Jump to content

Talk:Vita Zaverukha

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting the article?

[edit]

I don't see the point of redirecting this article to Aidar Battalion, where Zaverukha is not even mentioned [1]. Besides, if one doubts the notability of the subject, AfD should be the venue for addressing that concern. Contentious and unsourced content can be immediately removed, but wiping out the whole article by redirecting it to nowhere is not OK. I ping editors from the article revision history: @Volunteer Marek, Yarkovesh, David Gerard, Onel5969, Origami2021, Amigao, and Mhorg: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one massive BLP vio on a non notable person. The presence of garbage sources like Daily Mail makes it pretty clear this is a hatchet job. The few reliable sources either do not mention her or mention her very briefly. BLP is non negotiable - see the notice on top of this talk.
Also, Gitz, you really need to stop WP:STALKing my edits. Not gonna ask again. Volunteer Marek 18:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already tald you that I'm not stalking you, so please take your complaint about stalking where it belongs rather than casting aspersion on this talk page. With regard to sources, this source seems good: Trisko Darden, Jessica; Alexis, Henshaw; Ora, Szekely. Insurgent Women: Female Combatants in Civil Wars. ISBN 1626166668. It says that Other women appear to glorify their newfound ability to engage in violence. Vita Zaverukha stands out in this respect, and then it goes on reporting information about her. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not enough to establish notability especially since if you look at the sources it’s just repeating stuff from Daily Mail etc.
And you *admitted* you were checking my contributions - which combined with you following me to multiple articles and always disagreeing or reverting is pretty much an admission of WP:STALKing and WP:HARASSMENT. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Neo-nazi" is well-sourced, as it's supported by both HuffPost.fr and LesInrockuptibles. Since the web is full of photos of VZ giving the Nazi salute in front of a flag with a swastika, the claim that she's a Nazi is unlikely to be disputed. Ukrainian press is used and can be used as a source and to establish notability. Could you please indicate, VM, which statements in the article are not supported by sources and are likely to be challenged? This would make our work much easier. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And wtf is les inrockuptibles even? Volunteer Marek 19:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are entire sections of the article which don’t have sources, there are entire sections based on obviously trash sources, and there’s no indication of WP:NOTABILITY. Volunteer Marek 19:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never followed you on multiple articles, and I've already explained to you the reason why I was checking your contributions [2]. So please, I insist, stop casting aspersions and address WP:CONDUCTDISPUTEs where it is appropriate to do so. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the article you followed me to and since this is what you decided to make into a WP:BATTLEGROUND it seems like a perfectly appropriate place to address your behavior. You are doing the *exact same thing* as you did on the Torture in Ukraine page [3], where you showed up to revert me out of the blue, caused a massive amount of unnecessary drama, wound up at ANI and almost got sanctioned for disruptive behavior and harassment. Guess what? THAT article, after all the drama you caused STILL got redirected in the end, just like I redirected it originally, just like nine other editors (who, you refused to listen to and respect) originally suggested. So it appears you now found THIS article as a venue to try and repeat that sorry affair again. For what? Please drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND and the revenge edit warring. Volunteer Marek 19:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think that you only want to talk about conduct here because you don't want to talk about content. I repeat the question: could you please tell which contentious material is unsourced or poorly sourced in the article? Alleged lack of notability is not a reason for deleting by redirecting. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered those questions above. You’re doing that thing again. That WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing (in addition to the WP:STALK thing). Volunteer Marek 20:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should also take a look at WP:BLP1E points 1 and 2. Volunteer Marek 20:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unacceptable that a user jumps into an article and nukes it without even opening a discussion. In recent days, such aggressive interventions by the same user Volunteer Marek have been made on other articles.
First of all, these are some of sources that talked about Zaverukha, and I think that's enough to have given her some notoriety:
Furthermore, it seems curious to me that Volunteer Marek accuses other users of following him, when it seems he is the first to have followed me (to contrast my contributions) in these days (and I have remained silent until now so as not to foment battleground mentality in the community):
  • On this precise article[12]
  • On another[13]
  • On another[14] and threaten me with being reported to the administrators for distorting the content of two sources such as BBC and Telegraph. The user has not yet wanted to explain which part I distorted. I invite users who have spare time to have a look to help me understand what I have distorted, I hope it was not my mistake in translating from English.[15]
Mhorg (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mhorg can you explain to us how, for example, Bellincat “covers” Zaverukha? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 02:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is shown in a photo as a participant of anti-LGBT protesters, indicated that she is accused of killing policemen:[16] "Leaders, participants of anti-LGBT, Christian Right gatherings Ecclesia , March, 2019. ... Vita Zaverukha, reported neo-Nazi, accused in relation to murder of policemen in Ukraine". Quite a detailed description for an 'ordinary person'. Mhorg (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So in this source which you put forth as establishing her notability she... is ... mentioned... just in a photo caption and not mentioned otherwise? Seriously? Volunteer Marek 05:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t this the above is enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY, all in passings. 🤔 - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think, GizzyCatBella, that every now and then it would be nice to discuss notability at AfD rather than on the article talk pages? We would discuss it with editors who are not already entangled in the pro/anti dynamics of the EE area, and they could bring fresh eyes to our issues. I don't know if you have the same impression, but sometimes I feel that nothing I could possibly say could ever convince Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes or you. At AfD we could meet other editors other than the usual EE regulars and get their views. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the crux of issue is such egregious BLP violations for an obviously non notable person then the problem needs to be solved ASAP, without waiting for dragged out, stone walled and obfuscated AFD discussions (with half the votes from some brand new SPA accounts). And allow me to remind you, one more time since you appear not to have noticed (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) that the last article I redirected, Torture in Ukraine, ended up being… redirect. The only net effect of your input into that discussion was to create a whole lot of unnecessary drama and battleground. Which is what you seem to by trying to do here now. After following me here. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were some BLP violations, I fixed them and now, if I'm not wrong, the text is verifiable and consistent with WP:BLP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The crux of the matter is that this is a page about a non-notable person full of BLP vio's. See WP:BLP1E, which I already pointed out to you. You're not listening. Again. Please stop restoring this article. "No consensus" for BLP means that we err on the side of caution. Volunteer Marek 07:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
right, but that doesn't discharge you from the duty of explaining which BLP violations you identified. I cannot demonstrate verifiability if you don't spell out which claims need to be verified. With regard to notability, shouldn't we discuss it at AfD? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And are you seriously going to sit there and pretend that Komsomolskaya Pravda (among others) is a reliable source? For BLP?!???!!? Volunteer Marek 07:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek that there isn't enough coverage to establish notability. The only substantive coverage is a single Elle article and a couple of responses to it. Everything else is in passing. Policy states that a person is notable if there is significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That simply hasn't been shown. The threshold for notability is rather more than the threshold needed to say someone exists. Oh, and Gitz, you admitted on Marek's talkpage that you had been looking through his contributions and letting that guide what you edited. That's hounding and is not considered good behaviour. Nor is posting on someone's talkpage after they request that you don't.OsFish (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why don't you regard coverage by Ukrainian outlets as relevant to establish notability?
  2. shouldn't AfD be the place we discuss notability?
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going by the list of articles that Mhorg proposed established "notoriety", by which I assumed they meant notability. If you have what Wikipedians would consider reliable sources in Ukrainian that establish notability, can you let us know what they are? They need to be clearly RS for a BLP article, and they need to do a lot more than establish that Vera Zaverukha exists. The Ukrainian source used most at the moment in the text just deleted is what appears to be a local free newspaper's website which takes submissions from anyone. For a BLP, that looks problematic on more than one count.OsFish (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Ukrainian sources, Zaverukha is well known and many have spoken of her. I mention some of the better known sources:
There are hundreds more articles... but I think that will be enough. Mhorg (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are NOT "hundreds more articles". Please don't make stuff up. Volunteer Marek 17:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, I can continue:
Mhorg (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As OsFish already pointed out these are either “regional news” type sources, non reliable sources or brief mentions. You’re also reposting the same source multiple times to “pad” the number. One more time. There are not “hundreds” of sources here. Volunteer Marek 02:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet had time right to look at the sources recently provided. But yes, I was specifically referring to sites like 20minut being problematic.OsFish (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if some of them are not yet included, you can add them to this draft [41]. Then we'll need to understand which is the right venue for discussing the subject's notability: AfD or RfC? I'd appreciate some input from admins on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have made a mistake, you have overwritten the talk of RuslanKotsaba[42] Mhorg (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting: convenience break

[edit]

OK, so here's the problem for people wanting to have an article on Zaverukha. She falls between several stools. Of course there are sources that attest to her existence. That's NOT enough, and I would hope people active here have been editing WP long enough to know that.

The problem with the lead assertion that she is "notable" for her social media activity in the article text currently suggested is that it's sourced to a one-line mention in a book. That's just not enough. To repeat, people here should know that.

There is RS that she was charged with a crime, of which she was later acquitted, and she was one of a GROUP of people arrested. The RS provided on this are basically about that group. The thing is, anyone charged with a serious crime gets their name into the papers. That's why there is distinct policy on what to do with (suspected) perpetrators of crimes. WP:PERP says:

For perpetrators,

  1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[1] or
  2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[2]
    • Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

This suggests that Zaverukha doesn't meet criteria for notability as an individual on this count, and that a redirect to pages about the group she is involved in would be appropriate, as there is more RS about what she AND her associates get up to. No reason why she should be picked out of documented group offences.

There is RS about Elle being forced to apologise for carrying an interview with her. That would belong on the Elle page, as per WP:BLP1E, which says:

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.

By the by, this policy does suggest the possibility of an article about the bank robbery/killing of the two Berkut officers. That gets round the issue of trying to have an article about someone still alive (BLP) and acquitted of the murder of a non-famous individual.

Anyway, in general, it seems right that this page is a redirect to the group she is involved with.OsFish (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this policy-based approach to the discussion, which I find helpful.
However, with regard to WP:PERP, it applies to A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial. This is not the case of Zaverukha, who was known before the robbery took place. She had already appeared in the national press (2014 dedicated article [43] Eighteen-year-old Vita Zaverukha from Vinnytsia is the youngest fighter of the "Aidar" battalion; after the robbery [44] is known for her Nazi views and appeals) and, although fortuitously and incidentally, in the international press too (Elle, HuffPost, NYT, etc., plus an op-ed on the WashPo [45]). Indeed virtually all converage on the killings and alleged robbery focuses on Zaverukha alone, and the name of the other participants is barely mentioned in the dozens of articles we found.
Moreover, and most importantly, when she was in custody a public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles, and that compaing focused on Zaverukha alone ([46] There are five participants in the case of the shooting of the "Eagles", but social networks are raging only about Vinnytsia's Vitynenko). That compaing included an Ukrainian MP (Tymoshenko) handcuffing himself to Zaverukha during a courtroom hearing [47], clashes between police and demonstrators near the courtroom [48], protesters blocking the building of the Court of Appeal from the outside [49], and an internet campaign "Je suis Vita Zaveruha" [50]. She was often referred to with the diminutive, "Vinnytsia" and "Vinnytska" by the press and supporters, and was called "mesnitsia" (месниця), which translates as "avenger" (e.g. [51]). Apparently she was also awarded a medal "For sacrifice and love for Ukraine" by Patriarch Filaret [52]. Following her release, the Ukrainian press continued to report her activities (e.g. [53][54]).
I believe that the above implies that she is notable not under WP:PERP, but under WP:BASIC. She has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
My final point: I would like to discuss this at AfD. I think that redirecting the article and engaging in a discussion about notability on the talk page is not the right way of doing this. What do you think about this @OsFish? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you appreciate me reproducing the text of policies that others had already linked to.
  • You say Zaverukha was "was known before the robbery took place". However, "known" is not a Wikipedia concept. "Notability" is. They are not the same thing. It's really important to grasp the concept of "notability".
  • You rely a lot on the vn.20minit.ua site. You incorrectly claim it is national press. It isn't, and that's been pointed out to you already. It's a local news site (vn stands for Vinnytsia) that openly invites article contributions from its website users. For a BLP - which means an article about a living person, which means an article where policy is CLEAR we have to be EXTRA careful with sourcing - that's not a happy source.
  • The detailed descriptions you provide about what happened with her are about the court case. That's precisely why WP:BLP1E applies. The notable event is the robbery and the killings of the two Berkut officers. Moreover, because she was acquitted (ie found not guilty), WP:PERP encourages editors to make a decision of no notability. You claim "virtually all coverage on the killings and alleged robbery focuses on Zaverukha alone". That's not true. For example, here and here.
There is genuinely a much stronger case for an article on the robbery and killings than on this particular individual. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP suggest people focus on the incident rather than individuals. OsFish (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I posted this at AN, posting it here as well.) Quoting page 23 of this 2019 book by Georgetown University Press:

Other women appear to glorify their newfound ability to engage in violence. Vita Zaverukha stands out in this respect. The teenager became notorious in the Russian press for her cals to wipe out all of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population and for posting neo-Nazi propaganda...In November 2014 the magazine Elle France profile Zaverukha...she was arrested in MAy 2015 for her role in an armed robbery in Kyiv...after she was released on bail in January 2017, Zaverukha and her partner were attacked by fellow members of an ultranationalist group to which they belonged. In July 2017 both Zaverukha and her partner allegedly led an attack on transgender activists in Kyiv.

BLP1E? No way. She is definitely notable, having been profiled over multiple years by multiple RSes in multiple countries. The article still needs cleanup (it's good that DM is gone; there are still op-eds being cited), but AFD would be a waste of time, and I think her biography would be UNDUE if merged to any other article. She's 100% notable though, I can't believe I'm saying this but bold redirection as a backdoor to deletion is not OK. Take it to AFD if you want. I've removed the op-ed and undid the bold redirecting. Levivich (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is NOT that she has NEVER been mentioned in RS. I suggest you read the discussion up until now to understand what the dispute is about. OsFish (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”became notorious in the Russian press” = “became staple of Russian online propaganda”. Sorry, that does not make her notable enough for English Wikipedia, which anyone who’s been around for more than a few months on this website should know very well. Volunteer Marek 16:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zaverukha is currently more mentioned in Ukrainian media than in Russian media. In fact, her figure is very well known in Ukraine for the various court cases in which she ended up. Please, let's stop seeing 'Russian propaganda' everywhere... in the article there is only two Russian articles (from the KP) that is even quoted by France 24[55] and are used to say things that are already present in other Ukrainian sources. Mhorg (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the one source which has more than just a single sentence on her, and the one you guys keep bringing up says precisely that she got “infamous in Russian media”. Sheesh. Volunteer Marek 16:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about "mentioned", there is WP:SIGCOV of her: the Elle France profile, the articles about her arrest, the Georgetown University Press book I quoted above, etc. The sourcing is abundant. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Georgetown book is a classic example of mention in passing. That chapter is not predominantly about her. It's not substantive coverage. Her RS coverage is predominantly about (a) a single incident for which she was arrested as (b) part of a group and, crucially for BLP policy, (c) subsequently acquitted. The attack on trans people was also as part of a group. I am mystified why the option of writing an article about the incident for which she and others were arrested isn't an acceptable option. The thing is, if material about her is undue in other articles, that suggests that she's not notable in herself. The threshold for overcoming WP:UNDUE is lower than for notability. OsFish (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we having an AFD here? Keep meets GNG. Levivich (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So your response to “Levivich, please WP:listen to the substance of the objections” [56] is “la la la WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT!”. Volunteer Marek 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OsFish makes an excellent point which summarizes the absurdity of this situation - if this material was in some other article it’d be removed as WP:UNDUE under WP:BLP policy, yet here we have editors who with a straight face want to turn UNDUE material into an actual article. Volunteer Marek 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, you need to show some kind of interest in addressing people's concerns. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to understand that disputes aren't resolved by ignoring the other side. You've presented sources, and we've given our view of them, citing policy. You need to address those concerns, rather than simply post the sources again as if nothing had happened. OsFish (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OsFish, the truth of the matter is that the article is full of sources and that if you bring it at AfD it would be an open and shut case - people would laugh OK? we have articles on faaaaar less notable people. Perhaps to get it deleted you should rather insist on the sources being poor quality and misrepresented; but then editors would ask, which source is deperecated and unreliable? where is it misrepresented? And this wouldn't work either. So the only option is what VM has been doing until now: edit war. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The article is full of sources". You make this comment directly after I point out that you people need to stop saying "there are sources" and engage with the objections put by multiple editors to what those sources actually show. Can you think of a better example of a Wikipedian not listening? Are you here to build an encyclopedia or grind an axe? OsFish (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mhorg has compiled extensive list of sources, both here and at AN. If that's an axe, it's quite a gentle axe, and also a cooperative one. If you did what you ask others to do, you'd start explaining why Hromadske is not reliable, why TCH, UNIAN, Espreso TV, Gazeta.ua, and Obozrevatel are all unreliable - that is, you would explain why half Ukrainian press is shit. Since you did not even try to make this case, and since we cite all these sources, I infer that the subject of the article is notable, and it would be notable even if a couple of sources were questionable. We should therefore restore the article and start discussing about the allegedly questionable sources it has, if any. That would be cooperative editing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're not listening to the multiple comments about what those sources actually show. Trying to imply I have a prejudice against the Ukrainian press is, as with your attempt to imply falsely on the admin noticeboard that I and others are sanctioned on this topic, poor behaviour for an experienced editor. It might be a good idea for you to take an editing break.OsFish (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not imply that you have a prejudice against the Ukrainina press (I said you did not even try to make this [absurd] case) and I did not imply that you had been sanctioned (I said that the discussion on notability should not take place only among the usual EE regulars, that is, the usual regulars of the EE area [57]). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the article

[edit]

It is necessary to supplement the article. The Russian version has more information.--Yarkovesh (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HuffPost

[edit]

WP:HUFFPOST there is no consensus it's reliable, why is it used here? Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

[edit]

I want to add this:

In 2015, a significant public outcry was caused by a video posted on the Internet, in which a girl very similar to Victoria Zaverukha shoots from a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher in the direction of a village from the positions of Ukrainian troops in Shyrokyne, Donetsk oblast, and her shot is probably not aimed at any specific military target. International humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate shelling and senseless destruction. Such actions, under certain conditions, should be considered a war crime. The video also shows explosions in the distance, which indicates a battle taking place during the shooting. It cannot be ruled out that the shot was aimed at a military target. The video was widely used in Russian propaganda to spread negative information about Ukrainian volunteer battalions.

Here is the source(1) Yarkovesh (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2023 (2)

[edit]

I think the lead section should indicate that she is a neo-Nazi activist, not a nationalist militant. This is confirmed by the following sources 1, 2, 3, 4. I can cite many other sources confirming that she is a neo-Nazi, not a nationalist Yarkovesh (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Example: John Hinckley Jr.
  2. ^ Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vita_Zaverukha&oldid=1206137628"