Talk:AllatRa

AllatRa legal status in Ukraine

COI Declaration: I am affiliated with ALLATRA IPM and raising this per WP:COI.

Issue: The article states "shut down its Ukrainian operations" citing a November 2023 SBU press release. This is factually incorrect.

Key Facts:

1. SBU/Ministry of Internal Affairs cannot ban organizations. Under Article 37 of Ukraine's Constitution, only courts can ban civic associations. The November 2, 2023 SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) press release described operational measures (searches, seizures), NOT a legal ban.
2. Court rejected the ban. On April 4, 2025, the Kyiv District Administrative Court dismissed the Ministry of Justice's/SBU lawsuit to ban AllatRa (Case No. 640/362/23).

Court findings:

• Expert testimonies inadmissible (bias and plagiarism from internet)
• No proof organization authored alleged materials
• State enterprise "Center for Internet Address Space Competence" confirmed patriotic (pro-Ukrainian) activity (Report No. 150/2024-ЗВ, May 16, 2024)

Source:

• Official court decision: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126371842

Please take this into account in the article according to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Dennison2 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for pointing out, the wording is not good, I will try to correct it. However, I would like to add that an appeal is currently underway.

https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127306718 IronLiberty (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dennison2 I have conducted a brief review of the section. Please, let us know if any additional statements are problematic. IronLiberty (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@IronLiberty Thank you for the corrections. However, there are still several significant issues with the article's presentation of legal cases:

1. Legal case against ALLATRA (organization) and criminal charges against individuals are separate cases - must be clearly distinguished.

2. SBU raids section should conclude by noting the court's rejection of acquisitions and charges, along with the pending appeal.

3. The current text downplays that the court rejected the SBU/Ministry's case, finding no proof of wrongdoing. This should be presented clearly, not buried.

4. Detailed unproven SBU accusations vs. one sentence about court findings (procedural violations, insufficient evidence) - WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV violations in my opinion. Dennison2 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback and patience @Dennison2

1. I will try to reflect on this, however, in my view, the context in which the AllatRA ban case is mentioned is clearly separated.
2. In my understanding, the case (No. 640/362/23) related to the attempt to ban AllatRA in Ukraine and the SBU raids are only indirectly connected. The ongoing proceedings do not assess the legitimacy/legal basis of the SBU raids but rather address the legitimacy of the request to ban AllatRA. The court of first instance ruled that the ministry failed to present evidence on the basis of which the court could ban AllatRA. Even if the appellate court were to uphold the first instance decision, it would not be possible to draw conclusions regarding the legitimacy of the SBU raids. Such conclusions could only be reached if the SBU raids itself were challenged in court, e.g. by AllatRA, but I have not found any such case.(please free to correct me if I am missing something)
3. The current text, with reference to a primary source, appropriately and succinctly states only the status and subject matter of the court proceedings (a reliable secondary source would be appreciated here)
4. The article contains only statements that have appeared in dozens of media outlets across Europe. If there are relevant sources available that report on this case from a different perspective, I would greatly appreciate links. I understand, that this is sensitive issue for the movement but we need reliable sources.

IronLiberty (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@IronLiberty: Thank you again for your continued engagement. Please find my proposals below to improve the article's neutrality and accuracy.

1. To make the whole legal case crystal clear for readers, I would propose the following structure: 1. Criminal charges against individuals (with clear statement: pending, no verdict) 2. Administrative case against the organization. 3. Court's April 2025 decision rejecting the ban, findings and pending appeal.
2. You are right that "The ongoing proceedings do not assess the legitimacy/legal basis of the SBU raids", the administrative court did directly evaluate the very allegations (e.g., propaganda, authorship of materials, national security threats) that underpinned those raids and the Ministry's request to ban the organization. The court did not merely find "insufficient evidence" - it explicitly concluded:
   • Expert testimonies used by the Ministry were found inadmissible (due to bias and plagiarism).
   • There was no proof that AllatRa authored the alleged pro-Russian materials.
   • An independent state enterprise confirmed AllatRa's patriotic (pro-Ukrainian) activities. These are direct judicial findings on the factual basis of the accusations. To present the SBU's initial allegations in detail while minimizing or omitting these court-established refutations of the underlying facts creates a significant imbalance in the article.
3. While secondary sources are generally preferred, [[WP:PRIMARY]] explicitly permits their use for "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact." A court's ruling, stating its findings and decisions (e.g., "court dismissed the lawsuit," "found no proof of authorship," "expert testimonies inadmissible," "AllatRa's patriotic (pro-Ukrainian) activities"), in my opinion, falls precisely into this category. No analysis or interpretation is required on our part for these specific facts.
4. The article currently relies heavily on media reports from November 2023 regarding the investigation's inception. The Kyiv District Administrative Court's April 2025 ruling represents a significant legal development in that specific administrative investigation. Relying solely on initial accusations while omitting the first-instance verdict creates a false narrative.

I propose adding the following sentences, clearly stating the administrative court's findings, directly into the article: "Subsequently, the Kyiv District Administrative Court (Case No. 640/362/23) examined the Ministry of Justice's request to ban the organization. On April 4, 2025, the court rejected the ban, finding that expert testimonies were inadmissible and that no evidence demonstrated the organization had authored the alleged propaganda materials. The court also noted that an independent state enterprise confirmed AllatRa's patriotic activities. The Ministry has appealed; the decision is pending as of January 2026."

I believe these adjustments provide a more balanced, accurate, and policy-compliant representation of AllatRa's legal status in Ukraine. Dennison2 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@IronLiberty, thanks for the History fix. One comment: the Ukraine section below still says "The Ministry appealed the ruling. As of January 2026, the appeal remains unresolved.", which now contradicts it. Could we replace it with:

"The Ministry appealed the ruling. In February 2026, the appellate administrative court dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of the ban."

It's the same appellate ruling already cited in History, so no new source is needed. Dennison2 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Added. My apologies. I didn't notice it was twice there. IronLiberty (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

AllatRa legal status in Russia

The article incorrectly states "In October 2025, Russian authorities declared AllatRa as a terrorist organization" According to official sources (TASS, Vedomosti), in October 2025 Rosfinmonitoring added AllatRa to its list of terrorists and extremists. The court designation in June 2025 was "extremist organization," not "terrorist organization." These are distinct legal classifications in Russian law.

Sources:

• TASS: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/25511215
• Vedomosti: https://www.vedomosti.ru/society/news/2025/10/31/1151536-allatra-vnesli

Please correct this. Dennison2 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dennison2 thank you, please check. IronLiberty (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@IronLiberty: Thanks, but the current text remains factually misleading.

The phrasing "In October 2025, Rosfinmonitoring added the AllatRa movement to its list of extremist and terrorist organizations." implies that the organization was designated as terrorists, which is not factually correct. The underlying court ruling was strictly for extremism.

The proposal to avoid this confusion is: "...added the AllatRa movement to its list of terrorists and extremists (as an extremist organization)." Dennison2 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

However, this is the official name of the list referred to in both sources you provided. I cannot comment on this from a personal perspective as an editor, but I would not take seriously any list issued by a dictatorship. There are Meta Platforms, international LGBT public movement, Pussy Riot, Navalny's foundation ... IronLiberty (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

As an affiliated editor with the organization, I would prefer to add this clarification because the word "terrorist" evokes negative associations. However, you are right that it is factually the correct wording from a reliable source and there are no violations here. So I'll leave this matter for other editors to discuss. Dennison2 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dennison2 I understand and share this concern, but it should be addressed to the Russian Federation. This is the official name of the list. We can put it in quotation marks to emphasize that it is the name as presented in the source, even if it is unusual. What would be much more helpful, e.g., is if you could help me find a source where AllatRa criticizes this inclusion on the list or the list itself. IronLiberty (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Criminal charges against Danilov and associates

@IronLiberty: The sources [19], [32], [33] cited for the Danilov case do not mention any trial or court verdict - only charges filed, arrest warrant issued and wanted status. As far as I know, no trials have been conducted so far. The current presentation creates an impression of established guilt rather than pending charges.

Examples:

• Igor Danilov, who face up to life imprisonment in Ukraine. Add "if convicted".
• Igor Danilov, and several associates were charged with high treason, creating a criminal organization, propagating... Proposal: "The organization's leader, Igor Danilov, and several associates faced allegations of high treason..."
• The leadership of the movement, using forged documents Fix: "According to the SBU, the leadership allegedly used forged documents..."

Also, it's critical to add: "As of early 2025, the investigation is ongoing and no court verdict has been reached."

This single sentence provides essential context and prevents readers from misinterpreting allegations as convictions, which is the core requirement of [WP:BLPCRIME] Dennison2 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dennison2 Thank you very much for your suggestions and constructive approach

3) After checking sources, that documents were forged was a claim of Ukrainian police, not SBU as you claimed, so I added "According to Ukrainian police" (If you are able to find sources attributing this to the SBU, please provide them). Note: Most media sources claim this without attributing it.

1) "if convicted" is implied - charged doesn't mean convicted and on the contrary, I see nothing that would imply a conviction.

2) "were charged" is neutral/fact covered well by the sources.

4) You introduced your suggestions by mentioning "pending charges," but the article refers to what was "charged." Could you please explain your perspective and provide the sources to avoid any misunderstanding?

I have added additional sources from various countries to better cover this sensitive part of the article. IronLiberty (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@IronLiberty: Thanks for the update on point 3. Regarding the rest:

Re: 2) "were charged": I accept your point that this is factually accurate. I withdraw this suggestion.

Re: 1) "if convicted": While "charged" implies a process, WP:BLPCRIME requires strict precision to avoid implying guilt to lay readers. "Faces life imprisonment" is a very strong claim; adding "if convicted" ensures there is no ambiguity about the outcome. Is there a specific reason to exclude these two clarifying words?

Re: 4) Status clarification: Sources confirm charges (2023/2024) but show no record of a trial or verdict. Legally, the case remains "pending" until a judgment is rendered. Adding "As of early 2025, no court verdict has been reached" is a verifiable fact (based on the absence of a conviction) and is critical to prevent a presumption of guilt. Dennison2 (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

2) Thank you

1) It's hard to find another equivalent since this is commonly used in the media. Would be "Igor Danilov, who is threatened with life imprisonment in Ukraine,(...)" more acceptable?

4) However, this is not a strong argument, given that, to my understanding and according to sources, the defendants left the country illegally to avoid the trial. IronLiberty (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@IronLiberty: Thank you for your continued engagement.

1) On "threatened with life imprisonment": While 'threatened' might be common in media, WP:BLPCRIME requires strict precision to avoid implying guilt. Phrases like 'threatened with' or 'faces' suggest an outcome. In contrast, 'if convicted' explicitly clarifies this is a potential penalty, conditional on a legal finding of guilt. This distinction is crucial for WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME compliance, especially when no trial has occurred.

4) On "defendants left illegally to avoid the trial": We must rely on verifiable facts from primary sources regarding the current legal status:

Verifiable timeline based on official sources [1], [2]:

Apr 2022: Danilov and 5 others left Ukraine – 20 months before criminal proceedings were announced.

Nov 1, 2023: Searches conducted in AllatRa offices.

Nov 2, 2023: SBU and MIA press releases state AllatRa leaders are suspected of treason and spreading pro-Russian propaganda.

Dec 2023: The Pechersk District Court authorized Danilov's detention in absentia, a procedural measure to ensure his appearance [3].

Dec 2023: Danilov listed on Ukraine's MIA website as "person evading pre-trial investigation authorities." [3]

Aug 2024 No international red notice issued: Ukraine has not submitted a request to Interpol for an international arrest warrant (confirmed by Slovak police).

===Crucial Current Legal Status:===

Despite these events, the case remains in the pre-trial investigation stage.

As of January 2026, no trial has occurred and no court verdict has been reached. An arrest warrant (or detention order) is a procedural measure, not proof of guilt.

WP:BLPCRIME requires us to adhere strictly to Article 62 of Ukraine's Constitution: "A person is presumed innocent until guilt is proven and a court verdict is rendered." This is a fundamental legal principle, not an 'argument.'

Therefore, the article must clearly state that guilt has not been proven. If you have any official, verifiable source indicating a trial and conviction, please provide it; otherwise, this clarification is essential for WP:NPOV and WP:ACCURACY. Dennison2 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dennison2 Please consider avoiding excessive quoting of WP policies without specific reasoning and concrete counter-proposal. This helps maintain a focused, collaborative discussion.

1) Stating the possible penalty for the offence with which the defendant is charged does not imply guilt, as you suggest. It simply helps the reader understand the seriousness of the charges (in the same way as mainstream media do, if this implied guilt, they would expose themselves to a risk of legal action).

This information is supported by multiple high-quality source. It neutrally describes the factual situation, and the editor who added it relied on such source. It is a direct implication of the statement few sentences above in the article e.g. "charged with high treason" reflected fully by several sources. WP:PUBLICFIGURE

Explicitly, this would read as follows (and this is also a further proposed edit):

"Igor Danilov, who is charged with crimes punishable by life imprisonment in Ukraine,(...)"

Note: I plan to move this part to the main timeline and improve the chronology, but first I need to resolve the main points you have raised. I will make minor improvements to the timeline during the move, and I will link the possible penalty directly to the specific charges, as several sources do. In this regard, I would kindly ask for a little patience.

2) The section of the article in question fully adheres to verifiable facts. The timeline you presented is consistent with what is stated in the article. Again. The article neither states nor implies guilt. Your objections are therefore not justified. Moreover, the timeline information you cited here is unfortunately selective, but I will not address it, as this discussion is not intended for that purpose and I understand the sensitivity of the issue for the movement.

I will add the missing information that there is “no record of any European or international arrest warrant”, thank you, this is valuable point.

If you wish to include an implicit reference to an ongoing investigation, please propose exact wording that does not contradict the information, like that Mr Igor Danilov did not respond to summonses (what is contributing to delays in the proper conduct of a fair judicial proceedings bcs. trials in absentia are generally understood as a measure of last resort, and their use is criticized by human rights organizations) IronLiberty (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

BLP concerns regarding specific location details

The article states: "was tracked by Czech journalists to a location near the Veľká Domaša reservoir in eastern Slovakia."

I would like to propose a change to the section regarding Danilov's location to better align with WP:BLP policies:

Neutral Tone (WP:TONE): The word "tracked" carries a sensationalist connotation ("hunting down"). Neutral phrasing like "located" or "reported to be residing" is more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedic Value (WP:NOTEVERYTHING): Inclusion of personal details must serve "the public interest." What encyclopedic purpose does the specific location "near the Veľká Domaša reservoir" serve?

Safety (WP:BLPPRIVACY): Publishing granular location details for a living person creates unnecessary safety risks without adding to the reader's understanding.

Proposed fix: : Replace with: "Czech journalists reported that Danilov was residing in Slovakia." Dennison2 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I replaced "tracked." Several large media outlets explicitly mention this description of the location. This is proof of its encyclopedic significance. Danilov is the leader of the movement. It is not a "specific location". The opposite - vaguely defined place, media already reflected these concerns. It's incomparably less specific than if he lived in a medium size town and this was mentioned. The reservoir is large (14km+ long) and "near" further expands this area. IronLiberty (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@IronLiberty: Thank you for removing "tracked."

Regarding the location: The issue is not the physical size of the reservoir (14km), but the content of the cited source. Citation [32] (Seznam Zprávy), directly linked in this sentence, publishes detailed footage of the private residence and the surrounding area.

By specifying the reservoir in the text and linking to a source with visual identification of the property, we are creating a direct roadmap to the subject's private home. This raises serious WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns:

Safety: Wikipedia should not facilitate locating a living person's private residence, especially when the source contains invasive visual data.

No Encyclopedic Value: Living "near a reservoir" offers no insight into the subject's work or the legal case. It is a trivial detail with high risk.

"Eastern Slovakia" is factually accurate, encyclopedically sufficient, and adheres to the "do no harm" principle of BLP. Please reconsider. Dennison2 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the problematic reference, this was a valid objection. I apologize, I didn’t notice the video content. IronLiberty (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@IronLiberty: Thank you for removing the link. However, the core issue remains unresolved. The current text creates a safety hazard via a two-step process:

1 Wikipedia specifies "near the Veľká Domaša reservoir in eastern Slovakia"

2. Reader performs a simple Google search + clicks the linked source from (Seznam Zprávy). My google search showed the video on the info bar without clicking any links.

3. Result: Immediate detailed video footage identifying the exact private residence. This creates precisely the harm WP:BLPPRIVACY is designed to prevent.

A waterside location details offers NO encyclopedic value about AllatRa and serves only to specify potential person’s location.

My proposal is to replace it with: "Igor Danilov ... was located by Czech journalists in Slovakia." Dennison2 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dennison2 I apologize, but I must consider this to be an inappropriate speculation. The direct reference to the article was removed, which I regarded as a reasonable request. The location is mentioned far less specifically than is typical - for BLPs, it is common to indicate the city where the individual resides. Many mainstream media articles mention this broadly specified location. Content on Wikipedia cannot be removed on the basis of the argument that including something as a keyword in Google, might lead to finding certain article. Even a keyword like "AllatRa" could lead to the finding of that same article. And if this is an issue, it should be addressed to Google or Seznam Zpravy. I explained already the encyclopedic value above. Unfortunately I see no support for this request of yours in WP:BLPPRIVACY. IronLiberty (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Supreme court ban in Russia

@G13 vs G14 Your edit is ok, sorry, I overlooked it belongs to the context above but just want to let you know that WP:TASS explicitly states “with the caveat that it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by .. the Russian state,” which is the case here. You removed TASS and covered the AllatRA ban with EU-sanctioned Izvestia, which doesn’t make much sense to me. (TASS is the lesser evil here in my opinion) IronLiberty (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

External links

Several of the external links have titles in Ukrainian: if anyone who's fluent in both Ukrainian and English wants to improve the page, it would benefit from the having the titles of these references translated into the English language (the guidance at template:Citation#Title can help with this). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Inaccurate "2023 ban" sentence in History (WP:V)

I'm a member of ALLATRA, so I have a conflict of interest. Per WP:COI I'm raising this here instead of editing the article myself.

The History section says that in 2023 both Russia and Ukraine "banned the organization". That is not accurate. It also contradicts what the article says further down.

Russia did not ban it in 2023. It declared the movement "undesirable" in 2023. The extremist designation came later, in 2025. All of this is in the Russia section.

Ukraine did not ban it either. Security services blocked its centers and opened criminal cases, but the court rejected the lawsuit to ban the organization in 2025. This is in the Ukraine section.

I'd suggest replacing the sentence with: "In 2023, both Russia and Ukraine took action against the organization amid conflicting criminal accusations. Russia declared it 'undesirable' in 2023 and designated it as extremist in 2025. In Ukraine, security services blocked its centers and opened criminal proceedings, but a lawsuit to ban the organization was rejected by a court in 2025."

Everything here is already sourced in the article itself, so this is just an accuracy fix (WP:V). The court ruling is also online at https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126371842

Happy to tweak the wording. Dennison2 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Please check. IronLiberty (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks accurate, thanks for the quick fix. Marking as done. Dennison2 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

POV, Multiple issue

@PARAKANYAA: Thank you for pointing out the EUObserver source. I have removed the section that relied on it, since a higher-quality replacement could not be found, only similar PR services.(@G13 vs G14:)

Regarding the POV and Multiple issues tags, could you please specify your additional concerns so they can be addressed? So far, only EUObserver has been mentioned and no other specific issues.

I would also appreciate also an explanation for removing “cult” from the infobox (previously “New religious movement, cult”). You cited MOS:LABEL as prohibiting the term entirely but the guideline actually says that such value-laden labels should be avoided unless they are widely used by reliable sources.

"MOS:LABEL, we do not use the term cult in wikivoice *ever*, no matter how well sourced it is."

I'd very much appreciate it if you could clarify the basis for your blanket rejection of this label, even when it is not being used as a value judgment.

Thank you very much for you help. IronLiberty (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL says this: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So, do not use them, unless they are widely used, and if they are widely used, then you still have to attribute them. We could say "they have been described as a cult by x" though. But calling them a cult in wikivoice is like calling them "evil" in wikivoice or something.

NPOV: what does "is an international fringe science" mean? None of the sources say, as far as I can tell, that AllatRa is a "fringe science". They say they have pseudoscientific beliefs beliefs but saying it "is a fringe science" with no elaboration is confusing and non-NPOV.

My sourcing concerns are more indirect. The article relies a lot on sort of grey papers, legal documents, and investigator-type blogs that I do not think are RS. The news and academic sources are fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much @PARAKANYAA

if I understand your position correctly, you agree that the rationale you gave when repeatedly removing the term cult "we do not use the term cult (...) no matter how well sourced it is" isn't supported by the guidelines.

I would also respectfully disagree with your general assertion that cult is inherently a pejorative term esp. in this context. In academic and professional discourse, the term is used as a descriptive analytical category and isn't by itself considered pejorative (I was aware of MOS:Label which rightly addresses a common misuse of the term but it's not the case here and guideline leaves the usage open with requirement you mentioned)

CZ many: [CZ] [CZ], SK many: [SK] [SK], UA many: [UA] [UA], PL many: [PL] [PL] UK many: [UK] [UK] International [INT]

It's supported by numerous EU, UA and UK independent and state media outlets as you can see as well as by experts, among them e.g. Steven Hassan

Note: In many slavic counties, cult is commonly the narrower term than sect (used in most of those articles) and the translation of sect depends on context. In this case cult is the unambiguous and contextually correct translation.

NPOV: There is substantial sourcing supporting [1] [2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] the characterization of AllatRa as fringe science (or pseudoscience). The references provided are only a small sample drawn from dozens of independent sources across multiple countries. The predominant characterization is pseudoscience often accompanied by conspiracy theories. (if pseudoscience is better term in your opinion, I can change it) We can certainly discuss whether this aspect should be explained in greater detail. However, the "fringe" characterization itself is proportionate and well supported by many sources and experts.

Could you please specify what additional NPOV concerns you believe remain?

SOURCING: Could you please be also more specific also about which sources you consider to be "grey papers" or "investigator-type blogs"? (II will address it)

Regarding the legal documents, they're used only in one limited context to ensure the article fairly reflects curent legal status. In my view, this is preferable to relying on the movement's self-published claims. As the talk page demonstrates, the movement has engaged transparently in the discussion with COI declaration and it reflects also their complains. IronLiberty (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I said "we do not use the term cult in wikivoice ever". Cutting out the main thing I was saying turns it into a completely different statement.

We have MOS:CULT for a reason. Cult is universally a pejorative and in scholarship. All cult means is group that is weird and/or deviant and or harmful group, which is a value judgement. It's equivalent to saying "the group is evil". Much like "terrorist", which we also cannot say in wikivoice per MOS:TERRORIST.

No, it says they have certain beliefs that are pseudoscience. Different statement from saying it is "a fringe science" which makes no sense.

For a few examples, opendatabot.ua, schambala.com.ua, the various court sources. If the secondary sources don't cover their legal status why should we? WP:UNDUE. There are far too many citations to primary sources PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Omitting the "wikivoice" doesn't change the substance of what you wrote and the full quotation appears in the previous comment. I didn't clearly intend to misrepresent your position and there was no bad faith on my part.

For the reasons I outlined above, MOS:CULT/MOS:LABEL explicitly describes also the circumstances in which the term may be used. I provided relevant sources but they appear not to have been considered.

MOS:TERRORIST not a full analogy (we should focus on relevant things) but if an organization appears on an official list of terrorist organizations (e.g. US, EU), it's entirely appropriate to state that fact (in other words, it's terrorist organization bcs. its inclusion on such a list). But this is fundamentally different from cult, which is primarily academic category rather than a legal designation as explained above. That point wasn't addressed in your response. The explanation you provided doesn't appear to be consistent with an academic approach, the relevant scholarly consensus or the guidance provided in MOS:CULT.

"No, it says they have certain beliefs that are pseudoscience."

Clearly not. The wording in question (a fringe science) doesn't address the movement's religious beliefs. It addresses the part of its agenda that promotes scientific claims which reliable sources characterize as pseudoscience. It's linked at some extend but it can be seen as two main agendas and usually it is by sources. It's well described by those sources above. I agree that this could be improved esp. integration in lead, better explained/covered in body but I don't believe it constitutes a neutrality violation.

To help me understand how much background I should provide, could you briefly describe your familiarity with the basic facts about the movement?

Regarding sourcing, neither schambala.com.ua nor opendatabot.ua seems to fit your previous complain about "grey papers" or "investigator-type blogs."

- schambala.com.ua (movement predecessor portal), yes primary source but as a additional source to allow verify the date. Does it help anything good when I remove it please?

- opendatabot.ua is a registry-data aggregator based on official records, yes primary source. It is likewise used only additional source and only to corroborate dates and registration data. Does it help when I remove it?

So, basically, these sources are used only as additional citations to verify dates. The statement that there're "far too many citations to primary sources" doesn't seem appropriate unless you provide specific examples where primary sources are being used in place of independent reliable sources.(with exception of the current movement's legal with good reason)

"If the secondary sources don't cover their legal status why should we?"

Bcs. many realiable sourced covered only the first part, which was included in article and to balanced it in sensitive question, as I explained. IronLiberty (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I objected to it being put in Wikivoice. You removing my sole objection totally changes what I was saying. According to MOS:LABEL, you must always use in-text attribution when using the word "cult", regardless of sourcing; you shouldn't use it unless the sourcing is widespread, but if it is, you must use attribution. "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Key words being In which case.

Yes, and stating that a group is on a terrorist list is not saying they are terrorists in Wikivoice, it is attributing it to an outside source.

Which source calls it "a fringe science"?

Well, grey papers and investigator type blogs are things like the sources to kdu.cz, which is a report from a political party, bird.bg (seems questionable/like a blog), Institute of Mass Information , etc.

This article relies too much on primary sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, I misunderstood the meaning of "wikivoice". Now your complain and rejection makes sense. So you're ok with claim like this in the body of article with good sources: "AllatRa has been described as a cult by several independent media outlets."? (will add it to the body) 1. OK?

Regarding the term "fringe science", I can replace it with "pseudoscience", covered by all provided sources. I assume the original wording was chosen as a somewhat "softer" term but I agree that using "pseudoscience" will better reflect the terminology used in the source if this was your point (will replace it) 2. OK?

Regarding the sources:

kdu.cz - yes, this is a supplementary primary source - a conference report published as a press release article by an MP who's a well known subject-matter expert. It's used only as a additional source (2nd or 3rd), not as the sole basis for the claim. Would removing it resolve the concern? This text was added by me shortly after the event but maybe I can replace it with better additional source now. (I don't see a reason to remove it but if I find better source I'll replace it) 3. OK?

bird.bg - this is a reliable investigative journalism platform, not a "blog". This source can be replaced relatively easily or supported with additional sources if needed. (will fix it) 4. OK?

Institute of Mass Information - this is a reliable monitoring platform, not a "blog". However, I agree here that this deserves better source. If I don't find any I will remove the sentence. (will fix it) 5. OK?

Regarding the statement "This article relies too much on primary sources" I still do not consider this assessment proportionate or sufficiently supported by the evidence. Primary sources are used only as supplementary sources not as the main basis for the relevant claims. EUObserver has already been removed and I believe I have provided a sufficient explanation regarding the use of primary sources for the legal status sentence. After dealing with those 5. points above, will you agree on removing MultipleIssues and NPOV?

(Sorry for the 1. again) IronLiberty (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have 0 issue with saying they have been described as a cult - provided the sources are reliable and it is widespread, which seems to be the case here.

Pseudoscience is better though I still think the phrasing of the sentence here is needlessly confusing. Much better would be to say they have several beliefs that are pseudoscientific, have been criticized for pseudoscientific beliefs, something like that; "is a pseudoscience [movement]" flows awkwardly and isn't what any of the sources seem to indicate.

I'm willing to concede the sources point, though I still think it is unideal to have so much of this be primary, whether it be to AllatRa or legal things. I will remove the tag because that isn't a "reliability" issue anymore. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Regarding pseudoscience, it primarily really doesn't refer to their religious beliefs although some of those also have pseudoscientific aspects (but this is usual in similar movements). Rather, it refers to the part of their agenda that explicitly presents itself as scientific. e.g. they launched the AllatRA Global Research Center publish materials that resemble scientific studies and organize scientific conferences. I will try to find a way to address it/make it clear in lead. IronLiberty (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)