Talk:Sparta Battalion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unilateral blanking of sourced text[edit]

Let's all be on the lookout for this type of editing: namely, the unilateral "edit war"-style blanking of sourced text without the prior use of "Discussion." It's surely not proper or even collegial. Let's do better. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are these sources that speak of association with neo-Nazism, but they do not provide any explanation. Is the battalion the armed wing of some neo-Nazi organization? It would be interesting to know more, it is a very important claim and must be supported by solid evidence.--Mhorg (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged neo-Nazism[edit]

Removed text:

The Sparta Battalion has been described as being associated with neo-Nazism in regard to ideology.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Milo Boyd (7 March 2022). "Russian warlord who led Neo-Nazi 'Sparta' battalion shot dead as Ukrainians hold town". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 10 March 2022.
  2. ^ Michael Herold (7 March 2022). "Er wird als russischer Held gefeiert: Neonazi-Warlord stirbt offenbar in der Ukraine" [He is celebrated as a Russian hero: Neo-Nazi warlord apparently dies in Ukraine]. Tag24 (in German). Retrieved 10 March 2022.
  3. ^ Gogarty, Conor (2022-03-12). "Russian commanders killed in Ukraine including 'brutal warlord'". WalesOnline. Retrieved 2022-03-12. Guards Colonel Vladimir Zhoga led the Sparta battalion, a neo-Nazi military unit backed by the Kremlin. He was killed last Saturday during battle in the eastern Ukrainian town of Volnovakha.

Justification for removal: "there are no scholar sources that support this thing". We don't need "scholar sources", we need reliable sources. Plus the text says "has been described", which is NPOV; it doesn't say Sparta "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice. So on the face of it the deleted text seems OK, although I haven't reviewed all the sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, these are week sources: tabloids, one citing the Daily Mail, so would need stronger sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is an RS though: [1] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources". This battalion has existed for years and has never been called a "neo-Nazi". Now there are few articles coming out on really weak sources that are saying it... and they don't even explain why. Furthermore, this faintly sourced part is even in the incipit. Until strong sources are found, in my opinion, a claim of this magnitude cannot be in the article. Mhorg (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg: actually that Battalion has been called neo-nazi for years. It simply did not gain as much attention as the Ukrainian Nazi Battalion (Azov).-Karma1998 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, from 2014 to the first days of February 2022 no one ever described this military formation "neo-Nazi". As soon as the war began, there was a general copy\paste of this definition without even explaining why: is it a battalion that attracts neo-Nazis? Neo-nazis from Donbass or Russia or both? Are they part of a neo-Nazi political project? Are they part of an international network of neo-Nazis? If you have sources explaining this (preferably scholarly sources), please bring them here in the discussion, I'd love to read them. Mhorg (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg: wait a sec, I know you. You're that Russia-supporting guy on the Italian Wikipedia that was obsessed with changing the page about the Odessa Trade Unions House Fire. I see that now you're active here as well hahahah.-Karma1998 (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian-supporting guy"? I changed the article's name only once and months ago, and made a few comments on the discussion page. Rather, on the Italian Wikipedia you have already been blocked indefinitely, these personal attacks here only confirm that you have not understood how to behave on the encyclopedia. Mhorg (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg: I have been blocked indefinitely because of the arrogance of the Italian Wikipedia's administrators. Luckily, here I am met with much more respect and I have in fact received two barnstars because of my work on the Ukrainian crisis.-Karma1998 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley: Now it is also written in wikivoice which would be neo-Nazi,[2] I think this is unacceptable. Could you please give your opinion? I also ask the other colleagues, could you explain to me why from 1 january 2014 to 24 february 2022 (the beginning of the war) Google found 0 articles about the "neo-Nazi" ideology of this battalion? Doesn't it seem to you that there is something strange too? Is it possible that there isn't a scholarly source that has investigated this neo-Nazi organization? For example, on the Azov battalion we have tons video documentaries, journalistic inquiries on its ties on neo-Nazi organizations... here we have nothing. Why?--Mhorg (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has attracted scholarly coverage[3] as such I agree that the sourcing is very poor as it fails to describe the label it is only providing in passing. This is a greatly covered topic as such we need to satisfy WP:LABEL properly and the sources should be describing the label than just making a passing mention. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the "Ideology" section should be removed as well, because no sources focus on "ideology" per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We need more than just passing mentions in recent sources. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, I agree with you completely. I have been following the conflict in Donbass since 2014, I have seen hundreds of videos and read hundreds of articles on rebel formations, I have never seen a single piece of content that spoke of the Sparta Battalion as a "neo-Nazi". This military formation is known for having a nostalgic political stance towards the Russian Empire, and is known for committing war crimes. Never read anything else. I find it really curious that these journalists from one day to the next, because the war has broken out, want to report this aspect without even providing any evidence, no journalistic investigation, nothing. It seems unprofessional to me, but maybe there are colleagues here who will be able to provide interesting material. Mhorg (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: because these are two different situations. Please, read here. Mhorg (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg I’ll. (You might want go back to Azov and fix sources that got corrupted with your recent edits) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the western media regarding that battalion is small but some indeed describe them as neo-Nazi military unit backed by the Kremlin[4], and there is almost no scholarly coverage. One found is this one [5] but they do not describe Sparta Battalion as Neo-Nazis. How about RfC it? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that some sources describe them as "neo-Nazi", but I think it is a copy\paste from journalists, mainly to counter-balance the issue of the Azov Battalion in the propaganda warfare from the West and Russia, and the fact that the only scholarly sources about this battalion do not describe them as "neo-Nazi" is a point in favor of this theory. I would prefer to wait for academic studies on this thing, before putting such a thing in the lede. However, if we want to do an RFC, that's okay for me. Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella and Mhorg: RfC is not needed. Yes Sparta Battalion has got coverage in scholarly sources,[6][7] but no sources used this label for them because it is outright misleading.
Walesonline.co.uk published the article on 12 March, about 6 days after this fake information emerged from 6 March Daily Mail article just like WalesOnline too says confirms that it got its information from "the Daily Mail reports". We all know WP:DAILYMAIL is the worst source, thus we can safely ignore this.
I note that a better case can be made for American Republican Party because enough reliable sources call them and their politicians a white supremacist[8][9] but our article on them does not say it because of WP:LABEL and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Same conditions should apply here and any information emerging from Daily Mail should be rejected. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jhy.rjwk for your research, I knew there was something weird underneath. If the first source that talked about it in these terms is the DailyMail, everything connected must be removed. Mhorg (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple editors disagreeing (see article history) so I think RfC is the way to go, but I’ll not start one myself. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per WP:RFCBEFORE, they are free to explain how Daily Mail became reliable overnight for this subject but until then the recent edits are better off as removed. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are “daily mail”. Your argument appears to be “these sources said x, and Daily Mail also said X, so since Daily Mail is unreliable, we can’t include this”. That is an absurd argument. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But if the borderline/tabloid RSs are citing Daily Mail as their source, that's not good enough for us. Personally, I think keeping a weak version that attributes and notes the recentness (this edit, except with "Pavlov" replaced by Zhoga) would be a sensible compromise, but anything stronger would be wrong. The sources we have are all recent, not strong, not scholarly. We need to think about WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:LABEL. In particular, we should not say "is neo-Nazi" in our voice without a good weight of RSs supporting this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek: As apparent from your misrepresentation of sources, I am quoting the most relevant part from my above comment which is as clear as it gets: "Walesonline.co.uk published the article on 12 March, about 6 days after this fake information emerged from 6 March Daily Mail article just like WalesOnline too confirms that it got its information from "the Daily Mail reports". We all know WP:DAILYMAIL is the worst source, thus we can safely ignore this."
Tabloid Tag24.de is your another source which also cites "DailyMail" as it clearly says "Wie unter anderem die britische "DailyMail" berichtet".
You need to prove why we should ignore policies like WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:LABEL, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Another choice for you is to accept your mistake and cease this disruption. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources:

  • This academic source discusses a category of ideologically diverse Orthodox, Eurasionist, far right and far left militias, then says: One of the most iconic is the Sparta Battalion, part of the armed forces of the “Republic of Donetsk”. The voluntarily-formed unit uses a combination of symbols of the Spartan military culture, well-known drivers of the far-Right, and from the Tsarist era. This might support "far-Right" (not sure), but not "neo-Nazi".
  • In an opinion piece, academic Michael Karadjis says: Other far-right militia include the Interbrigades, connected to the Nazbol ‘Other Russia’ organisation, the Svarozhich, Rusich and Ratibor battalions, which sport the ‘Slavic swastika’, the Sparta Battalion, the Duginite Eurasianist Youth, the Nazi Slavic Union and the racist Movement Against Illegal Immigration. He gives no citation but hyperlinks our article, so possibly circular and probably lacking due weight.
  • Polygraph.info says: when Russia first fomented the conflict in Donbas after annexing Crimea that year, the key military and political leaders in the self-proclaimed separatist “republics” of the Donbas were imported Russian citizens. That includes the first leader of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Alexander Borodai; Donetsk People’s Republic defense minister Igor “Strelkov” Girkin; “Sparta” Battalion leader Arseny “Motorola” Pavlov; and Rusych militia leader and neo-Nazi Alexei Milchakov. If they considered Sparta/Pavlov neo-Nazi like Milchakov, they'd have said.
  • This article in The Sun - A RUSSIAN warlord who led the Neo-Nazi Sparta Battalion has been shot dead in Ukraine in another major blow for Vladimir Putin's stalled invasion. - is several hours older than the Mail article, and so more likely the source of the cluster of articles. The Sun is a tabloid; like the Mail it is deprecated (WP:THESUN).

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BobFromBrockley for this search. In my opinion, in wikivoice it absolutely cannot be there, it would be an insult to the quality of the encyclopedia. For the weakness of the contents presented by the sources I have the almost total certainty that this "neo-Nazi" stuff is connected to the propaganda battle between the two sides, so for me it should even disappear from the body of the article. Let the two blocs go to war, but leave the truth alone. There are experts who take care of these things, academics will take care of these aspects. Mhorg (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Mhorg but that’s your opinion. You should not revert yet again -->[10] but rather wait for consensus. I'm, for example, still not sure if you are right or not. I would also argue that several hours older than the Mail article, and so more likely the source of the cluster of articles (see @Bobfrombrockleys comment above) is WP:OR. We might need an RfC on that folks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, per WP:RFCBEFORE I would like Volunteer Marek to stop misrepresenting sources and explain why he is trying to find ways to get around the information from Daily Mail. I don't think anyone will resort to The Sun, which is yet another fake news source. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I like seeing "neo-nazi" label in the lead of this article, to be fair I have to say that IMHO it should be removed from there. Specifically, I'd say remove active neo-Nazi from the first sentense, and reformulate the last sentence of the second paragraph The battalion has been described as a neo-Nazi formation supporting Russian nationalism, traditionalism and neo-tsarist ideals. to say something softer, like Some allege significant presence of neo-Nazi or Russian nationalism, etc. (the current sentense also sound that whoever wrote it probably lost in translation the difference between nazism and nationalism). Keep allegations of neo-nazi ties in the body of the text (in Ideology or Controversies sub-section).Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what sources we will use? Only The Sun and Daily Mail, the Unreliable news sources, provide passing mention to that label and even if they were the best sources we wouldnt be using them because passing mention isn't enough because they are should to describe the term and it's relevance. None of those requirements have been fulfilled here. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I was asked to unprotect this article on my talk page. I think it better to allow this discussion to continue without the distraction of revert warring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It has again been proposed to unprotect this page. I hate fully protecting pages. Perhaps, once the FP expires tomorrow, the best course would be to block individual users from the article if edit warring resumes. I remind all stakeholders with an interest in this page, that there are unfollowed steps in DISPUTERESOLUTION. Anyone editing in a contentious area should become familiar with them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra: From what I read from colleagues who have participated in this discussion, at least we agree that the definition of "neo-Nazi" could be removed from the lede. Then, when the lockdown expires, we'll discuss the rest. Mhorg (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wait? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra: Ok... from what I see in this discussion, according to research brought by Jhy.rjwk and the scholarly sources brought by BobFromBrockley - in my opinion - we can remove this "neo-Nazi" stuff from the whole article. They are formulations generated by unreliable sources and then copy\pasted from other journals. Mhorg (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do all stakeholders agree? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EU restrictive measures[edit]

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2015:040:FULL&from=EN Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting and could be added to the article. Mhorg (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg: @Xx236: It actually should be added to the article. I mean, it doesn't say much about the ideology of the Battalion, but provides informations about their leadership.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

No controversial category, comparing to Azov Battalion categories. Biased. Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or merely lacking in reliable sources to support content. Can you provide them? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I've found some articles on Newsweek stating that the Sparta Battalion is a "a neo-Nazi Kremlin-backed separatist force based in Donetsk". Is Newsweek a reliable source?-Karma1998 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP says: Newsweek (2013–present). Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013).
On a side note, it occures to me that Wiki has an article dedicated to Rashism, and in case of these Lugo-Donetsk para-militari formations, rather than reaching to label them neo-Nazi, it probably makes more sense to just label them Rashists. It makes a way more sense, presumably easier to support with RS quotes, and Rashism article takes care to explain how extreme Russian nationalism is similar to fascism. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdofpreyru: Okay, so, are these articles on NewsWeek reliable or not? I'll send them through: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-russian-delegate-censored-sky-news-over-nazi-claims-1705761 and https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-every-russian-commander-killed-fighting-ukraine-war-1691064--Karma1998 (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Karma1998 - Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. The consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See -[11] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: yeah, I understood that and I am currently checking the list of reliable sources provided by Wikipedia. However, I do not understand how I can evaluate Newsweek's articles on a case-by-case basis.--Karma1998 (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need other people to agree on using that particular Newsweek article as a source. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. @GizzyCatBella:, @Birdofpreyru: and @Deepfriedokra: and other Wikipedia users: do you think these Newsweek articles are reliable? https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-russian-delegate-censored-sky-news-over-nazi-claims-1705761 and https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-every-russian-commander-killed-fighting-ukraine-war-1691064-- Let me know -Karma1998 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, you should evaluate individual facts rather than articles per se. E.g. second article, I guess the list of killed folks is mostly reliable (sure better verify what other sources say), but if you want to cherry-pick "neo-Nazi Kremlin-backed separatist force" from that article, I'd say that is a bad pick. Again, depends on how you use it, if you write "Newsweek considers the regiment neo-Nazi" it is one thing, supported by these sources; and if you write "the regiment is neo-nazi because Newsweek tells so", that is wrong use of the source. Birdofpreyru (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdofpreyru: copy that. Can I write that "Newsweek has described the Battalion as a neo-Nazi unit"?-Karma1998 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the origin of this information came from unreliable sources as well. In fact, there is no source that explains why it is a neo-Nazi. Mhorg (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Karma1998: IDK, leaning no but I think you need more neutral editors to discuss this. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: I definitely do, hopefully I'll find some.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Karma1998: Thanks for the ping, but I am not a stakeholder in this article. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New possible sources on far-right links[edit]

I would like to relaunch these three academic sources about the links of the Sparta Battalion with far-right ideology. They had already been mentioned in this talk and I think they need further consideration:

Waiting for opinions. I have not used articles from tabloids and Newsweek since they are not considered to be reliable.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to rehash the discussion by creating a new section? These sources have been already analyzed here and they don't warrant inclusion here.
Before using any label from now on, you need to familiarize yourself with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:LABEL so that you can find something more than just passing mention from a reliable source. Wikipedia is not for offering WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims without exceptional sources. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhy.rjwk: I apologize for my mistake. I will not open other discussions unless I find other sources.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sparta_Battalion&oldid=1212654711"