Talk:World Without Nazism

File:Boris Shpigel.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Boris Shpigel.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Was an GONGO now a NGO?

This organization was classified as a GONGO (Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organization) and now is classified as a NGO (Non-Government Organization) The sudden switch seems a bit suspicious to me. Attempting to scrub history for funding? Jim1138 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there should be a reliable source or sources saying that this organization is funded by a state or states. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sander Säde violation

User called Sander Säde has violated the rules by deleting all changes and returing the article into KAPO propaganda style, t.e. solely hostile propagandistic disinformation. The article already includes criticism and the article should be neutral. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Sander Säde is difficult to understand: he prevents all editing of this article after the "1st version" which is false and hostile. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

Actually, the article as it was before you two edited it was balanced, neutral and sourced. It was using a wide variety of solid international sources, pretty much for every sentence.

What you two did was introduction of lies, hatred and propaganda, a lot of which is completely made up. For example, your version claims "Officially registered in [[Strasbourg]], [[France]], the organization organizes conferences, discussion clubs and publishes monitoring reports.<ref>Constituent Declaration “World without Nazism” Movement. http://worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com/about/declaration/</ref>", except that blog link has nothing about Strasbourg, France. Or loaded language, such as "The [[Estonian Security Police]], together with the Nato Cyber Defence Centre in Tallinn (CCD COE), both well-known of its aggressive Russophobic views...", which is both lie and nonsense. Of course, the claim also completely unsourced, too. And last, but not least, the edits of you and Ew61 (which are very similar in style, use of language and POV) are simply in a really bad English. "WWN ha criticized retroactive war crime..", "pro-extreme right publication", etc, etc, etc

Please stop. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your personal POV-pushing. Such hatred has no place in Wikipedia.

--Sander Säde 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To write about my "personal POV-pushing" is a hostile personal attack. That is not acceptable. I also repeat what I wrote to the wall of Sander Sädes personal page:

What I was trying to say was that for Estonia it is a shame that nationalistic propaganda is delivered in Wikipedia using the sources of Estonian security police Kapo. Sander Säde also does not want to accept any editing of the article World Without Nazism. He has deleted all commentaries on this topic already three times from here. He wants to prevent any editing of the 1st version, which is by all means hostile in every sentence. Could you please say why do you think Estonia is worth of delivering nationalistic propaganda in the name of Kapo? And this is not personal comment, this is general commentary. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder it this commentary can rest here more than 5 minutes? However it is also violation of rules to delete commentaries. What do you want to hide? --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Estonian nationalistic biased history-writing is interesting. But that is not the place for Wikipedia. And this is not personal threat. It is a statement in general. Could Sander Säde answer finally to my question: Wy nobody cannot make any changes to the 1st version of the article? Why the first version is so much build on sources of the Estonian security police KAPO? Does somebody want to discredit KAPO? --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I've commented on the self-promotional nature of the content you've added, take break. As long as you are going on about "Estonian nationalistic biased history-writing", you are engaging in personal attacks. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On your userpage, you claim to refute "post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda". Do you consider that to be a personal attack against those users whose contribution you disagree with, too? Fuseau (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So you think that an institution in a democratic country and a legacy of one of the all-time greatest mass-murderers are comparable? Jolly good, carry on. --Sander Säde 20:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So you think that if User:Vecrumba claims something to be Stalinist it automatically is? Or that an institution in a country called democratic (which is a separate theme - by whom? according to which criteria?) is automatically trustworthy? Jolly good, carry on. Fuseau (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"in a country called democratic". I think your personal POV is coming through a bit too strongly there, Fuseau. Estonia is considered a democratic country by every meaningful entity in the whole world. Claiming otherwise, is, well, [censored] [censored]. I recommend you stop editing Baltic states-related articles, or clean up your editing heavily.

And where has Vecrumba brought Stalinism to this discussion? At least quick search showed no such thing. It seems to be your imagination.

--Sander Säde 21:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

°I think your personal POV is coming through a bit too strongly there, Fuseau - what's coming through is understanding that there are different POVs. every meaningful entity in the whole world You can remain with that POV - the thing is that it should not be presented as truth. I recommend you stop editing Baltic states-related articles I recommend you to observe WP rules. where has Vecrumba brought Stalinism to this discussion? At least quick search showed no such thing. It seems to be your imagination I've clearly written he speaks of opponents as Stalinists in his talk page (8 o'clock, yesterday). It seems be you diddn't search thoroughly enough.Fuseau (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose Stalinist propaganda. That would be specific Soviet-originated during Stalin's reign propagandic versions of history unsupported by reputably and widely verified and plainly acknowledged fact. Editors are free to oppose my editorial stance, that does not make them Stalinists, so don't put words in my mouth again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Sander Säde's edits, and suggest we restore the article to its former, more balanced state. The article is not supposed to be a propaganda piece for the Kremlin. Describing it as "an international NGO" (the Kremlin POV which is not shared by anyone else)is definitely not neutral. Also, the introduction should be longer and more detailed, and describe the predominant view in more detail (i.e., it is considered to be affiliated with the Russian government, as the various press coverage in western media has made it clear). Tataral (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is not supposed to be a propaganda piece for anybody, that's the editorial approach needed from every editor. An NGO is not only including a reference to "international" in its title: it has leaders and members from various countries, it's registered in Strasbourg despite the chairman being from Russia. To claim its being international is the Kremlin POV is wrong, to say the least, and quite revealing. the predominant view Not shown to be predominant.Fuseau (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was a balanced description of this organisation. It is not supposed to be written from the POV of what is considered an extremist organisation in all other countries than Russia (a country that is considered to be authoritarian, not a democracy). Articles on Zimbabwean affairs are not written from the Mugabe POV either. Tataral (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was a balanced description It depends on, when... Your edits included information not confirmed by the sources given (founding "in response to" Kononov ruling - at best, that's original synthesis) and presenting POV of opponents as a fact ("GONGO" in infobox). Please get acquainted with WP:NPOV. WP articles are not supposed to be written from anyone's POV, be it POV Russian government, Estonian goverment or Zimbabvean government on Russian, Estonian or international affairs. what is considered an extremist organisation in all other countries than Russia at best, that's ridiculous (H. Clinton, S. Lavrov, I. Peled, D. Tabachnyk and T. Jagland all expressing support to the same extremist group?)Fuseau (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is considered to be part of the Putin regime, considered to be an authorarian regime in democratic countries. It is considered an extremist organisation in the other countries it operates in. Judging by its website, it is a fringe group, its "member organisations" in other countries mostly consist of small fringe, extremist organisations, often consisting only of a handful of people (such as the neo-stalinist "Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee", aka "twenty activists"). Tataral (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: NPOV in the latest edits and the general atmosphere around this article

1. Is the text "political organisation" or "NGO" in the infobox suitable for "type"?
2. Is the following text: "Critics, including the Estonian government, state that the organisation is a Kremlin affiliated extremist propaganda organisation aimed at advancing Russian foreign policy aims against specific countries that were part of or occupied by the former Soviet Union, and at promoting "a Soviet-era approach to World War II." The organisation is under observation by the police in some of the countries it operates in due to suspected extremist tendencies.", with a reference only to a report by a secret service, referenceless in the section on the topic of this article (p. 13) suitable in the lead section, as such and especially in absence of supportive views in the lead section?
3. Is the retelling of WWN statements the following way: "The organisation accuses the countries that were formerly part of the Communist Bloc (except Russia and Belarus) of "rapid nazification." It criticizes the "Western European democracies" for their alleged role in starting World War II" a correct retelling and suitable in the lead section?
4. Is text The organisation was founded in response to the prosecution of convicted Soviet war criminal Vassili Kononov supported by the following sources Russia Today text, the same referenceless report by an Estoniana secret service? P.S. And is it appropriate in the lead section, especially without reference that the final judgment in Kononov case wasn't unanimous? this was signed by Fuseau. Signature replaced with that text in order to improve the reflection of the text on RFC
5. Is removing "not in source" template from the text see WWN aims as following on from those of the Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests correct, the source referred to being the same report by a secret service, obviously page 13?
6. Is removing a reference to an objection by 5 New York State Assembly members to the Prime Minister of Estonia (on whether the organisation described by the article is extremist) from the "Criticism" section correct?
7. Is the removal of wikification from the reference to a statement by Russian foreign minister (see the end of the diff) in "Support" section correct?
8. Is the unreferenced reintroducing category "Communist propaganda" for this article (about an organisation led by a representative of conservative United Russia) correct?
9. Is the reintroducing of categories "Occupation of the Baltic states" and "Holodomor" for this article about an organisation (founded in 2010) correct?The only information possibly understood as the ground for them is the hidden information in "Criticism" section tagged with "failed verification" template and referring to the same referenceless report by an Estonian secret service. The user reuintroducing the categories doesn't him/herself remove the template on that information being unverified and doesn't add any other sources which could possibly give some confirmation.
10. Are the activities of User:Tataral and Co in this article and talk page in the last days making this article biased in accordance with a POV indistinguishably close to that of Estonian government and if yes, what needs to be done to maintain neutrality? this was signed by Fuseau. Signature replaced with that text in order to improve the reflection of the text on RFC P.S. A comparison of the article before and after the latest Tataral edits.this was signed by Fuseau. Signature replaced with that text in order to improve the reflection of the text on RFC
11. Is removing the reference that the organisation is international from the lead section and stating that it's a Russian organisation despite the organisation being registered in France, far from the bureau location (Russia) and having members from 18 UN member states, according to its site?Fuseau (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is your POV pushing, turning a balanced article into a very unbalanced and unencyclopedic article (with poor language), as has been pointed out to you by other users before. We should definitely pay attention to the possibility that this organisation might try to influence our article on it. Tataral (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) Going to (probably) reply in-depth later, but repeating "referenceless report by an Estonian secret service" like a mantra is rather pointless, as it has gone through an editorial process - and do you really expect Security Police (not "secret service". MI5 not MI6, if you want a comparison) to give out their sources?! It is comparable to the newspaper articles, which don't give out their sources as well. Said security agency reports have been internationally lauded for their accuracy - and occasionally criticized as well, same as any other source. As long as the material in the article is properly attributed/referenced, the annual reports are a source like any other. --Sander Säde 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I expect an article on Soviet dissidents to use refrerenceless press releases of KGB, loaded with negative evaluations of dissidents, with much caution, and an article about critics of Estonian government to use referenceless public statements by Estonian secret services, loaded with negative evaluations of government critics, with much caution, too. Fuseau (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You put "Soviet dissidents" on the same level as anti-Baltic extremists (Backman is a member in there too, somewhere), and the security services of a state which is rated far freer than Russia, let alone the USSR, as the KGB. If you're going to submit comparisons as examples, submit ones that don't betray bias on your part. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1. 1. "NGO" is more descriptive, standard, and neutral than "political organization", and doesn't preclude WWN being a political organization, so I prefer it.
   2. The Estonian Security Police criticism is very lopsided to have in the lead. The lead must briefly summarize all aspects of the article.
   3. That's not a correct retelling of the linked webpage. My reading of it was that WWN seeks recognition for the uniqueness of the Nazi crimes, and sees the trend of subsuming Nazi crimes into those of "totalitarian" regimes as a sign of reduced vigilance against proto-Nazism. "formerly part of the Communist Bloc (except Russia and Belarus)" is unfounded; I only saw criticism of the Baltic States and Romania.
   4. The Russia Today source doesn't support the contention that WWN was founded in response to Kononov's prosecution, but the ESS source does. What does WWN say about its own founding?
   5. ESS starts its description of WWN by talking about Russian "information attacks" on Estonia, including the Commission to Prevent Falsification... and implies that WWN draws from the same "themes", but doesn't say so directly. More and more reliable sources comparing WWN to the Commission should be included.
   6. I don't know why somebody removed the letter from the New York State Assembly, but without a reason, its removal is not correct.
   7. Without a valid reason, conversion of the link to plaintext is unconstructive
   8. There isn't referenced content in the article calling WWN "communist propaganda", so the category should be removed. The "Neo-Stalinism" category is also suspect.
   9. I couldn't find reference to WWN having to do with Holodomor and Baltic occupation in the ESS source. Furthermore, I don't see the need to add categories for every historical event whose revisionism WWN contests, such as the Holocaust.
   10. Not enough expertise to comment.
   11. WWN appears to be an international organization from what you say about being registered in France and having members from 18 countries, but if sources consistently describe it as "Russia-based" then it can be described in those words. The current reference for "Russian organization" is not satisfying.

   Shrigley (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your points:

1. Since when do NGOs release statements via foreign embassies[1]? I think "NGO" is a misnomer.

2. This is meant as a summary of the Criticism section, that is why the first word in the sentence "Critics" is linked to the World_Without_Nazism#Criticism section. Therefore the reference added to this sentence is redundant and gives the misleading impression that it is only the opinion of the ESS.

6. This letter is a WP:PRIMARY source and in any case it is mentioned in the activities section.

10. WWN's own website gives its address as Moscow[2], so it is a "Russian based organisation"

More to come later. --Nug (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I hardly find some letter by some local politicians particularly notable. "NGO" is both POV and inaccurate, GONGO is accurate. GONGO or political organisation are both acceptable. Tataral (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing

Additions like the ones in the Criticism (!!!) section - I mean

Countries that openly promote Waffen-SS-veterans meetings and refuse to prosecute Nazi war criminals have fiercely attacked against the WWN. The Estonian Security Police, together with the Nato Cyber Defence Centre in Tallinn (CCD COE), both well-known of its aggressive Russophobic views

etc have no place in an encyclopedia. Sander was right in reverting the recent changes as blatant POV pushing /OR. Estlandia (dialogue) 17:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, claims like WWN is actively protesting activization of neo-nazi and radical nationalist forces in Russia would require third party sources.Estlandia (dialogue) 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand...

According to the Estonian Security Police, "the aim is to create an unusual situation according to which questioning Moscow’s version of history is equated with denial of the Holocaust," particularly in relation to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and The Holodomor.... According to the Estonian Security Police, members of the organization are radical nationalists who promote Russian chauvinism.

"The South Ossetian Republic", created on the territory of Georgia using Russian military power in 2008, is considered to be an independent state by MBN and South Ossetian Anti-Fascist Committee (Юго-Осетинский антифашистский комитет) is a full member of MBN. Some member organizations are considered extremists in their countries, for example the organisation's management board has two Estonian resident representatives Maksim Reva and Andrei Zarenkov, who according to the Estonian Security Police are radical nationalists who promote Russian chauvinism.

Presidium of MBN consists of 15 persons from different countries, including several liaisons with Russian compatriot policy, propagandists and radical left-wing politicians.

The activities of MBN are clearly selective: they are not directed against Kremlin-friendly authoritarian regimes, at the same time there is a profound interest in disposal of anti-semitism of openly pro-Israeli Georgian government.

Shrigley (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hostile 1st version

The article is returned to very hostile and biased 1st version. Eevry sentence in this version is negative and biased. very interesting working method from Estonian nationalists. Well that is obviously a shame for Estonia. The edited version of the article has both neutral, critical view and also organisation's own views. Very biase counterattack from Baltic nationalists indeed! This is not for Wikipedia. I am sure Estonian security police is very shamed of your provocative behavior. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just stick to the facts, it is your attitude here which is "not for Wikipedia." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from your arrival on Wikipedia and your edit history, you're a single purpose account solely created to attack the article, that is, judging by your railing against nationalists instead of discussing any specific errors in the article. Your extensively quoting what the organization states about itself also appears to be an attempt to add (self-)promotional material, not suitable for an encyclopedia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So everyone who does not share the POV of a Russian Putinist organisation is an Estonian nationalist, even those of us who have never been to Estonia? Interesting logic. Tataral (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

KAPO propaganda

This article is KAPO propaganda and can be seen in the 1st paragraph: "The organization is described in the Annual Review of the Estonian Security Police as a propaganda organization aimed at promoting "a Soviet-era approach to World War II."

Well, what is the reason to quote Estonian security police in the 1st paragraph? Is the Estonian Securoty police the principal organization on the planet who want to oppose "World without nazism"? I am sure Ilmar Tamm, Andres Kahar, Martin Arpo, and all their Estonian journalists and Estonian editors of this article should be very, very shamed of making Estonia look ridicule. Does Estonia want to oppose "World without nazism"? --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering the grossly anti-Estonian, anti-Baltic propaganda it promotes as historically accurate, e.g., complaining that the Estonians recognizing the Estonian Legion for fighting against the Soviet re-occupation of Estonia is Nazism (which ignores the Baltic Waffen SS were not convicted at Nuremberg, e.g., the Latvian Legion were stationed by the Allies--that would include Soviet--as guards). Let's be clear about who are the propagandists (that would be our friends at World Without Nazism) who promulgate a version of history which is not substantiated by historical facts. BTW, quoting KAPO is merely attribution. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

considering the grossly anti-Estonian, anti-Baltic propaganda it promotes as historically accurate Such claims are not useful here. WP can point to specific criticism of WWN or KAPO being propagandistic, but WP may not support or criticise WWN or contrary opinions as propaganda. complaining that the Estonians recognizing the Estonian Legion for fighting against the Soviet re-occupation of Estonia is Nazism You can of course claim that Axis powers were not led by Nazis or that Baltic SS didn't fight on Axis side... the Baltic Waffen SS were not convicted at Nuremberg - the Nuremberg ruling is widely available. All volunteers were condemned there. Let's be clear about who are the propagandists You can state whatever opinion you wish in a wide variety of media. Wikipedia, on the contrary, may not present your (or Kapoccdcoe's, or somebody's else) opinion on who is propagandist as a fact. At most, it can point to referenced opinions. quoting KAPO is merely attribution The problem with some authors of this article is that they try to present KAPO opinions as facts.Fuseau (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, the Baltic Waffen were conscripted. Neither the Latvian nor Estonian Legions were "condemned." I am free to express my editorial position here, based on an objective reading of content on the organization's site. If I insert any content based on that, or other reading, it will, of course be rigorously cited and sources accurately represented. Don't insult me as making ridiculous contentions. ("You can of course claim that Axis powers were not led by Nazis".) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

the Baltic Waffen were conscripted Partly Neither the Latvian nor Estonian Legions were "condemned." The Waffen SS was condemned, without exclusions for Latvian or Estonian Legion Don't insult me as making ridiculous contentions I'm glad you don't make those claims which you admit yourself to be ridiculous. In this case, you admit that those "fighting against the Soviet re-occupation" were on the Nazi side.Fuseau (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, this thread is getting off topic, but the Nuremburg judgement explicitly exempted conscripts. Fuseau, you do not need to quote what people say in your replies, we can read it clearly enough in the previous message. --Nug (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A bit, but Fuseau is obviously unaware of irrefutable documentation, for example, that the Latvian Legion only cared about attempting to defeat both Russians and Germans, as the Latvians had done 20 years before to gain independence. Everything else is guilt by association with the uniform, which was not by choice. Against the Soviet Union does not mean for Nazi Germany. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

the Latvian Legion only cared about attempting to defeat both Russians and Germans That's what they did by serving in German units and killing those, who resisted Germans? Thank you for explaining what you consider to be "rigorous application of fact."Fuseau (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and the need for immediate action

Taking into account that the rule above is applicable to all articles, not only those on personalities, and the amount of unsourced criticism towards many living people containde in this article (as shown currently by templates), as well as the fact that after being protected this article was immediately greatly changed by User:Estlandia, I consider necessary to hide/remove unsourced data and to re-organise the article in a more neutral way, shortening the introduction and organising the information under sections with neutral titles.Fuseau (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all is acceptable about living persons as long as it is sourced according to rules. --Sander Säde 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"As long as", and, as shown by templates, often it is not.Fuseau (talk)

Uh... could you repeat that in English, please?--Sander Säde 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@Fuseau, please indicate what content you consider unsourced. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically I've already done it with relevant templates and , and removing some of the most unreliable claims. It's possible that something remained missed, of course.Fuseau (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Registration of WWN

The Strasbourg registration document of WWN is here:

Attestation d'Inscription. Tribunal d'Instance de Strasbourg, volume: 89, Folio n 248

This is already quoted in the Russian version. --91.152.89.112 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like OR, and hardly relevant. The organisation is based in Moscow[3]. And even if it were designed as an offshore GONGO, it wouldn't make it an "international NGO" or any less of a Russian GONGO. They could register it in the Cayman Islands all they wanted too, it wouldn't change a thing. Tataral (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine isn't a very convincing source (a scientific journal could be for that aim). The members of organisation are listed in its website and represent various countries, so it is international.Fuseau (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is more convincing that OR from an IP editor. It may have members from other countries but it is still based in Moscow, located on Tsvetnoy bulv 24, build. 2, suite 202, in fact. --Nug (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Every NGO needs to have a seat somewhere, so having a bureau in a country doesn't make the organisation local.Fuseau (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious/unavailable sources

A lot of the sources used in the current version are rather dubious or no longer exist.

As a first thing, an umbrella organization with 131 member organizations is only represented by a wordpress.com blog. Really?! If some other sources would not mention the "NGO", I would call the whole thing a hoax.

Pretty much all worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com references (and there are a lot of them) should be replaced with better sources, if such sources can be found.

Also, I would really like to see a list of those 131 organizations. It seems that member list is not available online and attempts to find any recent mentions of members gave me just a Finnish news piece. It very much seems the WWN only had a congress in Kiev and since then it has only been used to fund Russian government goals in "near-abroad".

As for the sources, the following should be removed from the article:

• http://worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com/english/declaration_eng/ - dead link
• http://www.ln.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/2fee282eb6df40e643256999005e6e8c/ad9e5f2a6a3a02abc325785c005d6231!OpenDocument - dead link
• http://www.islamnews.ru/news-67081.html/ - dead link. Dubious.
• http://narodfront.ru/organization/20110606/379742791.html/ - server error. Also, highly dubious source

Dubious sources:

• http://netania.israelinfo.ru/news/1830?print - dubious (blog?)
• http://antifashist.com/last-news/197-v-kieve-otkrylas-konferenciya.html - a blog/forum. Heavy racist undertones.

--Sander Säde 09:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Russian version of the article has been nominated for deletion as a PR-effort. I don't recommend doing the same, but I would heavily edit to remove obvious selfpub PR undertones from the current article as well. --Sander Säde 10:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

only represented by a wordpress.com blog If the domain name is the only objection... there is also stopnazism.net

If some other sources would not mention the "NGO" They do. What's the aim of ifs?

Pretty much all worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com references (and there are a lot of them) should be replaced with better sources Generally yes, secondary sources are useful. However, in some cases use of primary sources is perfectly reasonable and sometimes they are the best (hardly we'll find a full and up-to-date list of members of WWN ruling bodies anywhere else)

I would really like to see a list of those 131 organizations I haven't counted how many they are, but the list is available for anyone wishing to see it.

It very much seems the WWN only had a congress in Kiev It's regrettable you haven't paid attention to the 2012 congress in Moscow under the auspices of Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and to monitoring on neo-nazism in many countries, including Russia, at WWN website.

http://netania.israelinfo.ru/news/1830?print - dubious (blog?) no reason provided to consider it to be a blog

http://antifashist.com/last-news/197-v-kieve-otkrylas-konferenciya.html - a blog/forum. Heavy racist undertones To call it a blog can lead to misunderstanding - it's built like a blog, but it isn't. Regarding "forum" - if an organisation is called "forum", it doesn't mean their website to be a forum (as a type of unreliable sites). They have a forum on their website, but it's not what is linked to. Fuseau (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. And I haven't found racist overtones. at least in this article.

P.P.S. Thank you for pointing to dead link http://worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com/english/declaration_eng/ , it was replaced. Fuseau (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC) But the link to mid.ru isn't dead Fuseau (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that your main argument for "Keep" in the AfD on RU wiki is the notability afforded by the Estonian Security police report, I think it reasonable to give more weight to that opinion. --Nug (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Strangely you didn't pay attentiuon to the other arguments in favour of notability - involvement of Secretary-General of the Council of Europe etc. 2. The fact of being mentioned in KaPo report really is one of (many) sources showing WWN notability, and can be mentioned in the article. However, opinions expressed by it shouldn't be given much weight, since it doesn't disclose its sources of information, as would be normal for academic sources.Fuseau (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read and re-read WP:NOTABILITY, but I don't see where "involvement of Secretary-Generals" is a criteria. I've also read WP:DUE and I couldn't find the part that weight is accorded through the disclosure of sources of information. --Nug (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. You can enter the debate in ru.wiki, I'm not going to waste time here for discussing a deletion discussion there. 2. It's not WP:DUE, but WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". By not giving references to universally available sources, KaPo report excludes fact-checking. Its accuracy in human rights issues was criticized by Amnesty International - see LICHR. Finally, when speaking of opponents of Estonian authorities, an Estonian authority is difficult to call a reliable third-party source. Fuseau (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that police agencies in democracies operate in judicial environments where perjury is a criminal offense, the standard of fact-checking is quite high. Given that their view is corroborated by a independent publication reporting on Jewish life and a Ukrainian expert, I think we can lend a great deal of weight. --Nug (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that police agencies in democracies operate in judicial environments where perjury is a criminal offense, the standard of fact-checking is quite high Proofless and abstract. You can of course remain with that strange POV, but is is not relevant to the use of KaPo report in the article. Given that their view is corroborated by a independent publication reporting on Jewish life and a Ukrainian expert 1. Most of those views are not 2. Independence of a publication is not enough to make it reputable. 3. Citizenship/ethnicity doesn't make an expert reliable. Fuseau (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuseau... stopnazism.net is the same worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com blog, just with the hostname service provided by wordpress.com.

As for the others, you haven't provided any information why they should be considered even remotely valid sources. Another "doktor nauka" moment there?

Thank you for the list of organizations. At least for Estonia, though, quite a lot of the organizations are one and the same entities - ie Anti-Fascist Committee is there twice, several of the organizations are one-man groups, which have become member twice etc. Obviously, the goal was to get a big number of organizations as members, to provide an illusion of importance to the GONGO.

--Sander Säde 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the others, you haven't provided any information why they should be considered even remotely valid sources 1. I do not need to. It wasn't even me who included links to islamnews.ru and narodfront.ru, and I doubt whether the article needs them and the text of dubious relevance to WWN they were given to confirm. 2. POV of an MFA doesn't need to be proven valid - the site just confirming facts about Lavrov's statements, and the ministry webpage is the best for it.Fuseau (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for your denigratory remark about the highest scientific degree possible in many systems, clearly showing who's the one here who doesn't care about reliability of experts. Fuseau (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You still don't understand, do you? Let me explain it very clear terms then.

Scientific source means that a paper passes the rigorous peer review process (and as a someone who has written scientific papers, the process is indeed rigorous), and then is printed in an academic journal, which has been found notable by Science Citation Index or Social Sciences Citation Index.

If a scientist writes something to a newspaper, it is not a scientific source. If a scientist-cum-politician writes something to a random web page, it is not a scientific source, and furthermore, it is not acceptable as a source for Wikipedia (see WP:BLOG).

President of the Estonian Congress (Riigikogu) is Ene Ergma, a Dr.Sci. in physics and mathematics. She has published more than 120 scientific papers. However, materials on her personal website are not scientific sources and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Her writings in newspapers are not scientific sources, but can be used in Wikipedia, as they have passed an editorial process. However, scientific sources are preferred over such newspaper articles.

I hope you understood now. If not, please feel free to ask any questions you might have.

--Sander Säde 07:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course a text, which underwent peer review, is a better source than the same text lacking it. However, WP can use even blogs of experts (WP:SPS). And to establish expertise, scientific degrees are essential. I hope you understand now. If not, please feel free to ask any questions you might have.Fuseau (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In such controversial topics, selfpub materials are not acceptable sources. Also, you claimed Natalya Narochnitskaya's random post as a scientific source, which it was most certainly not. I hope you understand now. If not, please feel free to ask any questions you might have. --Sander Säde 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether a selfpub source is acceptable depends both on its author (see above) and what it's supposed to confirm. An article by a scholar is by definition a "scholarly" (as I wrote about Narochnitskaia's article in Talk:Human rights in Estonia on 16:00, 19 January 2012) source, even if one doesn't consider it to be "scientific" (as you write now, misrepresenting me). And your confusing an article with "random post" doesn't improve reliablility of your statements.Fuseau (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just sigh. Please see this for a definition of a scholarly article - and no, it is not what you thought. This is my last comment in this thread, as I don't see no further idea in pointing out the blatantly obvious over and over. --Sander Säde 13:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)