Talk:Far-right politics in Ukraine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Need to expand the section on the far right groups and parties

Currently we have two lists of far right parties and groups at the end of the article. To make it encyclopedic, we should move these up to their own section and make it into a full narrative, summarising what their articles say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC) This is a very good source worth mining: https://www.depo.ua/ukr/politics/chi-pohovae-biletskiy-z-azovom-veymarsku-ukrayinu--04062016200000 BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Style of the article downplays the threat posed by the far right

Hey the style of the article is not compable to similar articles on lets say uk and germany in those contries the extreme right is more insignifigant than in ukraine the electoral fortunes of the BNP and the NPD are far less than those of sloboda or right sector but they sre still talked about as serious threats to democracy.

Ukraine’s far right poses a threat to ukraine’s democratically elected leader Volodomyr zelensky as much as the far right of other contries so i dont understand why their thrat is minimized 217.140.202.221 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

IN what way do we down play it? Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The article opens by talking about how marginal Ukraine's far-right is in comparison to other Eastern European countries (due to its poor electoral performances) while burying other issues (hate crimes, glorification of Nazi collaborators) lower in the article, and then talks about the far-right elements among the pro-Russian separatists. No other article about far-right politics in European countries is written like this, and it seems like the article was rewritten in an active effort to downplay the Ukrainian far-right in an effort to avoid giving ammunition to the Russian government (which vastly exaggerates the influence of the far-right in Ukraine) in a violation of NPOV. 76.98.174.29 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

First issue, Well how many other European countries have a far-right that has this poor an election record? Second point, How many other countries have far-right separatists? But yes, in one repsct I suspect you are correct, it is written this way so as not to give undue credence to Russian propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

IP 76 has a point. The lead doesn't cover the contents of the body and its contents are absent from the body: basically most of the lead is now a self-standing section on "electoral support". It should become a section of the article or be merged with the section "Far-right political parties", and a new lead should be rewritten following WP:LEAD. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Really, seems to be the body mentions lack of support. Now you may have a point about moving some of this content to the body. Nor do I agree that (for example) the BNP is discussed "still" as a threat to democracy, I am unsure they have ever been described as a threat. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As to the NPD, from the lede "Since its founding in 1964, the NPD has never managed to win enough votes on the federal level to cross Germany's 5% minimum threshold for representation in the Bundestag; it has succeeded in crossing the 5% threshold and gaining representation in state parliaments 11 times, including one-convocation entry to seven West German state parliaments between November 1966 and April 1968 and two-convocation electoral success in two East German states of Saxony and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern between 2004 and 2011.", so we do seem to cover its elections "success". Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that poor electoral results and lack of support are prominent contents that need to be reported in the lead. These are highly notable information that are covered by many RS dealing with far-right politics in Ukraine. In that respect IP 76 is wrong: we should reflect what RS say, and in recent years, surely because of Putin's war to "Ukrainian neo-Nazi", RS have often reported that far-right in Ukraine enjoys little support: and so should we. This article cannot and should not be like Far-right politics in Serbia, in Croatia, in Germany, etc. However, we should also comply with MOS:LEAD: The lead should ... summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies ... significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Bellingcat is a reliable source? Right? RIGHT?

[1]Ukrainian Far-Right Extremists Receive State Funds to Teach "Patriotism" Apeholder (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No, not "right". Bellingcat is an extremely controversial and questionable source.

MrDemeanour (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Bellingcat is very reliable. Mhorg (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Bellingcat is reliable (see RSP). BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Flag picture

I removed the flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army from the beginning of the article per WP:RS as the source (donbass.comments) is of very poor quality and the main article about the flag contradicts the implied assertion that it is connected to today's far-right politics. It would be similarly fringe-y to illustrate articles on far-right politics with today's Russian flag merely because it was used by Russian Nazi collaborators of the Russian Liberation Army. --SonicY (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sakwa/Cohen

Karma1998 removed citations of Richard Sakwa and Stephen F. Cohen, as biased authors. Mhorg restored them. Can we discuss this? Personally, I don't see why Cohen is WP:DUE here, as he has no expertise on Ukraine or the far right and his opinion is just one of a huge number of opinions out there in the media. (He is also widely considered a Putin apologist, as our article on him shows: His views on Ukraine were criticized and described as pro-Putin and pro-Kremlin by critics. Cohen rejected such labels and has accused the US mainstream media of politicizing coverage about the Kremlin. According to ThinkProgress, Cohen's writings for The Nation helped lead to "[s]taffers at The Nation [...] openly revolting against the magazine's pro-Russian tilt." Richard Sakwa seems slightly more DUE to me, but still not the most relevant. His area of expertise is Russia, not Ukraine, and he has no expertise on the far right. Neither of them are the experts widely cited in RSs about the far right in Ukraine. In contrast, the most frequently cited experts are Michael Colborne, Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland. I suggest removal of both Cohen and Sakwa and inclusion of these figures. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

References

No, I don't see why to eliminate Sakwa and Cohen. They remains valid scholars and their point of views matter. As for Anton Shekhovtsov[2] and Andreas Umland,[3] they are the main supporters of the depoliticization of the Azov Battalion, an issue criticized by experts such as Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat,[[4]] which I have proved to be verifiable with this fact-checking.[5] Currently, this article only belittles the far right in Ukraine, seriously, despite having reports (pre-war) of a truly "critical" situation. In this article, instead, we need to add some sources that balance the approach since I currently seem to read the news from a democratic paradise, which it certainly is not.[6] Mhorg (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: I strongly argue references to Sakwa and Cohen should be removed. Cohen was a well-known Putin apologist, which makes his statements unreliable; as for Sakwa, while not a Putin apologist, he often took a strongly anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian stance (something noted by British academic Taras Kuzio) and, in any case, he is not an expert on Ukraine. The major experts on the Ukrainian far-right are, as you said, Anton Shekhovtsov, Andreas Umland, Vyacheslav Likhachev and Tadeusz A. Olszański. They should be used as sources, not Putin apologists like Cohen. As for what @Mhorg: says: you accuse me of trying to paint Ukraine as a democratic paradise, while it is actually you who try to paint it as an hellhole dominated by Nazis. This is obviously nonsense, as it has been pointed out by basically all scholars on fascism and the far-right, and is just a way the Russian propaganda uses to justify the invasion. It has no place on Wikipedia--Karma1998 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"Cohen was a well-known Putin apologist", and he writes for a perennial source like The Nation... instead Anton Shekhovtsov who writes for the pro-government propaganda newspaper Euromaidan Press[7] is it ok. Right? No, please, we can't remove scholar sources just because we don't like what they say. Mhorg (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: So? Anton Shekhovtsov is one of the leading experts on Ukraine and his views are confirmed by other leading scholars such as Umland, Likhachev and Olszański. Cohen, on the other hand, had no expertise on Ukraine and had been widely denounced as a Putin apologist. Also, Euromaidan Press is not a "government propaganda newspaper", it's an independent publication supported by the International Renaissance Foundation and the Open Society Foundations. --Karma1998 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

So I advise you to read that newspaper, to understand if it is truly independent or pro-government. On the other hand, what is expected of a newspaper that even in the name "Euromaidan" refers specifically to a "political faction" of Ukraine? Mhorg (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: It's independent and reliable, the fact that they have the name "Euromaidan" in the masthead does not mean that they are controlled by the Ukrainian government, which they aren't. And this does not change the fact that Shekhovtsov is a leading expert of Ukraine, while Cohen was not. Where they write their opinion is irrelevant. Karma1998 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Re As for Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland, they are the main supporters of the depoliticization of the Azov Battalion, an issue criticized by experts such as Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat, which I have proved to be verifiable with this fact-checking seems to me to mean "I don't like the experts I disagree with and prefer the experts I agree with, having done some original research." That shouldn't be how we proceed. Shekhovtsov is very widely published[8][9][10][11][12] and cited in reliable news reports[13][14][15][16][17][18] and mainstream opinion pieces[19]. Umland is a highly respected scholar.[20][21][22][23][24][25] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm just saying that you are proposing to eliminate two academics you don't like, to propose two more who have precisely your point of view. And these two argue something that cannot be verifiable, and that a simple Wikipedia user, with an RO, can prove otherwise. Mine is a discourse on the reliability of a source, which yes, is also based on the verifiability of certain statements. And, I repeat, currently there seems to be only one point of view in this article, which is that Ukraine is a democratic paradise and all the academics who have talked about the far right (pre-war) were actually wrong. Mhorg (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: "these two argue something that cannot be verifiable". I mean, are you a scholar of the far-right of their same level and expertise? Otherwise it appears to me that what you're simply excluding sources you don't like from Wikipedia, while replacing them with inferior quality sources. Once again, you accuse that we want to paint Ukraine as a "democratic paradise". I reverse the accusation: you want to paint Ukraine as a Nazi hellhole, despite the fact that all scholars of the far-right have dismissed such accusation (except Putin apologists like Cohen and Sakwa, who are in the minority).-Karma1998 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not a scholar... I simply wonder what credibility an academic might have who says the Azov Battalion has been depoliticized (with Andriy Biletsky's departure) around 2014, when there are 2019 videos from the National Corps official channel[26] with Azov Battalion leaders referring to Biletsky as their leader. I think I have every right to raise these issues, and I also ask other colleagues to comment on this. Mhorg (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

We know that there are two sides to this issue but frankly the side with the work to do is the side that had a well earned reputation to start with not those who doubt the conversion to whiter than snow. Calling those who doubt the conversion "Putin apologists" is unhelpful, we need to represent the doubters in due proportion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: our job is to report what scholars of the far-right say. And the most important scholars of the Ukrainian far-right (Shekhovtsov, Umland, Likhachev etc) agree that the Azov Regiment has depoliticised. Are we supposed to ignore that?-Karma1998 (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

There are contrary views, why do you ignore those? Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I see and I explain my point at the end of this section. Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A cursory glance at our articles suggests that Sakwa/Cohen are RS, even if biased towards the Russian POV. One would need to show that the bias is extensive enough to affect reliability, a different metric.Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Cohen was extremely biased, to the point of distorting the words of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk in 2014, being reprimanded by Timothy D. Snyder for it.-Karma1998 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Cohen was not 'extremely biased', but he was a highly reputed academic of this field. I assume you aware of his views on Ukraine but you are not aware of his criticism of Putin, though it is unrelated to this subject but it happened. Segaton (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Segaton: sorry to bother you but, yes, he was extremely biased and yes, he was pro-Russian and pro-Putin. The fact that he sometimes criticized him does not change that. And he was not an expert on the Ukrainian far-right, anyway.-Karma1998 (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I do not think references to Sakwa and Cohen should remain here. None of them is an expert on Ukraine and both of them are biased towards Russia.-Karma1998 (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Repetition is not proof of anything. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• The opinion by Cohen [27] seems to be in a striking contradiction with sourced data currently provided on this page, i.e. the very low support of far-right parties and politicians in elections in Ukraine. I would rather not cite extreme opinions, even by researchers, if they contradict data. Actually, Cohen misrepresents this matter by ignoring any quantitative data, i.e. the numbers of far-right activists or their supporters in mentioned countries, but instead appealing to individual anecdotal facts of Neo-Nazi sentiment (and organizations) that exist in all countries. This is a well known way of misrepresentation, also employed by Putinist propaganda with regard to Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think our opinion matters. Read this article from Chronicle which tells that some people are being hasty by calling Cohen a Putin sympathizer, and forgetting that he has been a leading analyst of Russia since 1970s and that he has been always correct, though it is yet to see if he is correct about Putin. Segaton (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, evaluating sources and providing proper summary of what they say is absolutely our responsibility. Checking if a claim was consistent with numbers on the page is a part of it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You cited an article from The Nation and made your comment on it. That is why I said this kind of opinion does not matter. The Chronicle.com link I shared above shows that Cohen is WP:RS and be used for this article.

You used the same poor logic in removing Sakwa. You should have checked the source which say "The creation of the National Guard, consisting largely of far-right militants and others from the Maidan self-defence forces, had the advantage of removing these militants from the centre of Kiev and other western Ukrainian towns, but they often lacked discipline and treated south-east Ukraine as occupied territory, regularly committing atrocities against civilians and captured 'terrorists'." Segaton (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

In edit summary I said "at least this should be explained", and your citation does explain it much better. Does it say that the Ukrainian National Guard regularly commits "atrocities against civilians" (version I removed)? Hardly. And even if it did commit such atrocities, one would have to say which atrocities exactly the Ukrainian National Guard had committed, i.e. specific examples of the atrocities or other data (i.e. how many such atrocities did it commit and during what period of time). My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

In other words, the right-wing extremists committing atrocities under the disguise of the Ukrainian National Guard would deserve inclusion on the page, but such claims should be described in sufficient factual details (who, when and what) and be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• So, right now this content is included to the section "Analysis". That is because both authors are scholars. But where is the actual analysis, with data, numbers, etc.? This is all just a bare statement of opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is a new idea, opinion givers are required to prove their opinions? Since when? If it is an opinion, then it should be attributed and the reader will have to make up their own mind whether they wish to believe it. Even if an "analysis" was provided (this word doesn't necessarily mean facts and figures, it's not advanced math or something) the reader would still have to decide whether to believe it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You could be right about views by politicians and like. However, these people are allegedly researchers. All researchers are required to justify conclusions by analysis of data. Should we focus on data and factual information as opposed to bare opinions? Yes, of course. As about views that contradict data, this is very definition of "fringe". My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Then you will have no trouble finding a reliable source to back up your opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, opinions still need to be supported by facts and data. This isn't the Big Lebowski. Anyway, these two authors are obviously being cherry picked out of hundreds of possible authors specifically for their Putinist-apologist POV and that makes them WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 19:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

These are some of the best expert on the subject, they are reliable and must be included.--WatkinsQQ (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No. They may be "well known" but that is not the same as "best". Why are they well known? Because they've taken up extremist WP:FRINGE positions. Which is exactly why they're undue here. Volunteer Marek 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As per above, reliable sources saying these sources are extremist/fringe please. Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think they are best experts? Google Scholar shows a lot of other different names: [28]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Cohen wrote War with Russia?: From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate in 2018 and Sakwa wrote Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands in 2015. Both books were published by reputed publishers and have been cited by dozens of other experts.[29][30] I don't think you can find enough like them who have done that much research into this subject and got this much recognition. Segaton (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This does not answer the question. Many dozen or a hundred other authors also wrote books or scholarly articles on the subject (see Scholar link above). Why these two? Indeed, they both were criticized in reviews as pro-Putin. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It answers the question in the sense that the 'scholars' from Google scholars you were looking for, have actually cited these two scholars. No sources have been provided for Sakwa, only Cohen and the Chronicle.com article I mentioned gives a review of those claims. If you really want to make mountain out of a molehill here then you must prove if those 'reviews' are made by those who are better WP:RS than Cohen and Sakwa in terms of research and expertise. Segaton (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A lot of these citations are other scholars panning their works and trashing their analysis though. Volunteer Marek 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

With regard to the edit summary of this removal of Sakwa and Cohen by Volunteer Marek, "manually removing text that obviously has no consensus for inclusion", note that Sakwa and Cohen were included in February 2000 by one of the main contributors to this article, User:Axel Staxel. If now a few editors have discovered that they just don't like their views and want them removed, it's up to them to build a consensus for removal. As far as I read on this talk, that consensus is still lacking. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree there is no consensus but I have no hope if this edit warring will stop. Maybe we should start a discussion on RSN and see what happens there. Segaton (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, open a section for each one, and ask is blah reliable for (some statement). Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says " in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". This is not proportion to prominence. It's exactly the opposite. It's cherry picking WP:FRINGE sources just to put in a pro-Putin narrative into the article. Volunteer Marek 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How we would know that they are WP:FRINGE sources, especially when the sources have been published by reputed publishers and Sakwa, Cohen haven't been accused of contradicting any orthodox views on the subject?

IMO, WP:FRINGE sounds better when, say the discourse involves conspiracy theories, vaccine hesitancy and pseudohistory. It should not be cited only because the expert is opposing a particular opinion (not fact). Segaton (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It's cherry picking WP:FRINGE sources is a bit unfair. Those sources were not "cherry picked", they were picked by an editor who apparently had done some readings on the topic and who gave a substantial good-quality contribution to the writing of this article. That editor decided to quote Cohen and Sakwa alongside other sources such as Michael Colburne, Lev Golinkin, Likhachev, Mierzejewski-Voznyak, Kersten & Hanke, and others. Now a couple of editors are alleging that Cohen and Sakwa are WP:UNDUE because, as vocal critics of Western policy on Russia, they have been labelled as "pro-Putin" by the Daily Beast and other magazines. I find this quite tendentious. Even if Cohen and Sakwa were openly pro-Putin (which they aren't) their WP:BIASED views wouldn't disqualify them as reliable sources: the first is Professor Emeritus of Russian and Slavic Studies at NY University, the second is Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent, and they both have written books on post-USSR politics. Rather then removing bits and pieces they don't approve, those who don't agree with Cohen and Sakwa should do some readings of their own, summarise other "less biased" sources, and add new contents to the article; in that way, the encyclopedia grows. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100%, take it to RSN and we will hash it out in front of a larger audience. Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That would be pointless because no one said that the books are not RS, even though the authors are highly opinionated. As about "fringe", yes, I believe that some views by Sakwa and Cohen are "fringe", for example the idea about expansion of NATO as a legitimate "casus belli" for the war (as also articulated by Putin), but RSNB is not the place to discuss it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Cohen 'was an American scholar of Russian studies'. Not of Ukrianian studies. Is a scholar of Canadian studies an expert in US matters? Cohen is dead.Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sakwa 'Sakwa was a participant of Valdai Discussion Club' and 'a member of the Advisory Boards of the Institute of Law and Public Policy in Moscow'.

'His book Frontline Ukraine, was described in review as "the geopolitical reading favoured by Putin that Russia was reacting to the westwards expansion of NATO"' - it means that Sakwa is partially responsible for the Russian invasion. Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Is an apologist academic?Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Those arguing that Cohen and Sakwa are experts are not providing good arguments. Cohen was known as an academic expert on Russia. Has he ever written a scholarly text about Ukrainian domestic politics? Has he ever researched the far right? Sakwa is also a Russia expert. He has written a book about Ukraine, so the case for his inclusion is stronger, but the book is actually about the geopolitics of Russia's intervention. Does it even have a chapter on the far right in Ukraine? I think we need to definitely remove Cohen, as the consensus is against his inclusion, and should remove Sakwa unless a consensus emerges, and if they are considered for inclusion, wait until we have good references to expert analysis which takes a different position first, on the principle of due weight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's more or less what you said at the start of this conversation. So I repeat as well, take it to RSN and get an opinion there.Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a primarily reliability issue. Cohen is not being used here as a source for facts. We are citing him for his opinions. The question is whether his inclusion is warranted in terms of due weight- i.e. it's an NPOV issue and I've already asked for extra eyes at the NPOV noticeboard. Some editors have argued he is fringe, so maybe we should consult with the fringe noticeboard. Sakwa is also being cited for his opinions in the "analysis" section. I don't think anyone is arguing he is unreliable, simply that the quote may be cherry-picked, creating bias. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said below, there is no consensus on this page even after asking for more eyes at NPOV board well over a week ago. As for whether the position might change after a consultation with the FRINGE board, I really couldn't say. Looks a bit like forumshopping to consult there after not arriving at the desired result here/NPOV.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

According to what I read in this discussion, there is no consensus for their removal. Mhorg (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree there's no consensus for removing contents that have always been here. Plus the argument "he is an expert on Russia, not Ukraine" is very weak. Apart from the fact that Cohen was Professor in Russian and Slavic studies (at Priceton and NY University), and that he wrote extensively on post-Ussr politics, including Ukraine, I suggest you to read what is usually meant by Russian studies. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you give examples of his actual scholarly work on the far right in Ukraine or other scholars citing him on this topic? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Cohen seems far from the mainstream for the last decade of his life, especially when it comes to Ukrainian studies as they have diverged than that of Russian studies. He seemed ossified in time, talking a lot about how the west doesn't get Russia, but he himself ignores the development of an independent Ukrainian identity.

I don't object to Sakwa. He is cited by other mainstream scholars. Cononsense (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You can disagree with findings of Cohen but he is still WP:RS. Cohen is also cited by mainstream scholars.[31] Segaton (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Those cites are from people who are increasingly far from the mainstream, at least in the west, or are criticisms of cohen.

Kuzio, who is widely regarded as a mainstream ukrainian studies scholar, refers to Cohen, in his criticism of russian studies, as mostly in the context of derogatory statements about ukraine, ukraine as a failed state, ukraine leaders as western puppets, cohen's denials about Russia's military intervention, and russiophobia in the context of rejection of 'russia world'. These are also all common themes of russian propaganda.

Cohen became increasingly contrarian after 2014, but his beliefs, after 2022, I believe, will go down as completely pariah, at least in the realm of western scholars. Cononsense (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, we will wait until they do. Or you could find a reliable source to back up your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Kuzio (when criticising Cohen and Sakwa) cited researchers like Aliyev who have done plenty of fieldwork to characterise ultranationalist ideology and behavior, in his open access book criticising russian studies, which I think he expanded in his most recent book about russian nationalism. I think his main point is that Cohen and Sakwa never bothered to visit Ukraine, instead mostly getting their views uncritically from Russian press.

Here is some Aliyev's views, in a 2020 debate with some Soufan Center fellows (who seemed to have changed their minds since, anyways) in the Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs website : https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/opportunities-ukraine-too-limited-provide-white-supremacists-military-training Cononsense (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for removal. Cohen wrote War with Russia?: From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate in 2018 and Sakwa wrote Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. It is not correct to say they wrote nothing about Ukraine when their Ukraine-related publication was in fact scholarly. Read this article from Chronicle about Cohen which offers the perspective after reviewing all those recent comments and seems Cohen to be a good source about Russia. Segaton (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

a good source about Russia? But this is not an article about Russia; it's an article about the far right in Ukraine. I can't get past the Chronicle paywall: can you quote the bits that suggest he is a reliable and noteworthy source on the far right in Ukraine? (The author of the opinion piece does not himself seem to be a scholar of either Russia or Ukraine by the way.)

I agree there is no consensus for inclusion or removal. I hadn't digested that the citations have been there since 2020 so if no consensus is established would usually remain unless there are BLP issues, so should probably not have removed it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Like I said above, the opinion by Cohen is in a striking contradiction with sourced data currently provided on this page, i.e. the very low support of far-right parties and politicians in elections in Ukraine. I am against including opinions that straightforwardly contradict facts and (mis)representing them as legitimate scholarly views. This is promoting FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is evidently no consensus for those views in this discussion. If you wish to insist then take it to RSN. I will be interested to see the reaction there to the FRINGE assertion.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Fringe or not, but simply reading our page Stephen F. Cohen (and the content seem to be well sourced), it is obvious that he shares all false ideas of Putin about subjugation of Ukraine and the grand conspiracy by US and NATO. Or may be Putin shares his ideas. I do not know. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal per WP:RS, WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. The discussion about the authors' political leaning or their previous body of work is a waste of time in my opinion. The problem is the poor quality of the sourcing - two opinion pieces in the Nation - when we have peer-reviewed articles and handbooks to draw from. --SonicY (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Institutional commemoration of OUN/UPA

I don't understand why the section on institutional commemoration of collaborators is in this article. It seems only tendentiously related to the article topic. Do our sources link this to the far right? If so, we need to say that. If not, this belongs in a different article, perhaps Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem of the far-right when institutional figures defend extreme far-right collaborators. Like, for example, the police leadership taking sides against the same police officers who hit the neo-Nazis of S14. The name of the section, which you have changed, also doesn't fit. Because the police issue is not about the Bandera commemoration. Mhorg (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• First paragraph in section Institutional_support_to_Nazi_collaborators, is a WP:SYN. Linked sources do not say that there is an "Institutional support to Nazi collaborators" by Ukrainian government. For, example article in The Guardian [32] does not say it, does not even use words like "far-right" and is very careful to say that assigning even Bandera as "Nazi" is a common narrative of pro-Russian propaganda, not the truth. Same with other sources. Please quote here directly that source X defines the new law, removing the memorials to Lenin (or whatever) as "Institutional support to Nazi collaborators" by Ukrainian government. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Previous version [33] and other paragraphs of this section are better in this regard. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I do t even know what “institutional support to” means. It doesn’t make sense in English. I think we should delete the whole section as not relevant to this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• I tried to contextualize the decommunization laws and summarize the isolated incidents but the section is cobbled together WP:SYNTH and I agree with User:My very best wishes that it is only tangentially related to the subject of the article. I would support removing it altogether as it is mostly about historical memory rather than politics. --SonicY (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)