівське (говорити) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

---

All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" → Svoboda (political party) – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE Երևանցի ^talk 08:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC) The current title is unnecessarily long. Svoboda is clearly the most common name of the party in English-language sources:

• Encyclopædia Britannica - Svoboda Party
• BBC - Svoboda: The rise of Ukraine's ultra-nationalists
• Kyiv Post - Behind Svoboda Party's bad press
• The Jerusalem Post - Experts weigh in on rise of Ukrainian Svoboda party

Besides all this, their website is titled "Svoboda - Ukrainian nationalist political party"

Also, I changed the proposed name from "Svoboda (party)" to "Svoboda (political party)" since it looks like an accepted form on Wikipedia. See Ahva (political party), Attack (political party), Boston Tea Party (political party), Golden Dawn (political party), Or (political party), Public Affairs (political party), Rodina (political party)) --Երևանցի ^talk 08:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Considering their official English site calls it The Svoboda Party, and the english press often just says 'svoboda' instead of the long-form name, I'm going to support this move. It'll make wiki-linking easier too--Львівське (говорити) 16:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as well per official usage by the subject and most current headlines that aren't Chinese media reflecting that there is no character for Svoboda in the original Chinese. Sai Weng (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kolomoyskyi link an important theory

Ladies and gentlemen, there's a potentially must-have issue with Svoboda: its relations personally with Jewish-Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoyskyi. Persistent rumours are that he's the behind-the-curtain party sponsor (which was, they say, proven by some leaks or investigative publications). Believe my word: this is the #1 conspiracy theory regarding both Svoboda and him.

Moreover, I heard that Kolomoyskyi has recently commented the Svoboda positively, talking of "understanding" and "respect", alongside anti-Semitism concerns. Dig for refs, anyone? Ukrained2012 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should conspiracy theory junk be mixed in with an encyclopedic article? There are also baseless rumors that they're funded by the Kremlin to destabilize the west, now it's the Jews behind them? Without a smoking gun or scholarly assertion this is a non starter. --Львівське (говорити) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not "now") Benya's and Putin's funding are old, well-established theories. At least the Russian one is demonstrably supported by well-published "scholarly assertions" - which I encourage anyone to dig for and include. Nowhere Ms. Farion is publicized better than on Russian state TV. Besides, who are we to dismiss possibility of confidential actions as "baseless"? Oh, and Kolomoyskyi's positive remarks re: Svoboda are not "rumors" at all: they were public and reported as far as I remember. And finally: I'm not rewording myself to stress that I don't insist on including yet, this was a preliminary note in hope of further successful research. I hope anyone agrees that these theories, if sourced, would be way more important that swastika-like shapes. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Asking once again)

Ladies and gentlemen, is the following sentence representatives of Svoboda attending social campaigns such as protests against price increases and leafleting against drugs and alcohol meant "Patriot of Ukraine"'s campaigns? Otherwise, it needs to be reworded as non-sense.

As far as I know, Svoboda organizes actions against drugs and alcohol anyway, without obvious "close links" to PU. I barely heard of PU though. Ukrained2012 (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ukrained2012, there are three sources provided in that particular section that are freely available online, and a fourth I can't access, noting the links between Svoboda and the Patriot of Ukraine. Unfortunately, it is the fourth that provides those details. Perhaps the editor who added them would provide the quote from the book in the cite. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of the page link--Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, Львівське. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

from the part i inserted that was removed, just want to post here a direct quotation that dealt with this topic in the same book so as to show I wasn't trying to add lib.

"...but still favor 'white racism'. Here, Tyahnybok's party is an obvious choice, as no other major political force addresses the issue of Asian immigration officially." p256

--Львівське (говорити) 20:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I realized that after, searching for the wording you'd used. We could always add that text into the initial part of the quote, if we could find more of it. -Darouet (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of xenophobia

I think the correct subtitle is just Xenophobia. There is more than enough facts publicly available proving it.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazism

Previous text

Ukrainian media associated with the Party of Regions, the Communist Party of Ukraine, and Russophile groups have attempted to link the party to Nazism. According to political scientist Tadeusz A. Olszański, it plays in the Party of Regions favor to manipulate the voters from the eastern and southern parts of the country (especially the elderly and less educated) who are attached to the Soviet historical narrative, and "convince them that Svoboda is an inheritor of the Nazi invaders and a threat to peace, and that the Party of Regions should be voted for as the only force capable of stopping the ‘brown revenge’."

is no more than disqualification of the Party of Regions, the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Russophile groups. It is not difficult to find references providing the facts, direct links of this party to the German Nazis. Here is the one I added to this raticle

Anti-Semitism is one of core positions in Svoboda’s party ideology. Oleh Tyahnybok, the party leader, delivered a speech in parliament (2004) in which he alleged that a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia" was controlling the Ukraine and threatened the country’s very existence. Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, the party member and a deputy in parliament, often quotes former German Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, and other Third Reich officials like Ernst Roehm and Gregor Strasser.

User Львівське openly stated on his user page: 'This user supports All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"'. Wikipedia must be free of political propaganda. --96.241.218.72 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've issued a warning on your talk page. Further disruptive editing will be reported.--Львівське (говорити) 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP 96.241.218.72 per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. A sentence like "Anti-Semitism is one of core positions in Svoboda’s party ideology" is taken a side... A sentence like "According to international media and western scholars Anti-Semitism is one of core positions in Svoboda’s party ideology" is not taken a side. Read lead of Wiki-article Nazi Party to see how to wrote NPOV. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why was that sentence below removed? (I am not sure by whom... But the sentence was removed; but he restored it today.)

"According to political scientist Tadeusz A. Olszański, it plays in the Party of Regions favor to manipulate the voters from the eastern and southern parts of the country (especially the elderly and less educated) who are attached to the Soviet historical narrative, and "convince them that Svoboda is an inheritor of the Nazi invaders and a threat to peace, and that the Party of Regions should be voted for as the only force capable of stopping the ‘brown revenge’."

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

IP (on his talk page) justified the removal as 'the opinion of an anonymous Polish author'. I think you see where this was going...--Львівське (говорити) 18:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that IP was trying to say that he removed it because of Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Personally I think/saw how Party of Regions is manipulating voters all the time.... So from where I am standing Olszański's theory above is true. But it could use more refs. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done just now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization of the "criticism" section

I've just reorganized the "criticism" section into four parts, including:

1. ) Allegations of xenophobia or racism,
2. ) Criticism as a political tool,
3. ) Incidents drawing international attention,
4. ) Criticism by Jewish organizations, and
5. ) Criticism within Svoboda.

I'm not sure this is the perfect layout and would welcome input. For instance, the "allegations" are by so many papers, groups, etc. that this section is large. Furthermore, it's hard to separate "allegations" from certain incidents, e.g. a prominent Svoboda leader quoting important Nazi theorists, or another Svoboda leader handing out leaflets translated by Goebbels, or Tyahnybok making a statement about the Russian-Jewish mafia.

Lastly, I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have a section for criticism specifically by Jewish organizations? Input would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)