Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 4 March 2014

Ukraine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

sources

• Guardian - Ukrainian far-right group claims to be co-ordinating violence in Kiev
• Pravda - Right Sector Leader Dmitry Jarosz: When 80% of the country does not support the government, the civil war can not be
• Exclusive: Leader of Far-Right Ukrainian Militant Group Talks Revolution With TIME

--Львівське (говорити) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Guy who claimed to be Right Sector rep is wanted for murder
• Glob and Mail interview

"Mr. Skoropadsky describes himself as the group’s spokesman, but his language suggests that he has a leadership role. And he chooses to speak in Russian, indicating that he is from eastern Ukraine – which suggests that the group differs from the Ukrainian-nationalist focus of Svoboda, whose membership has sometimes been restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.

While he says Pravy Sektor is right-wing, Christian and intolerant of any foreign influence in Ukraine, he insists that they are not neo-Nazis or fascists and that they condemn outright racism. But keeping extremists out of a self-professed extremist group is, he admits, not always easy. Some Pravy Sektor members have been spotted wearing neo-Nazi symbols."

"“Of course, it is difficult to control everyone,” he says. “I know one guy who’s got ‘14/88’ painted on his shield. But we’re trying to purge them. We are a highly disciplined organization.”"

• Euromaidan PR
• pravy and jobbik

Reverts

I am the IPs starting with 82.83. What has happened, from my perspective: My addition gets reverted by Lvivske with an accusation of original research and POV pushing. I was not sure what exactly caused the accusation, so I tried reinserting my previous edit, very slightly reworded. Instead of reverting again, Lvivske merely clarifies the sentence about the flag a little.

Next, I add a few things from the interview that may shed light on the ideological position of Yarosh, if not Right Sector as a whole: his rejection of racism, and his use of a quote from Bandera – it's only a quote, and it's vague enough to plausibly deny encouragement of violence. Also, I try to give some background that I think helps to understand why RS's use of the red-and-black banner is noteworthy; on one hand, it has been a symbol of national resistance against occupation (this could be made clearer), on the other hand it is associated with very violent ethnic cleansing on a large scale. If this is too much for the article, perhaps the plain red-and-black banner should get its own article covering attitudes towards it.

Insignificant edits by another IP follow. Then, Darouet makes some additions and changes/reduces my earlier addition.

Then, Lvivske first deletes "(Bandera's Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists has been accused of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia)", calling it "original research, bandera was in prison when this happened and no one accuses him of 'massacring' anyone", and also deletes the statement about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army having committed massacres mentioned earlier in the section, calling it "more OR".

I would probably not phrase things exactly the way Darouet did, but I decide to undo Lvivske's deletions; to counter claims of "original research", it should be easy enough to refer to numerous sources by history scholars given in the linked article (massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia), but to make it even easier to ascertain that neither claims of the UPA's agency in the massacres, nor of the UPA having answered to the OUN-B, nor of Bandera's leadership of the OUN-B before his incarceration are original research, I add a few seemingly reputable sources: diff

Lvivske promptly reverts this ("More POV original research that has nothing to do with Right Sector in the least"). I don't understand:

1. "POV" – What exactly, the ethnic cleansing? I would welcome if, instead of deleting properly sourced statements, you added to give a more neutral or balanced view. If liberals have qualms about Right Sector's ideology, actions, statements or symbols, those become noteworthy and should have enough space in the article to understand what this is about. For example, I don't think it's good to delete mention of the link between the banner and the murders in 1943–45. Instead, you could add something to explain how the banner is seen as a symbol of freedom and anti-Nazi/anti-Soviet resistance by some Ukrainians, if that is the case.
2. "Original research" – I have quoted several external sources that back up every word I have added or changed; I have merely reworded/compiled what seemingly reputable sources say. If you are alleging I have conducted independent research about anything here, that is obviously wrong. The only exception I can think of is the apparent use of symbols resembling the red-black banner, which is not "research" at all, it's plainly obvious and was already implied in the infobox.
3. "Has nothing to do with Right Sector in the least" – What exactly do you mean? If an organization prominently uses a controversial symbol, and if the leader of an organization quotes a controversial person the way Yarosh did, it deserves mention and possibly a half-sentence of background information to explain what might be controversial about it, especially for those readers (like me) unfamiliar with Bandera, the OUN-B, the UPA, the red-black banner or the ethnic cleansing who want to get a basic idea of what the controversy is about but who would prefer not having to read through each of those articles to find the relevant bits of information.

--82.83.102.201 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, it's WP:SYNTHESIS to just go off on a tangent and talk about things the UPA did or didn't do, or Bandera's criticisms. This article is about Right Sector. Imagine the article said "their flag is red-white and blue, the which is influenced by the United States, who massacred millions of native americans and thousands of vietnamese", or "they wear black, which is also what the SS wore while they killed millions of jews" - The link in the article just points to their site with no actual mention of the colors or their significance, but the editor is mentally going "oh, it's red and black, so it must be UPA and it must be because they like bandera, and let's tell a bunch of things bandera did - now Right Sector supports Polish ethnic cleansing". Textbook synthesis and original research. Stick to the raw facts.

Svoboda is much more tied to the UPA imagery than Right Sector, organizing marches and venerating them in their actual political statements and policies. In that article, we constructed the following which we found to be a neutral statement that provided context: "Bandera is a controversial figure for his role in leading the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which fought the Soviets and Nazi Germany for an independent Ukrainian state but also, according to some historians, contained members who cooperated in the killing of thousands of Jews during Nazi occupation; According to Christopher Miller of the Kyiv Post, Bandera was instead the target of a heavy smear campaign by Soviet propaganda which portrayed him as an anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator."

The only problem here is that Right Sector hasn't been criticized for the colors. For all we know, it's just the reasoning on the UPA article - a nationalist color scheme meaning blood and earth. We, as editors, can't assuming Right Sector is politically tied to the actions or another group based on a color scheme.--Львівське (говорити) 03:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

views on ethnic minorities

How is this version less obfuscated??

For those fighting with Right Sector "for Ukraine," Yarosh stated that they should be treated "as comrades." For those opposing "the Ukrainian people's national liberation struggle," Yarosh stated that they should be treated "in a hostile way."

This is broken and convoluted, why not make it read fluidly and in wording people understand? This is the google translate version of this quote:

Our attitude to the Russian as well as other representatives of national minorities, fits into the methodology proposed by Stepan Bandera: Fraternal to those with us fighting for statehood of the Ukrainian nation; tolerant to those who recognize our right to be masters of our own destiny on our land; hostile to those who deny this right, "

Dauret blanked this and the original ref for the above version which is, quote frankly, confusing. "Comrades"?--Львівське (говорити) 05:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing is paraphrasing information from quotes, another thing is re-telling the quotes so as to fit certain aims. That's what you were doing : the quote does not exactly say ″ tolerate of those who recognize Ukrainians' right to self determination, and hostile to those who oppose freedom.″
Rather, it says: ″tolerate of those who recognize our right to be masters of our own destiny on our own land; hostile to those who deny that right.″Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

'Masters of our own destiny' is the same thing as 'right to self determination', IMO, figured it was just a better translation (slavic to english often has archaisms that would sound weird in english in contemporary parlance.) I don't understand what "aim" you're accusing me of pushing, I pasted the quote you just mentioned word for word above for the purse of transparency and proper translation. --Львівське (говорити) 15:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote from the professionally translated and published interview is as follows: "Stepan Bandera once advocated three ways of dealing with non-Ukrainians. It’s very simple. You deal with them as comrades – and this is for those who fight with you for Ukraine, regardless of their nationality. You deal with them in a tolerant way – for those who live on the land and do not oppose our struggle; thus, we treat them normally, Ukraine has a place for all. The third way of dealing with them is in a hostile way – and this is for those who oppose the Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle. And this is in any state; any people takes exactly these positions."

You changed the article text to summarize in this way: "Speaking about his attitude towards ethnic minorities in Ukraine, Yarosh cited controversial WWII figure Stepan Bandera as a model: Fraternal to those fighting for Ukrianian statehood, tolerate of those who recognize Ukrainians' right to self determination, and hostile to those who oppose freedom." This is a blatantly partisan way of describing Yarosh's statement for a number of reasons:

1) Yarosh is referring to those "non-Ukrainians" who "oppose the Ukrainian people's national liberation struggle," which is an ambiguous term invoked by Yarosh that also refers to Right Sectors "fight" and "struggle" as he mentions immediately above. It's not about those "who oppose freedom:" not only does Yarosh not say this, but it also implies that those who oppose Right Sector (most people in Ukraine, and in the world if they had any idea what they believed) somehow " oppose freedom." I'm amazed that you had the guts to write such nonsense here.

2) Fighting "for Ukraine" - whatever Yarosh means by this exactly - doesn't necessarily translate into your "fighting for Ukrainian statehood" or "right to self determination." You've taken Yarosh's words - which could be interpreted in a very hostile or favorable way but are ambiguous - and made them seem rosy, friendly, and democratic by actually changing them.

3) "hostile to those…" which is what you've written, is not the same as "dealing with them in a hostile way," which again is what the quote actually says, and has a number of possible meanings, some of them quite frightening, given what has been written about this group's ideology. -Darouet (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me what the quote actually says, its quoted verbatim right above. I changed nothing and you know it. "hostile to those who deny this right," is direct from the source unaltered.--Львівське (говорити) 19:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

professionally translated with glaring grammatical issues? Sure this bud. I like how you intentionally omitted "Ukraine has a place for all." and yet call me a partisan. Your attempts at demonizing everyone on the Ukrainian right are pretty glaring. We keep having these issues, you and I. Yes, I summarized "masters of " into "freedom" because it's just common sense shortening. The very definition of freedom is self determination. --Львівське (говорити) 19:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to trust "google translate" over a published translation. -Darouet (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you're going to blank reliable sources because you like your convoluted half-english over an actual direct quote? what? I just checked your source, it's not a reliable source it's "Sean's Russia Blog" so no, this content is going bye bye. --Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

″Your attempts at demonizing everyone on the Ukrainian right are pretty glaring. ″ - please try not to get personal, shall you? The user has recently edited only Right Sector and Svoboda, neither of which qualifies as ″everyone on the Ukrainian right″ (i.e. not mainstream right). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

svoboda are the only party on the mainstream right & far right with any votes so I think it qualifies --Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A place for all except those who oppose them, whom they'll "deal with in a hostile way." Львівське are you really arguing that we should use google translate instead of the blog translation? And you you really think that "those who oppose the Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle" (the struggle or fight of Right Sector), are really those who oppose freedom? -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we should really use the direct quote over a "Russian blog" (which you wrongly claimed was professionally translated and I assumed good faith of your word), I'm pretty sure reliable source guidelines say enough about this. I've provided enough quotes, I don't need to explain again that "right to be masters of our own destiny" and "Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle" are two somewhat different things, although the latter could be summarized simply as "liberty", which is of course synonymous with "freedom" (especially in Ukrainian, as Radio Liberty is 'Radio Svoboda' and of course, the Svoboda party is known as the 'Freedom Party').--Львівське (говорити) 20:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would just like to point out now that we're comparing 2 separate interviews with similar question/answers --Львівське (говорити) 20:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose taking Right Sector's words and refactoring them into a more palatable form, and also strongly oppose using google translate as a more reliable source than the blog translation currently provided in the article.

Perhaps we can agree on a compromise and, instead of either of us summarizing, simply give the entire quote? I would only argue that we should in this case use the published (albeit by a blog) translation because it's perfectly clear, and if you actually speak a language, good translate can be notoriously incorrect. -Darouet (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That blog looks like a copy paste of google translate IMO. I haven't gone over it in detail but....I think we can find a compromise here. IMO putting both quotes in full may be overkill / clutter. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to break both down and come up with a plainspeak summary. I'd also like to apologize if I've come off as agressive, you piss me off from time to time (where we mutually accuse the other of bias) but we usually end up figuring things out (which is why I get frustrated, because I know we're perfectly able to work together) --Львівське (говорити) 00:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason that I think we should avoid a summary is that I don't believe that your summary is really a summary, and you believe that my summary is unclear. But we both agree that this paragraph from this interview is important, and so I think we should just put the whole thing up as a quote. -Darouet (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think if we break it down we can consolidate parts to decongest things. It should also be in a separate section on policy or something, right now the whole article is a big block. --Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm going to take the translation issue to the reliable source noticeboard. -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine.--Львівське (говорити) 16:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Львівське, the source that you found - crimea.comments.ua - what is it exactly? I'm trying to compare the google translate version of it to the google translate version of the original Pravda article, which is very different. It looks like the website you found is a comments page or something like that, and it seems to have been made about 20 days after the original interview, available here. -Darouet (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Two sources for statements by Yarosh

Dmytro Yarosh was interviewed by Ukrains’ka Pravda on 4 February, 2014. We'd like to reproduce the content of his interview here but there's disagreement as to which translation to use.

The following translation was published here on "Sean's Russia Blog" and is a translation by William Risch (who is probably this associate professor of history):

"Stepan Bandera once advocated three ways of dealing with non-Ukrainians. It’s very simple. You deal with them as comrades – and this is for those who fight with you for Ukraine, regardless of their nationality. You deal with them in a tolerant way – for those who live on the land and do not oppose our struggle; thus, we treat them normally, Ukraine has a place for all. The third way of dealing with them is in a hostile way – and this is for those who oppose the Ukrainian people’s national liberation struggle. And this is in any state; any people takes exactly these positions."

The next translation is available from google translate here:

"Stepan Bandera at one time proposed three attitude to not Ukrainian. It is very simple. There are sister cities - for those who join us in fighting for Ukraine, regardless of nationality. Is tolerant - as people who live in the land not oppose our fight, and we treat them properly in all places Ukraine suffice. Third - hostile to those who oppose national liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people, and that in any country, any nation it is these positions and has."

I would argue that we should use the translation by William Risch, which is grammatically and technically sound, comprehensible, and looks to have been produced by someone who is able to translate professionally. If we use the google translate text, unless we want to keep it looking like nonsense in our article here, we'll need to change it, and that will lead to a lot of debate about how to change it, in terms of interpretation of content. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also the second interview where he says something similar --Львівське (говорити) 20:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that's a second interview? Where does that come from exactly? -Darouet (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Change in BBC source

User:Nikosgreencookie has just correctly noted that this BBC source is now being used incorrectly, i.e. to support article statements not contained in the source.

Unfortunately, it looks like that source - which once had a long(ish) description of Right Sector - has now been updated on the BBC page. And I don't, for now at least, have a copy of the old site text. Will see what I can do, but if anyone else has ideas, great! -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"RS = nazi" - russian propaganda

Right Sector has banderivska ideology. It's right but has no any racism and nazism. There are russians, jews, georgians, armenians etc there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.167.4.217 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide sources for commentary on Right Sector's ideology. To read more about how to contribute to wikipedia, the following guideline, "Five Pillars," is a good start! -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Right sector it is not fascistic organization, it is nationalistic organization, for example they don't offer murders of other people as fascists did. Please correct it. 91.229.66.140 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: At least three different sources describe this organization as either fascist or neofascist. Your argument to the contrary does not make logical sense - see hasty generalization. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The information is defamation to the patriot organisation. Tags : fascist and radical nationalist are inappropriate. 80.43.188.121 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: All such descriptors that I see in the article are reliably sourced through such organizations as Time, the BBC, and USA Today. If they are inappropriate please feel free to inform the news outlets that are using the terms. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

DragonJT (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Right Sector Leader Dmytro Yarosh Ukrainian Yarosh Founded 2014 Headquarters Kiev Ideology Far-right politics Ukrainian nationalism Colors Black and Red Slogan Glory to Ukraine Website Banderivets.org.ua Politics of Ukraine Political parties Elections Right Sector (Template:Lang-uk, Pravyi Sektor) is a radical nationalist paramilitary Ukrainian opposition group with right-wing, ultra right-wing, borderline fascist or neofascist views. According to various reports, the organization has between 2,000 and 3,000 active members in Kiev. Right Sector is an alliance of a number of nationalist and extreme-right splinter groups as well as the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA-UNSO). It first emerged at the end of November 2013 at Euromaidan in Kiev. History Right sector traces its origins back to Ukrainians who fought alongside Germany and against the Soviet Union during the Second World War (a group known as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists or OUN). Right Sector became one of the main actors in the January 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, a part of the Euromaidan protests, in their later and more violent stages. Right Sector's entry into the protests in Kiev brought weapons and armed fighters into the standoff, leading violent confrontations with police and promoting the overthrow of the Yanukovych government. On 19 January 2014 Right Sector encouraged its members to bring bottles to the protests in order to produce molotov cocktails and bombs. The former Yanukovich's government classified Right Sector as an extremist movement, threatening its members with imprisonment. According to Volodymyr Ishchenko, in an op-ed piece on The Guardian, Right Sector was responsible for the violent 1 December 2013 attack on the Ukrainian administration, and has led other violent provocations with police. The leader of Right Sector, Dmitro Yarosh, has stated that Right Sector has amassed a lethal arsenal of weapons. In February 2014, Right Sector issued a statement warning of the possibility of attack by Russian or Ukrainian police operatives, leading the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) to announce that it was on heightened alert. In response, fearing a staged provocation for which it could be blamed, Right Sector stated that it was planning no terrorist attacks and that it opposed terrorist political tactics. Following the collapse of the Yanukovych government in 2014, Right Sector leaders visited the Israeli embassy in Ukraine, telling Israeli ambassador Reuven Din-El that the group rejects anti-semitism, chauvinism, and xenophobia. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Yanukovych government, Yarosh and Victoria Siumar were proposed as possible deputies to the National Security and Defense Council. Ideology According to some Right Sector members and Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, the organization is affiliated with or composed of several smaller, extreme-right and nationalist groups including "Trident", "Patriot of Ukraine", "White Hammer" and the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defence. One Right Sector member, Andriy Tarasenko, has stated that the organization was set up in late November 2013 and "most participants are just ordinary citizens having no relation to any organizations." In an interview, Yarosh has stated that Right Sector and Svoboda "have a lot of common positions when it comes to ideological questions," but that Right Sector “absolutely don’t accept certain racist things they share.” Speaking about his attitude towards non-Ukrainians, Yarosh referred to controversial WWII figure Stepan Bandera as a model. For those fighting with Right Sector "for Ukraine," Yarosh stated that they should be treated "as comrades." For those opposing "the Ukrainian people's national liberation struggle," Yarosh stated that they should be treated "in a hostile way." Like many Ukrainian nationalists, Right Sector uses red-and-black symbols, similar to the battle flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Aleksander Muzychko, a Right Sector leader, has pledged to fight "Jews and Russians until I die." Muzychko was videotaped physically assaulting a Ukrainian public prosecutor in his office, threatening to pull him to Maidan square with a rope. Journalist Oleg Shynkarenko has written that Right Sector's support for "traditional morals and family values, against the cult of profit and depravity," implies opposition to homosexuality, and the estimation of the "rights of the nation" against "human rights." Right Sector member Andrey Tarasenko has said that European integration is not a goal of the group, but a path to government. "Integration with Europe means death for Ukraine, because Brussels' bureaucratic "monster" is doing everything in order to neutralize national identity and traditional family, has supported an anti-Christian policy, and will lead to death for a state and Christianity. We want to create Ukraine for ethnic Ukrainians, managed by Ukrainians, Ukraine that is not serving to the interests of the other states". References A fascist hero in democratic Kiev. Timothy Snyder. New York Review of Books. February 24, 2010. Miller, Christopher (17 January 2014). "Svoboda's rise inspires some, frightens many others". Kyiv Post. Retrieved 5 February 2014. ^ Shuster, Simon (4 February 2014). "Exclusive: Leader of Far-Right Ukrainian Militant Group Talks Revolution With TIME". Time. Retrieved 25 February 2014. Cite error: The named reference "timeshuster" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). ^ Profile: Ukraine's key protest figures, BBC News (27 January 2014) Ghosh, Palash (19 February 2014). "Euromaidan: The Dark Shadows Of The Far-Right In Ukraine Protests". International Business Times. Retrieved 20 February 2014. Ishchenko, Volodymyr (7 February 2014). "Ukrainian protesters must make a decisive break with the far right". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 February 2014. McPhedran, Charles; Luigi Serenelli (27 February 2014). "Ukraine protesters unsatisfied with presidential field". USA Today. Retrieved 2 March 2014. "Coup in Ukraine: A warning to the international working class". World Socialist Web Site. 25 February 2014. Retrieved 25 February 2014. Groups at the sharp end of Ukraine unrest, BBC am 1. Februar 2014 Die Extremisten vom Majdan, FAZ vom 23. Februar 2014 ^ ""We did not overthrow the government to deliver it to US & EU" – Ukraine". European Union Times. 25 February 2014. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) "Right Sector confirms its participation in events at Hrushevskoho". Radio Svoboda. 23 January 2014. Radicals a wild card in Ukraine’s protests, The Washington Post (2 February 2014) ^ Shynkarenko, Oleg (3 March 2014). "Can Ukraine Control Its Far Right Ultranationalists?". Retrieved 4 March 2014. ^ Groups at the sharp end of Ukraine unrest, BBC News (1 February 2014) Eugen Theise, "Radical 'Pravy Sektor' group shifts Kyiv protests to the right," Deutsche Welle World (11 February 2014). Retrieved 01 March 2014. Ishchenko, Volodymyr (22 January 2014). "Ukraine protests are no longer just about Europe". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 February 2014. "Ukrainian emergencies service put on heightened alert amid protests". BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. 12 February. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help) "Ukrainian right-wing group denies plotting terrorist attacks". BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. 12 February 2013. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Template:Uk icon "Правий сектор" запевнив посла Ізраїлю, що відкидає антисемітизм, Ukrainian Pravda (27 February 2014). Retrieved 3 March 2014. Olearchyk, Roman (26 February 2014). "Arseniy Yatseniuk poised to become Ukraine prime minister". Financial Times. Retrieved 27 February 2014. In a bid to appease protesters demanding an end to government corruption, Mr Yatseniuk's cabinet will have civic activists to oversee it. Andriy Parubiy, a lawmaker who served as commander of the protest movement's guards, was chosen to serve as chair of the national security and defence council. Victoria Siumar, a civil society activist, and Dmytro Yarosh, head of Right Sector, a militant protest group, were proposed as his deputies. Russians are informated that Right Sector consist of radicals,fascists,nazi and nationalists.There is no truth in this words. Right Sector consist of people you can see on the streets of the city who are tired to be slaves,so they rised for their rights.The main purpose of this organisation is to protect peaceful "Maidan" people from the special combat forces like "Berkut".They are "The Shell" of Maidan "Opposition in western Ukrainian region sets up self-defence units". BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. 10 February 2013. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) ^ English translation of an interview with the leader of Right Sector by Ukrayinska Pravda's Mustafa Nayem and Oksana Kovalenko. Ukrainian original published by Ukrayinska Pravda on 4 February 2014. English translation by William J Risch, published by Sean Guillory on his blog on 7 February 2014. "Бандерівець". February 2014. Archived from the original on 3 February 2014. "ARE US AND EU BACKING NEO NAZIS IN UKRAINE?". Eurasia Review. 25 February 2014. Retrieved 4 March 2014. v t e Euromaidan and the Revolution of Dignity 21 November 2013 – 23 February 2014 Main topics Timeline of the Euromaidan Domestic responses to the Euromaidan International reactions to the Euromaidan Casualties Heavenly Hundred Order of the Heavenly Hundred Heroes Damaged communist monuments Main events 1 December 2013 riots Fall of the monument to Lenin in Kyiv 11 December 2013 assault Ukrainian–Russian action plan Anti-Maidan Vasylkiv terrorists case Anti-protest laws in Ukraine 2014 Odesa clashes 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots 2014 RSA occupations Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine Revolution of Dignity Aftermath 2014 pro-Russian unrest Timeline Russian military intervention 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia Timeline War in Donbas timeline First Yatsenyuk government Lustration in Ukraine Decommunization in Ukraine Elections 2014 Ukrainian presidential election 2014 Ukrainian local elections 2014 Kyiv local election 2014 Crimean status referendum 2014 Donbas status referendums 2014 Ukrainian parliamentary election Main places Maidan Nezalezhnosti Mezhyhirya Khreshchatyk Lypky Bankova Street European Square Hrushevskoho Street Dynamo Stadium Kyiv City Council Trade Unions Building Ukrainian House Mariinskyi Park October Palace Kyiv Conservatory European integration Ukraine–European Union relations Eastern Partnership European Union Association Agreement European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement Constitution of Ukraine Protest figures Organizations Maidan People's Union Euromaidan Press Parliamentary opposition parties Batkivshchyna Svoboda UDAR Other parties Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists Democratic Alliance UNA–UNSO United Left and Peasants Civic organizations Automaidan Road Control Vidsich Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People Militant groups Right Sector Spilna Sprava Lead figures Vitali Klitschko Arseniy Yatsenyuk Oleh Tyahnybok Petro Poroshenko Yuriy Lutsenko Oleksandr Turchynov Yulia Tymoshenko Andriy Parubiy Andriy Sadovyi Arsen Avakov Ruslana Tetiana Chornovol Dmytro Bulatov Dmytro Yarosh Refat Chubarov Anti-protest figures Organizations Second Azarov government Ministry of Internal Affairs Internal Troops of Ukraine Security Service of Ukraine Berkut Militsiya (Ukraine) Party of Regions Titushky Night Wolves Don Cossacks Antimaidan Lead figures Viktor Yanukovych Mykola Azarov Serhiy Arbuzov Vitaliy Zakharchenko Oleksandr Yefremov Andriy Klyuyev Hennadiy Kernes Mykhailo Dobkin Viktor Pshonka Olena Lukash Yuriy Boyko Leonid Kozhara Dmytro Tabachnyk Oleksandr Klymenko This article about an organization in Ukraine is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. v t e

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead political views

For most political parties, Misplaced Pages articles describe their ideology, in summary, in the lead (e.g. Svoboda (political party), Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), Party of Regions). That's true for Right Sector as well, whose far-right, sometimes anti-semitic and sometimes fascistic views have been noted in the press. User Lvivske just removed some of these general descriptors from the lead, while keeping others (e.g. nationalist, opposition), so I've returned those he removed. Obviously, more detailed descriptions should be given in the body of the article if possible. -Darouet (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Start-Class Ukraine articles
• Unknown-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Ukrainian opposition groups
• Euromaidan
• Far-right politics