Talk:Iryna Farion

Major Revision

This article really needs a major revision. I mean, "bogus Ukrainian philology", "openly Nazist All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"", "...a Candidate of..."? It looks like a pro-Russian sabotaged this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So I reverted the article to the way it was before the sabotage and I fixed some grammar errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iryna Farion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204164227/http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/583500/ to http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/583500/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis64r_81/cgiirbis_64.exe?C21COM=S&I21DBN=EC&P21DBN=EC&S21FMT=briefwebr&S21ALL=%28%3C.%3EA%3D%D0%A4%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%86%D0%9E%D0%9D%24%3C.%3E+%3C.%3EA%3D%D0%86%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%90%24%3C.%3E+%3C.%3EA%3D%D0%94%D0%9C%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%A0%D0%86%D0%92%D0%9D%D0%90%24%3C.%3E%29&FT_REQUEST=&FT_PREFIX=&Z21ID=&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21CNR=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Youtube and other non-RSs

Greegints @JnpoJuwan, not sure if your edit [1] returning non-RSs was an edit conflict? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

there was an edit conflict that I tried to resolve, the YouTube links were there when I first edited it. please feel free to fix it! Juwan (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Nationalist

"Nationalist" does not inform the reader well enough that she held extreme nationalistic views. NYT and Kyiv Independent for example says "far-right". Mellk (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Iryna Farion's extreme nationalist views have long made the Lviv linguist and Svoboda [Freedom] Party politician a controversial figure."[2]
• "Due to her radical position on the Russian language, Farion has repeatedly found herself in scandals and earned a reputation as a radical nationalist, especially among Russian-speaking Ukrainians."[3]

As a senior member of Svoboda, she also admired figures such as Dontsov and Bandera: "... the leadership of the party, including Tiahnybok, Iryna Farion, and Iurii Mykhailyshyn, admire Donstov and share his anti-Semitic and fascistic views."[4]

Mellk (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding that to the article body first. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, the recent article from BBC Покушение на Украину. Что убитая Ирина Фарион значила для воюющей страны - BBC News Русская служба only reaches to say "radicalism in rhetorics". It looks like her profile should be written per academic sources available, attributed.

Guess what! Academic sources admire her academic contributions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think that instead of using labels one should simply say what she is known for, or what exactly her political views were. She is mostly known for being vehemently opposed to using Russian language in Ukraine, while being herself a linguist. That needs to be said rather than just saying a "nationalist", which is just a meaningless label. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  So the sources are wrong for calling her nationalist/ultranationalist? "Nationalist" is also not a contentious label. Is referring to members of socialist parties as "socialist" derogatory or meaningless too, especially if they are known for this? Mellk (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

None of that is derogatory, but simply not informative. Someone being a "nationalist" or a "socialist" can mean a lot of different things. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is something that is spread throughout the lead, and not overloading the first sentence. Of course, the lead now is far from ideal as it is quite brief. Mellk (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have repeatedly spoken out against the frequent over-reliance on descriptors/labels in the lead sentence, but I do not agree that "nationalist" is "meaningless". That argument seems pretty weak as the term is a widely used and informative term in political discourse with a pretty clear definition for what it means. It is also appropriate for this article subject as it is widely used in reliable sources to describe her, often as the primary descriptor of the article subject. The problem with the other terms suggested for the lead sentence is that there is not an obvious consensus in the reliable sources, but that definitely does appear to be the case for the term "nationalist". – notwally (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. In that case, "nationalist" is probably a better option than "far-right", which I can agree is not quite yet used enough in RS to justify including it in the first sentence. Mellk (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I too agree with this. Indeed, she was undoubtedly a Ukrainian nationalist and RS described her as such. There is nothing wrong with this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So the sources are wrong for calling her nationalist/ultranationalist?
While she describes as nationalist herself, academic biography on her pays the most attention and praises her the most for her academic contributions, and for her defense of the Ukrainian language.

But we can't observe this in the article. The highlight of academic works describing her as such was negated [5] . And DUE weight is given now to what press reports on her, instead of how academic work describes her [6] , with "Political career" and "Political views" chapters each larger than "Academic career" chapter. Contrary to the picture drawn in an academic bio on her - Фаріон Ірина Дмитрівна: Біобібліографічний показник - Оксана Микитюк - Тека авторів - Чтиво (chtyvo.org.ua) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The source from the publishing house of the same university she was a professor at which focuses on her academic career, is what we should use to determine WP:DUE? There is a journal article and books which mention her political career/views only, should we forget about those now? Mellk (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The content in the diffs provided by ManyAreasExpert definitely looks like it was appropriately removed by Mellk. In addition to unsourced and promotional content, I would also note that YouTube is not an academic source, and books and blog posts written by the article subject are not helpful citations, especially when misleadingly cited as references for claims about the significance of her work. Mellk has done a great job expanding the article with a lot of useful, well-sourced information, IMO. – notwally (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In addition to unsourced and promotional content, I would also note that YouTube is not an academic source, and books and blog posts written by the article subject are not helpful citations
It's not unsourced. It all is sourced to Фаріон Ірина Дмитрівна: Біобібліографічний показник - Оксана Микитюк - Тека авторів - Чтиво (chtyvo.org.ua) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a journal article and books which mention her political career/views only
If they would talk about the person in length. Those which were presented so far only mention her in passing. What is there which is not included into our article, yet?

Тимошик Микола Степанович — Вікіпедія (wikipedia.org) who is the author of the summary is not related to her university. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, I do not see why we should only use that source to determine WP:DUE. It is already being used for much of the academic career section which already sounds very positive about her. Mellk (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it's the most authoritative source on article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's the most authoritative source to you, but a single book is not going to outweigh dozens of news articles and other sources. And if the book is written in the same type of promotional language that you were putting into the article, then it would hold even less weight. – notwally (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

ЕЛЕМЕНТИ ЕКСПРЕСИВНОГО СИНТАКСИСУ ЯК МАРКЕРИ НЕПОВТОРНОСТІ ОРАТОРСЬКОГО СТИЛЮ ІРИНИ ФАРІОН apfp-2021-n22(2).pdf (wunu.edu.ua)
Iryna Farion's Ukrainocentric worldview permeates all her scholarly, public, and political activities. This renowned Ukrainian philologist's primary mission is the protection and promotion of the Ukrainian language and culture. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps for the academic career section. I do not expect a philologist to be better than political scientists/nationalism researchers and other such persons in the other sections. Mellk (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am in favour of including "Far-right" in the lede as well. There are first-class sources like the NYT that describe her as "Far-Right Politician".[7] Mhorg (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Far right" is a mild description of her. In fact when she became old an senile, her speeches became demonstrably racist. She even managed to piss off the Russian-speaking members of Azov Battalion and there are rumors that her murder was by ultranationalists. - Altenmann >talk 17:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Her campaign to discourage use of Russian language was obviously nationalistic, although nothing exceptional. Same attitude is also common for countries like Poland. This is a reaction to forced russification, where children were forced to learn the language of their occupiers in school (I had an interesting discussion about this in Poland). One almost a comical case was one native Russian speaker (here, in the USA) who refused to speak Russian as a matter of principle and spoke only English, but his English was very poor. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One could say she argued for same wrong idea that has been promoted by Putinist propaganda, i.e. that everyone who speaks Russian must have an allegiance to Russia (this is nonsense: not everyone who speak English has an allegiance to England). Except that a significant part of Russian-speaking Ukrainian population at the East of the country was indeed very much pro-Russia.My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Please remember that talk pages are not forums to discuss rumors, speculation, or personal opinions. As per policy, article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles. See WP:FORUM. – notwally (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Here is my specific suggestion: summarize content of section "Opposition to Russian language in Ukraine" very briefly based on mainstream English language sources. Right now this is just a list of disorganized cherry-picked quotations form low-quality Ukrainian sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Low-quality news sources like Ukranews should be removed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian sources are often unreliable. However, if we take for example this Ukranews article,[8] the video from the official Faryon channel is quoted where she actually says:[9] "Do we need so many morons in Ukraine?" referring to Hungarians in Ukraine. So it is correct. If Ukrainian sources bring verifiable material there is no reason to remove them. Mhorg (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are primary low-quality news sources. If more reliable secondary sources pay no attention to the fact, why should our article do. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The event is reported in several Ukrainian media, including in English. I do not see why we should remove it: Kyiv Independent[10], Apostrophe[11], Golos Karpat[12] Mhorg (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Kyiv Independent[10]
This one is reliable enough, for the time being. Other less important "facts" are not important. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we need just provide very brief summary of her activities in this area, instead of randomly citing her cherry-picked statements. In addition, this is poorly written. "karma" for the citizens of Mariupol. What that suppose to mean? "dogs who cannot learn the language". Is it encyclopedic content? For example, while writing about Andrey Vyshinsky one could mention his "shot the rabid dogs", but that was really a famous quotation. Nothing like that here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To me, Farion's statement on karma seems very clear. And why did you remove such serious statements against civilians of Mariupol? I also point out that you removed the BBC as well. Mhorg (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is large section that repeats over and over again very same thing: that she advocated against using Russian language. Yes, she certainly did, but this can be summarized much shorter. As about "karma", did she mean the destiny? That it was the destiny of 100,000+ people in Mariupol to be killed by Russian forces? Why? I do not understand. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Article looks like fully as an russian propaganda bs.

There are nothing about scientific work. There are nothing about enlightening work. All article only about controversial statements and clams by russian nazis agains her. 85.114.204.72 (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There are nothing about scientific work
Agree it should be here. But we need sources reviewing her contributions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Tell us, where in this NYT article are those works mentioned and not the scandals she was involved in? Or do you consider NYT to be part of the Russian Nazis? Mellk (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Found it, in Ukrainian Фаріон Ірина Дмитрівна: Біобібліографічний показник - Оксана Микитюк - Тека авторів - Чтиво (chtyvo.org.ua) . Finally we can do some decent work. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The article reports statements she made without commenting on them. If this influences her reputation in a negative way, that is the fault of Farion herself for making such statements. Jaguarnik (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The article only says the facts which that she was a ultranationalist extremist also which Russian Nazis? The RDK fights for Ukraine 2A02:587:E814:4A20:9019:C7C7:B0CD:45E7 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Refrain from using language such as "russian nazis" please. This is not a forum nor a place to soapbox. JDiala (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Academic monograph removal

Greetings @Mellk, your removal [13] of academic biography was not an improvement. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP academic monographs are preferred against news sources, which the article your edit left filled with.

Here's what we the editors could do better:

• address "puffery" with rewording.
• discuss "due" in talk, as the goal of "due" is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and you removed these, which is contrary to "fairly represent".
• the text is obviously based on the academic monograph, not on primary sources, which are included only for reference and only reference the actual works.

Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole thing was poorly written. For example:

Among Farion's works philologists highlight:

• Monographs and scientific articles
• Teaching guides
• Publicistic and popular science articles in the press
• Numerous interviews

This is a waste of space. It should not be the aim to dump as much text as possible and hope that someone else will fix this.

You are using the one secondary source but also using the primary sources alone to support certain statements. And no, we are not using just news sources in the article. Mellk (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, the issue above can be fixed with a few hits of delete key. Even you could do that, and that would be an improvement, instead of removal.

You are using the one secondary source but also using the primary sources alone to support certain statements
No, statements are based on the academic source and are a paraphrase of it. The retelling of the source can and should include editor's own words until something specific is challenged.

And no, we are not using just news sources in the article.
I just checked first 10 sources and they are news websites. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The point of reverting was to initiate the WP:BRD cycle. This is a large edit that cannot be immediately improved. There it can be discussed what should be included. Of course, I think some of the works can be mentioned, but without the excessive text that does not add anything.

I just checked first 10 sources and they are news websites -- there are 76 references, and you did not look careful enough. Mellk (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

without the excessive text that does not add anything
It is based on a summary chapter from an academic biography, your concerns above will be addressed.

there are 76 references, and you did not look careful enough.
Well it does not matter much if the article is 90% or 95% of news sources.
ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A former People's Deputy, Doctor of Philology, Professor, and teacher has dedicated hundreds of speeches, articles, several educational projects, and books to the protection of the Ukrainian language. -- why do we need this? Again, this is nothing of substance and more repetition.

Well it does not matter much if the article is 90% or 95% of news sources.. Well, why not use a variety of secondary sources, rather than one for the text you added, if you are concerned that there are too many news sources? I added a journal article and few books earlier. Mellk (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have restored some of the key works but the other details are not important IMO. Mellk (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Essentially, the book on her (Микитюк, Оксана Романівна; Харчук, Лілія Валеріївна; Ментинська, Ірина Богданівна - Фаріон Ірина Дмитрівна: доктор філологічних наук, професор : біобібліографічний показник) condenses what's important in its summary chapter. It determines four or so main directions, or areas, of her work, and describes these. Reading the book, and the chapter, we can see academics justify their premise about Farion dedicating her work to defend / protect / promote the language. We can use that chapter to determine what's important, and what to write in our article about. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We can mention that she has been noted by fellow linguists for efforts in promoting the Ukrainian language in the academic career section, but this seems like something that should only take up a few words. Mellk (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I found 3 books on Farion (other than biography) in the article -
Making Ethnicity in Southern Bessarabia, Extreme Reactions and Ukrainian Nationalism in the Age of Extremes, and the article has pretty much everything what could be taken from them on Farion. I havent found a journal article yet. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think there is nothing wrong with providing some details about her work. I do not see a lot of puffery; some primary sources (including those by her) can be used per WP:PRIMARY. Still, some of this should probably be placed to section "External links". My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic. Sorry I started this. - Altenmann >talk 15:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

<sigh> In the past her academic work was reasonable, albeit with some nationalist twist. (For example, her "Old Ukrainian language" is on par with "Old Belarusian language" concept promoted by Litvinists.) However when she got older she became a real crackpot. Unfortunately due to conflict with Russia the whole Ukrainian scholarship went berserk in its hatred to all thing Russian. Therefore we need to have neutral sources that judge her scholarship. - Altenmann >talk 17:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) the whole Ukrainian scholarship went berserk Anything to support your claims before we remove the whole Ukrainian scholarship from the Wikipedia? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Where did I speak of removing whole Ukrainian scholarship? I dont really care, I only chuckle when I see some outlandish claims inserted into Wikipedia. I remember I interfered only when someone tried to argue that the spelling "Kyiv" was used in documents of Kievan Rus, because the stupidity of this claim was uncontestable. - Altenmann >talk 17:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC) I realise your bias concern raised above. But by this time, this shift would be noted by academics, and we observe quite the contrary, with academics independent from both Ru and Ukr reporting that it is actually Russia studies which were biased and have considered Ukrainian POV not enough - Crisis in Russian Studies? Nationalism (Imperialism), Racism and War – E-International Relations (e-ir.info), Moscow's Invasion Of Ukraine Triggers 'Soul-Searching' At Western Universities As Scholars Rethink Russian Studies (rferl.org) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC) I didn't say that Russian/Soviet side is/was unbiased. They have their own agenda. For example, are you aware who invented the term "Kievan Rus" and why? - Altenmann >talk 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC) P.S. I looked briefly into the RFE/RL article and all I what I see is the laziness of Western scholars. These talks about "reassessment" and reviewing "Russia's history of imperialism and colonialism" is flogging a dead horse. All this reassessment started immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union by progressive Russian scholars themselves, but an impression is it went unnoticed by the West. Heck, you can find this reassessment even in Wikipedia. For example, I recently was looking into the articles about Russian Far East and I see that the theory of "peaceful" appeasement of Siberian peoples is dead now. Because of the current demonization of the whole Russia Western people quickly forgot that there are plenty of decent people in Russia. Unfortunately they cannot do nothing with Russian politics just like in the times of Stalin. - Altenmann >talk 23:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC) The first source also basically argues that Kievan Rus belongs exclusively to the history of Ukraine, because apparently Ukraine's borders are eternal and everything that happened within those borders are part of Ukrainian history, and everything within Russia's borders belong to the history of Russia (even though Kievan Rus included parts of Russia). Although this is not a new argument and it repeats the same claims made for the past 100 years. Mellk (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) We were discussing the thesis that "the whole Ukrainian scholarship went berserk". But Erica Marat, a professor of political science at the National Defense University in Washington and a Central Asia expert, says the push by scholars of Ukraine to challenge the status quo in academia has inspired those studying other regions ruled by Moscow. "The war in Ukraine and just how Ukrainian scholars are speaking out is really opening up a lot of space for the rest of us," she told RFE/RL. Vitaly Chernetsky, a Ukrainian-born professor of Slavic and Eurasian languages and literatures at the University of Kansas, says that the works of experts from non-Russian regions and communities are not taken seriously enough by peers, a view shared by Marat and others. Ukraine has been "misjudged and misunderstood" in the West in part because scholars of Russia dominate the discussion, Chernetsky said. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "scholars of Russia dominate the discussion"? in the West? Are you serious? - Altenmann >talk 15:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Many scholars say the Russian state receives too much focus in academia at the expense of the colonized nations, regions, and groups, including Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, as well as ethnic minority communities in Russia itself. The view from St. Petersburg and Moscow -- the capitals of Russia since the tsarist era and of the Soviet Union -- dominates. As a case in point, he says one reason many in the field expected Kyiv to fall quickly following the Russian invasion in February was that they bought into the narrative that Ukraine was a "divided" nation with a weak sense of national identity. Should I quote all of it. Welcome read the source. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Can't in be the reason that the "colonized nations" have a weak scholarship? A counterexample proving my point: the scholarship of Baltic States was respected both in the the Soviet Union and even more in the West now. - Altenmann >talk 15:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC) And yes, Ukraine was and is a "divided nation" Just look at the maps of all Ukrainian election results: the country was split 50-50 between West-leaning and Russia-leaning populations. And 50-50 is not an euphemism: the balance was so unstable that every presidential elections the president was switched from one camp to another. And by the way, until the shit hit the fan, Ukraine was the most democratic state of all post-Soviet states in terms of elections, similar to America with its two parties. - Altenmann >talk 15:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC) We have gone too far from your initial thesis that it's time to shelf it and open a new topic. the maps of all Ukrainian election results: the country was split 50-50 between West-leaning and Russia-leaning populations. Since 2014, Ukraine's “pro-Russian east” has shrunk to two oblasts in the Donbas (Zhurzhenko, 2015). Ukraine no longer has a Russian “super-minority” (Kulyk, 2018). The Party of Regions disintegrated in February 2014. The KPU is unable to participate in elections because it continues to use Soviet symbols banned under de-communization laws. Nearly a fifth of traditionally pro-Russian voters in the Crimea and Donbas are unable toparticipate inUkrainianelections because theylive in Russian-occupied territories (D'Anieri, 2019). Yanukovych and the Party of Regions won all eight oblasts in Ukraine's east and south in elections held between 2006 and 2012. Pro-Russian candidate Yuriy Boyko and the pro-Russian Opposition Platform won votes in only two Donbas oblasts in the 2019 Ukrainian presidential and parliamentary elections. Russian stereotypes and myths of Ukraine and Ukrainians and why Novorossiya failed (researchgate.net) And 50-50 is not an euphemism: the balance was so unstable that every presidential elections the president was switched from one camp to another Actually, no, there was only one semi-"pro-ru" president. Although characterized as such, even that can be not a complete picture, as Yanukovych was intimidated by Putin to do the Eastern shift. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Subsection

Greetings! We should not give its own subsection to each sentence, as recent edits did with "Statements about Hungarian minority" subsection.

Neither should we introduce too much subsections to "Scandals" section, based on poor-quality news primary sources, as some sources in that section are, such as "Ukranews". I don't see secondary reliable sources giving enough attention to such topics, to justify the subsections.

We should extend and improve "Academic career" section instead, as there is an academic biography available, with good attention to subtopics like different areas of her work; and academic review articles of her work could be easily found. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree for now. Her Academic career in the Ukrainian article is very elaborate, perhaps let's base it on that. Pusf.smbd (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I too agree. My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Murder or Assassination

I've reverted 3 times an IP user who has changed without explanation "Murder" to "Assassination". Thought I should explain my rationale. Per the essay Wikipedia:Assassination, I am following its advice "If those reliable sources are not using the term "assassination" ... then Wikipedia will not use the term "assassination" toward that person's murder". I have looked at all the international English language clearly RS MSM cites (surprisingly only 3), and none of them call it an assassination, so we should stick with murder.

For the record, here is a list of the terms used in the international English language clearly RS MSM cites:

• Reuters [4]: "shot and killed"
• NYT [8]: "shot and killed", "not a spontaneous murder", "the killing", "enabling the killing" (discusses pre-2022 assassinations)
• BBC [61]: "after the shooting", "not a spontaneous killing", "the murder has" (Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko quote)

Rwendland (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The claim of murder

According to sources, "National Socialism / White Power" only published the video, they are not claiming the murder.

• Detector Media:[14] "According to the video, the "Ukrainian autonomous revolutionary racist" claims responsibility for the murder. The video appeared on Russian Telegram channels on the evening of July 24. A recording of the alleged moment of the murder is embedded at the end of a long video titled "Manifesto of an autonomous Ukrainian revolutionary racist.""
• 24TV:[15] "The day before, on the evening of 24 July, a confusing statement appeared on Telegram from the Russian neo-Nazi group NS/WP, according to which they, or rather an "autonomous revolutionary racist", claimed responsibility for the attack"
• BBC:[16] "Political scientist Anton Shekhovtsov draws attention to the fact that NS/WP did not claim responsibility for the murder, but only published a 'manifesto' of the person who committed this crime. In the 'manifesto', this person explains his actions with the ideology professed by the supporters of the neo-Nazi movement. "It is too early to say that there was coordination, that someone ordered this murder. I suppose we can speak of the act of an autonomous revolutionary racist,' said the political scientist."

Personally, I consider Anton Shekhovtsov unreliable on matters concerning Ukraine, but what he says is also found in other sources, so in this case it might be worth considering. I think it should be specified that NS\WP only published the video. Mhorg (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd happily see the para mentioning "National Socialism / White Power" deleted from the Suspect section. I seriously considered doing that a few days ago, as the para didn't really seem on-topic for that section, and the possible implication that the suspect might be a member/linked of/to that group wasn't compliant with WP:BLPCRIME. I only held back from deleting it because the source was the BBC, so prima-facie RS even I guess in the BBC Ukraine version. Rwendland (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)